The Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty

In this paper I will be discussing everything you need to know about the death penalty such as its pros and cons. While the innocent can be killed, the death penalty has its pros because it prevents them from killing again if they are released or have escaped from prison, it helps overpopulated prisons, and it can help victims’ families get justice and closure. Not only can the innocent be killed, but in the past the death penalty was very inhumane. To some its feels right but to others they feel like 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Most people think that the defendant deserves the death penalty, but what does the defendants’ family think?

In “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives”, written and published by David B. Mulhausen on September 29, 2014, Mulhausen speaks of the reasons why the death penalty is a proper way to bring murderers to justice. He believes that “some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties” (Mulhausen). Not only does he believe that the death penalty is useful to set criminals to justice, but he also believes that the enforcement of the death penalty deters crime rates.

“A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. The study, Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Crimonology, concluded, “There is overwhelming consensus among America’s top criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question fails to support the threat or use of the death penalty.” A previous study in 1996 had come to similar conclusions.”

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. There is no harsher punishment than death itself. This nation, the United States of America, is currently one of fifty-eight nations that practice the death penalty, if one commits first-degree murder as of 2012. People that believe in the death penalty also believe that it will deter murders. In this paper I will argue that the death penalty does not deter criminals and that this nation should outlaw the practice.

Death is something that a lot of people think about, but do people think about the Death Penalty? Having been given the death penalty means that someone is going to be put to death by a lethal injection or an electric chair; There are more ways, but the injection and the electric chair are the most used. There are many different opinions surrounding the idea of death penalties; which some people think the death penalty should be used more and some believe the complete opposite.

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

The death penalty has been debated for centuries. Within just America, it dates back all the way to 1608. In an article entitled “History of the Death Penalty” from the website Death Penalty Information Center, it states, “The first recorded execution in the new colonies was that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain.” So, it is safe to say that the death penalty has been around for a long time, and has been debated by many for just as long. Most people will claim that they are against the death penalty with no reason other than they believe it is immoral and wrong. Those people simply do not know the facts of how the death penalty actually helps the American Justice System. The death penalty prevents overcrowding in prisons, reoffenders, and is cheaper to the taxpayers.

However, no individual has ever been able to present any credible evidence that supports the theory of deterrence. Decades of research across the country has failed to produce signs of a higher murder rate in states that have abolished the death penalty. The theory of deterrence assumes that a murderer is examining the costs and benefits of the anticipated criminal act and taking a moment to think rationally. In the United States, the death penalty is only handed down for about one out of every one hundred homicides. A murderer has a greater chance of being killed by the planned victim or in a confrontation with the police, and therefor has no reason to fear the death penalty if there is only a one in a hundred chance they will actually receive it (Jackson, Jackson, and Shapiro 33). Moreover, most homicides are unplanned, impulsive acts and to imply that a murderer is thinking calm and cooly outweighing their options in such an emotionally charged environment is simply idiotic.

If criminals had the horrifying threat of the death penalty, they would think before commiting crimes. “The death penalty is a necessary tool to fight and deter crime. Capital punishment deters crime by causing

The death penalty is one of the most controversed punishments in the United States. According to The Death Penalty Information Center, 88% of criminologist do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent. According to deterrence theory, criminals are no different from law abiding people. Individuals settle on their choices taking into account the net expenses and advantages of every option. There is a basis provided for analyzing how capital punishment should influence murder rates, according to the deterrence theory. Throughout the years, a few studies have shown a connection in the middle of executions and reductions in homicide rates.

In Kellow Chesney's book The Victorian Underworld illustrates that the Victorians tried to use the death penalty as a means of controlling criminal elements in forms of hangings, lethal injection,Electrocution, and firing squads in order to prevent crime( the victorian underworld). in Victorian times, the death penalty was used as a means of controlling. There should be abolishment of this because of the countless innocent men and women being put to death for the stated purpose of preventing crime out of fear. So There should not be a death penalty because it violates human rights, it does not deter crime, and is a cruel and unusual punishment.

17). Most murderers, in Greenburg’s opinion, are ruled by their whims and therefore will not consider the possibility of being put to death for their actions (Greenburg, par. 18). Moreover, Greenburg points out that the majority of killers are not very smart or disturbed whether by their own doing or with the help of drugs or alcohol (par. 18) Using the reality that so few people are actually executed Greenburg creates an interesting case against the death penalty: if virtually no one dies, how can criminals be deterred by such a unlikely consequence? Greenburg realizes we can never know the exact thoughts of a would be killer, but looking at his interpretation of the reality of our legal system, it not hard to understand his prediction of its ineffectiveness. While Greenburg provides practical reasons to combat deterrence, Michael L. Radelet and Traci L. Lacock in the article “Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates?: The Views of Leading Criminologists,” give expert opinions by summarizing the opinions of leading behavioral scientists. This valuable and insightful resource shows how criminologists have recently shifted away from the belief that death is an effective deterrent. Why? Earlier research showed that execution directly paralleled with lowered homicide and removal of criminals from death row resulted in increased homicides. (Radelet & Lacock 494) But later search found these major studies to be skewed and largely unconnected to murder

The most obvious and convincing advantage of capital punishment for murderers is its deterrence factor(McCuen 54.) Opponents of the death penalty would like everyone to believe that the death penalty does not prevent murders. However, with six percent of all murders being committed by repeat offenders, the death penalty would be an obvious deterrent since the murderers would have been killed before their chance to commit murder a second time. In Georgia, out of a sample of 164 murderers, eight of them committed murders after their prison release (Winters 78.) One out of every twenty murderers released in Oregon were found to kill within five years of release (Winters 78.) These examples are clear evidence that if the death penalty was applied as it was meant to be, it could save six percent of all murders. That would save just under 1,400 lives annually since there are over twenty-two thousand murders every year (Gottfried 23.) Capital punishment opponents also argue that states without the death penalty that adjoin states with the death penalty have crime rates that are just as low (McCuen 45.) However, this is circumstantial and it must be considered that a state with the death penalty has the death penalty for a reason, and that its crime

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.

Death penalty advocates argue that the execution of convicted murderers deter others from committing murder for fear that they will also be executed, and also that murderers will be incapacitated: once dead, they will have no opportunity to commit additional murders. Death penalty opponents dispute the deterrent effect of capital punishment, arguing that few murderers rationally weigh the possibility that they might face the death penalty before committing a murder. Finally, death penalty opponents do not dispute that execution incapacitates executed murders, but argue that life imprisonment without possibility of parole is equally incapacitating. (Jacob Sullum, Los Angeles)