Capital Punishment and the Deterrence Theory Capital Punishment Deters Crime 11/9/2012 Dr. Ji Seun Sohn Brooke Lee Capital Punishment and the Deterrence Theory: Capital Punishment Deters Crime Jerry Kilgore said in an editorial written for USA Today, “As a former prosecutor, former secretary of public safety and now attorney general, I believe that some crimes are so evil, some criminals so dangerous and some victims so tortured that executing the criminal is appropriate” (Kilgore, 2002). Capital punishment, or commonly referred to as the death penalty, is the most controversial of all of the disciplinary practices. Since it involves taking another human being’s life, this is not at all surprising. Since it is the most severe of all sentences, there have been countless efforts to abolish the death penalty, and in most of the industrialized nations, with the exception of Japan and the United States of America, these efforts have proved effective. In this paper, I will discuss the effect that capital punishment has on deterring criminal activity.
The movie “Death Wish” portrays a constant struggle between the due process and crime control models. The due process model of criminal justice expects a lawful fairness to all citizens. Also, this model attempts to protect a defendant’s rights more than the victim. It relies on authorities powers to be controlled by rules and procedures in order to prevent excessive use of their power. Also, it is important in this process to prove a person guilty by legally-found facts and evidence.
Mia Michael H.English Mrs. Gaskill April 23, 2013 An argument that never seems to have a clear winner is “Life in Prison” vs. “The Death Penalty”. Although both sides have valid points, I feel that only one should be allowed. The death penalty is inhumane and unethical. It seems hypocritical for us, the American people, and are judicial system to say that murder is wrong and illegal, but continue to murder both the guilty and thee wrongfully accused. The death penalty gives those that are actually guilty the easy way out of punishment, and the innocent a wrongful death.
Does the death penalty serve as a justified and legitimate form of punishment? This issue has recurrently created controversial debates. Whenever the word "death penalty" comes up, extremists from both sides start yelling out their arguments. One side says discriminative, the other side says fair; one says execution; the other side says justice. Crime is an inevitable part of society, and everyone is aware that something must be done about it.
First of all, if the crime is as terrible as murder, and it was fully intentional, the privilege should be fully stripped. Some of the criminals in prison lost their right to vote because the crimes they committed were mainly unlawful instead of unjust. Lastly, there could be a series of tests to be given to the prisoners to determine if they are in the right state of mind to vote. When a person commits a crime, the crime will be either as small as fleeing police by motor vehicle, to as big as committing a murder. This is a strong difference in the types of crimes being committed.
Different states have different rules on when the capital punishment penalty applies and when it does not. Normally, I do not agree with applying such extreme punishment unless it can be proved without any doubt that this person who is accused is guilty. It should also be one of the heinous acts of being a serial killer or a child killer. It’s better when a true confession, with evidence to back up the confession, has been obtained. There is nothing worse than to have a doubt that the person already executed could be an innocent person.
Arguments go back and forth whether capital punishment is “cruel and unusual punishment” because of the torture people on death row go through. Also, people commit murders because of witnesses that see them commit certain crimes. He or she has evidence of the crime an individual has committed and can testify it to the police. Murders happen because people get scared what a certain person might do and the victims are the ones who get hurt. The article presents a good argument for why the death penalty works because it explains the different type of murders that happen to people and the cause of it and why murder rates have gone down.
Yet, why does one get away with it and another does not? Depending on the severity of their illness and the intensity of the crime, individuals with a mental illness who commit a crime should not be convicted, but they should be hospitalized if they are a threat to society. The question that most people ask when proposed this question is: who is considered mentally ill? To clarify, there are two prevailing legal tests to determine whether or not a defendant is legally insane. According to Terry Lenamon, expert Criminal Trial Attorney, the first, and most popular, is the “M’Naghten test.” Lenamon says, “Under M’Naghten, the determining factor is whether or not the defendant was (1) able to understand what he (or she) was doing at the time of the crime due to some “defect of reason or disease of the mind” or, (2) if he (or she) was aware of what they were doing, that he (or she) nevertheless failed to comprehend or understand that what they were doing was wrong” (Lenamon).
I have concluded that substance abuse is a huge contributor to crimes being committed. The lack or decrease in moral intuition and character can cause a person to make bad decisions. This would cause people not to understand the benefits of to abiding to common social values. A person demographics can also play a role in determining whether or not an individual will turn to a life of crime. Government officials, politicians, and courts employees have concluded that individuals commit crimes for private alternatives and they should be punished and held responsible for their actions and conduct.