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.
Opponents of capital punishment say it has no deterrent effect on crime, wrongly gives governments the power to take human life, and spreads social injustices by disproportionately targeting people of color (racist) and people who cannot afford good attorneys (classist). They say lifetime jail sentences are a more severe and less expensive punishment than death. .Pro Death-Penalty "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed
It is both mentally cruel (to BOTH the guilty party AND the victims family) and it is costly to society. Death is final - if someone is innocent they can never be revived; so, in this opinion, it does not discourage crime. Moreover, the death penalty costs the state and US government millions of dollars for each person put to death, making it obsolete compared to keeping the person in prison for life. Religion can also play a part in this, as many religions disregard and don't believe in putting a person’s to their deaths.The arguments against the death penalty are mainly ethical in their nature, that it is basically wrong to kill and that when the state kills it sends out the wrong message to the rest of the country.The main arguments in favor of restoring the death penalty are those of deterrence and retribution: the theory is that people will be dissuaded from violent crime if they know they will face the ultimate punishment and that people should face the same treatment that they gave out to others.Many people insist that, a sentencing judge is required to consider any mitigating circumstances before imposing the death penalty. If we take a close look at the overall problem with the effectiveness of the death penalty in California, we see that “the average was between conviction and execution”
Although our country’s legal system has evolved greatly since that time, there continues to be great debate about the issues surrounding life in prison versus the death penalty. When we look at the death penalty system in action, many argue that the only purpose it serves is retribution or revenge. It is seriously flawed in application and there is a serious and continuing risk of executing innocent people. Over the years, one hundred thirty people on death row have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted. DNA evidence, available in less than ten percent of all homicides, cannot guarantee that we won’t execute innocent people (ACLUNC, 2013).
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.
Perhaps the most frequently raised argument against capital punishment is that of its cost. Other thoughts on the death penalty are to turn criminals away from committing violent acts. A just argument against the death penalty would be that sentencing an individual to death prevents future crimes by other individuals. However, criminals are not afraid of the death penalty. The chance of a criminal being sentenced to death is very slim.
Death penalty VS Life in prison By Colin Robertson “Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty... mine's putting in an express lane.” – Ron White The death penalty, as it is commonly referred, is the penalty sometimes given to the criminals faced with the most horrific crimes possible. Many feel it is necessary in order to keep society safe because of how it permanently removes these select people from society, feeling that this will keep them safe from danger. It has been a part of the justice system since the beginning of human history, used primarily in cases of murder, treason and in military service, but just because something is old, doesn’t mean it’s what is right. The last several centuries have seen the emergence of modern nation states. Almost obvious to the concept of nation state is the idea of citizenship.
“Why do we kill people, who kill people, to show that killing people is wrong”. Fair enough as it might seem, but what is the ground for the opposition to the death penalty? It is asserted that death penalty is unjust, Tax Payer waste too much money, and it is a breech of biblical principles in our society. In the U.S. in 2010, 129 people on death row have been released with proof that they were wrongfully convicted.DNA, available have justify most of these convictions. I can’t guarantee we won’t execute innocent people.
Capital punishment saves money and overcrowding in the prisons. The death penalty is the only punishment that would directly compensate for the tragic loss of a loved one. Cons---There are some people against the death penalty because they believe it is not fair to the poor, who cannot afford to hire an attorney to defend them. The poor usually get the death penalty because they are appointed an incompetent court appointed attorney with little or no experience in trying capital cases. There have been a lot of innocent people put to death.
A life of incarceration without the possibility of parole is a realistic alternative for the small number of offenders who are likely to be executed in any given year. Justice does not mandate death but justice does request that murderers be punished. If punishment is reasonable for returning justice and the moral order, it does not necessarily follow that capital punishment is moral. “The death penalty only allows us to extend the pain. It allows us to continue to blame one another, to turn against one another, to learn to hate better”.