Reflection 1: Murder, The Death Penalty And The Non-Existence Threat

Reflection One – Murder, The Death Penalty and The Non-Existence Threat

With every illegal action comes potential consequences. A driver is consciously aware that they might receive a speeding ticket if they are caught driving over the speed limit. As a result, the potential risk of a speeding ticket acts as a deterrent. So in theory, if a person is aware that the punishment for a serious crime such as the killing of another, would be the death penalty, they would be less likely to commit the offence. Unfortunately, the theory behind the deterrence factor of the death penalty does not necessarily work in all cases.

Certain states in America still impose the death penalty for serious offences, with the support of the community as it prevents reoffending and aims to prevent future offending (Durlauf, Fu, and Navarro 2013). Data collected over a period of time by numerous studies have conflicting evidence on the success of the deterrent effect. Some suggest that states which enforce the death penalty have lower rates of serious crimes (Radelet and Lacock 2009; Death Penalty Information Centre 2016; Abrams 2012) when compared to states that do not enforce the penalty. While other studies suggest that the rate of serious crimes is lower in states that do not enforce the penalty (Radelet and Lacock 2009, 502; Durlauf, Fu, and Navarro 2013).

To measure

Watching the character from an outsider’s perspective, it can be confusing as to understand why that character would be so eager to return to prison, when they have completed their sentence and have the opportunity to continue with their life. As it turns out, reintegrating into society is much more difficult than one would imagine. Especially when a major influence on successfully integrating into society, depends on finding suitable accommodation (Mills et al. 2013,