Essay on The Death Penalty:Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy

1737 Words7 Pages
Death Penalty 1) Two major claims: death penalty serves as a deterrent and death penalty is morally justified because murderers can’t live and you have a right to kill them. 2) The premises and conclusions that the author of the letter outlines are as follows: Death Penalty serves as a deterrent. a. Criminals fear the death penalty. b. Fear of the death penalty deters criminals from carrying guns when engaged in a criminal activity. c. Therefore, death penalty serves as a deterrent. Death Penalty is morally justified. a. Criminals who murder lose the right to life and deserve to die. b. In war, you have a right to kill because you are threatened. c. By being a murderer, you wage war on the citizens. d. It is morally justified to kill…show more content…
Edgar Hoover’s statement also stands controversial in its conclusion. In addition to these experience-based evidences, the author also presents the 1975 L.A.P.D. study that showed “that 4 out of 5 convicts did not carry a gun when engaged in a criminal activity for fear of the death penalty.” Despite the studies’ statistical support, specific details and variables are not addressed for the study nor is the time frame completely relevant to the current society. Again, it is excessive to say that not carrying a gun is statistically proven to lower death rates or violent crimes and hence, death penalty, serves as a deterrent. Not carrying a gun does not correlate with not committing a crime, neither does it correlate with not killing someone when engaged in a criminal activity. Indeed, not carrying a gun does mean no shooting and no shooting means no injuries or death given by guns that otherwise would be given if a criminal had carried a gun and there was a shooting. However, wouldn’t this deterrence be available with punishments other than death penalty as well? Even the broader sense of data for the existence of capital punishment’s correlation with lower rates of capital crime (not just with not carrying a gun) is inconclusive as generally agreed between the retentionist and abolitionists. However, in response to the inconclusive evidence as basis against the soundness of the L.A.P.D. study supporting the second premise, some may counter that just as
Open Document