The Right to Life: Executing the Death Penalty The death penalty is a punishment given to people who commit heinous crimes. Since 1976, there have been over 1,390 executions. But does that make the death penalty, necessarily, a correct and justifiable form of punishment? “The death penalty is our harshest punishment,” states Ernest van den Haag, author of “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense.” Van den Haag, in his article, argues how the death penalty is effective and should be used. However, Jack Greenberg, James P. Gray, and Jeffery Reiman, all concur that the death penalty should not be used as a punishment for criminals. Jack Greenberg, author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment,” argues how the death penalty is an …show more content…
Van den Haag argues how “There has been no conclusive statistical demonstration that the death penalty is a better deterrent than are alternative punishments" (1665). Even though van den Haag explains that deterrence might not be the best argument for supporting the death penalty, he does discuss how the certitude of the death penalty tends to be more formidable than imprisonment. Van den Haag also explains that even though the death penalty may not deter hundreds of murderers, is still deters some. “Sparing the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibility, or even the probability, that executing them would not deter others” (van den Haag 1666). On the other hand, Greenberg, Reiman, and Gray argue against deterrence and how it is not a leading factor for justifying the administration the death penalty. “Because of the goals that our criminal justice system must satisfy - deterring crime, punishing the guilty, acquitting the innocent, avoiding needless cruelty, treating citizens equally, and prohibiting oppression by the state - America simply does not have the kind of capital punishment system contemplated by death penalty partisans” (Greenberg 1670). Greenberg argues how due to the American system of capital punishment, deterrence is not a factor due to the “infrequent, random, and erratic executions” of this system
Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies – which took
More than two centuries ago, the death penalty was commonplace in the United States, but today it is becoming increasingly rare. In the article “Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?”, Diann Rust-Tierney argues that it should be abolished, and Joshua Marquis argues that it should not be abolished. Although the death penalty is prone to error and discrimination, the death penalty should not be abolished because several studies show that the death penalty has a clear deterrent effect, and we need capital punishment for those certain cases in which a killer is beyond redemption.
For years the death penalty has been one of the most controversial topics in the judicial field. The death penalty has been abolished in 18 states leaving 34 states that allow it. It is argued that the death penalty goes against moral and religious beliefs along with being unconstitutional. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it isn’t effective in reducing crime, cost more than it would to incarcerate a person for life, and worst of all it risks executions of innocent people. Capital punishment is an increasingly argued issue in today’s society. The main focus of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate criminals and to protect society from those who are not. Ernest Van Den Haag argues that,
The death penalty not only shows the power of the United States court system, but it also acts as a warning to other offenders. Often referred to as deterrence, it is an act of using punishment as a threat to prevent people from committing heinous crimes (Muhlhausen). Over the years, scholars have tested the question of does deterrence really work, and if so how does it affect us as a society. During 1976, Isaac Ehrlich, an academic economist and researcher, tested the theory which offered results showing that for every one inmate who was executed, seven lives were spared because others
Ernest van den Haag, a long-time defender of capital punishment, answers various criticisms of the death penalty. Van den Haag, in his essay, state that “Threats and punishments are necessary to deter and deterrence is a sufficient practical justification for [capital punishment]” (318). Van den Hang believes in the deterrent effect of the death penalty, and argue that retribution is
For the past decades capital punishment has been one of the most hotly contested political issues in America, but this debate is definitely a complicated one. Capital punishment is a legal, practical, philosophical, social, political, but also a moral question. The notion of deterrence has been at the very center of the practical debate over the question of capital punishment. Most of us assume that we execute murderers primarily because we
In addition to addressing the resistance towards our message on the basis of high costs, we also addressed the deterrence argument using an appeal to authority. We showed, in our presentation, that over 88% of criminologists did not think that the death penalty was an effective deterrence (Radelet and Lacock, 2009). This statistic argument was then augmented with the results from a study performed by a University of Michigan professor, which
A leading detractor from this theory, Daniel Nagin, believes that statistics of past deterrence and the death penalty should be overthrown. With Nagin’s high credential in being a Harvard scholar in Criminology overlooks many studies goes in to say that those several researchers who focus on past statistics should be ignored. Nagin claims, “The evidence does not exist to back them up” (10). Although, he may be correct in some extend, I can agree when he explains his answers. Nagin believes that due to being inconclusive on whether or not the death penalty is deterrent, it still increases crime and makes people skeptical about it still. No one really knows whether to agree or disagree with the capital punishment. Even so with Nagin’s opinion
Punishment takes various forms, but the decisive end of life arouses the emotions of all, not just those directly affected, to dispute the ethics of capital punishment. At the core of the controversy, two educated assessments are made; abolitionists attempt to prove that the death penalty is unnecessary and unjust, while its advocates proclaim the opposite. Avid abolitionist Jack Greenberg writes in his article “Against the American System of Capital Punishment,” that not only does the current system fail to deter but it is enforced unfairly because of the bias infesting our courts. Ernest van den Haag counters this belief with his article, “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense,” which shifts the focus away from deterrence, stating that
In the matter of deterrence, the statistics shown by professor Brad Bushman were sufficient to prove the falseness argument that establishes the death penalty reduces the occurrence of homicides compared to states without the penalty, the data was concise and effective on showing the point. Brad Bushman is a professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State University, the information was taken from an anthology of opinions on the death penalty, however, the original writing from professor Brad Bushman was published in ‘Psychology Today’, a well-known psychology magazine, these facts give Brad Bushman reliability on the topic. The most interesting information on the cite is the statistic itself, showing how much money is spend on death row sentences in the state of California.
Currently in 34 states they use the death penalty and is used by the federal government for punishing federal crimes. And in most cases the death penalty is used when the criminal has been convicted of murder. However, people have been sentenced to death for the rape of a minor, and many more have been convicted being innocent. This begs the question does the government have the right to take away someone’s life? And if so is it ethical and moral? Overall the goal of the Criminal Justice system is to give the right sentence and protect the people. Even though the death penalty exist for positive reasons, there are better and more efficient ways to protect society from horrible people that there goal is only to damage society.
Kelly Gissendaner was executed March 7th 2015 at 7 p.m. (Eastern Time). She was sentenced to death for the planning of her husband’s death in 1997 (“Georgia”). Gissendaner’s boyfriend joined in the murder of her husband. Her execution denoted the first time Georgia has executed a woman in over seventy years. According to Simpson, “The death penalty is punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime” (Oxford Dictionaries). Since the early days of human civilization, the death penalty has been around. Individuals and associations have been deciding on this theme for just as long; there are two difficult decisions on the inquiry. The first
The death penalty has been a controversial issue for many years. It was established centuries ago and has been accepted by society. It was put into place to punish those who had committed an offense against laws of the institution that was in place at the time. Within our society the death penalty has been associated with several symbols. ‘An eye for an eye,’ is a symbol that has come to be the representation of the death penalty; which was one of the original ideas behind it. Times have changed and the death penalty is now used for more serious offenses and considered to be a deterrence. The death penalty should be abolished because it does not effectively deter crime. I will be discussing the lack of deterrence on the death penalty
Four major issues in capital punishment are debated, most aspects of which were touched upon by Seton Hall’s panel discussion on the death penalty. The first issue stands as deterrence. A major purpose of criminal punishment is to conclude future criminal conduct. The deterrence theory suggests that a rational person will avoid criminal behavior if the severity of the punishment outweighs the benefits of the illegal conduct. It is believed that fear of death “deters” people from committing a crime. Most criminals would think twice before committing murder if they knew their own lives were at stake. When attached to certain crimes, the penalty of death exerts a positive moral influence, placing a stigma on certain crimes like manslaughter, which results in attitudes of horror to such acts.
In contrast, the question of deterrence can be answered objectively using common sense and statistics. By analyzing different arguments for and against the death penalty, such as the "fear of death" myth, the cost of the death penalty, and the racial and economic bias of the death penalty, it can be shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent of crime.