What Is The Controversy Of Capital Punishment

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.

The death penalty is a controversial topic that people have been debating for a number of years. We often hear ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.’ The death penalty can be interpreted by this maxim, which means the murderer should get punished to match their crime. If you kill someone, then you should pay back with life. In the article “The Death Penalty Is a Deterrent,” the author, George E. Pataki argues that the death penalty is “a necessary tool to fight and deter crime” because it creates a feeling of fear of death to murderers (Pataki 10). Since Pataki took office he immediately reinstated the death penalty; “the violent crime has dropped 23%” (Pataki 11). Pataki uses the data to reflect the significant decline of the crime rate.

The legitimacy of the use of capital punishment has been tarnished by its widespread misuse , which has clouded our judgment regarding the justifiability of the death penalty as a punitive measure. However, the problems with capital punishment, such as the “potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness and racial skew" , are not a basis for its abolition, as the world of homicide suffer from these problems more acutely. To tackle this question, one must disregard the currently blemished universal status quo and purely assess the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty as a punitive measure. Through unprejudiced examination of the death penalty and its consequential impacts, it is evident that it is a punishment that effectively serves its retributive, denunciatory, deterrent, and incapacitative goals.

Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Why do some view the taking of a life morally correct? These questions are discussed and debated upon in every state and national legislature throughout the country. Advantages and disadvantages for the death penalty exist, and many members of the United States, and individual State governments, have differing opinions. Yet it seems that the stronger arguments, and evidence such as cost effectiveness, should lead the common citizen to the opposition of Capital Punishment.

The debate on whether or not the death penalty should be abolished has been ongoing for quite a long period of time. While there are those who believe that the death penalty does not serve its intended purpose, proponents of the same are convinced that the relevance of the same cannot be overstated and hence it should not be abolished. In this text, I examine the arguments for and against the death penalty.

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.

Should the Death Penalty still be an option or only life in prison? This is the question at issue that the writer, Kyle Gibson(Heritage Foundation research fellow for the Center for Data Analysis), debates in the article, “ Death Penalty Repeal: It’s necessary to use Capital Punishment in a Free World”. On June 23, 2013 Gibson explains that Capital Punishment is a right and is important in society. He provides evidence on why Capital Punishment is important and how it is a free right of all citizens. His purpose is to show readers why the death penalty is important in order to convince readers to support and not oppose the death penalty.

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

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.

The death penalty, or capital punishment, has always been a topic of much debate in the United States. There are those who support it and those who oppose it, and each side has their fair share of points being made, backed by supportive evidence. The topics range from the morality of this punishment, including the methods of execution as well as fairness issues in regards to sex and race. The first issue that will be addressed is in regards to the death penalty working to prevent violent crimes.

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,

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

Ernest Van den Haag strongly contends the need for capital punishment in our society in his article. Van den Haag provides a substantial amount of convincing facts and information to support “The Ultimate Punishment”. Van den Haag discusses such topics as maldistribution, deterrence to society, miscarriages of the penalty, and incidental and political issues (cost, relative suffering, and brutalization). The death penalty is indeed the harshest/ultimate punishment a convicted criminal can receive in our society. I agree with Van den Haag’s article. I am in favor of the death penalty system in the United States. Through capital punishment’s determent process, I feel it is a

Capital punishment is beneficial to the community. It provides the society with a sense of security. The death penalty contains a positive influence on the future. A heavily debated topic is, “Does capital punishment deter people more than a life sentence to prison?” An explanation on why will be covered later. An issues many people have with capital punishment, is when it is just or not just. This is a topic many stray away from, because it is difficult to decide. Finding the right consequence for an action is difficult. While this paper is for the use of capital punishment, it is clearly not needed for every crime, or even every murder. Overusing capital punishment, such as using it for every murder, will negatively impact the country, and not using it has the same effect.