Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on whether or not the death penalty is effective or not
Essays on whether or not the death penalty is effective or not
Essays on whether or not the death penalty is effective or not
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Capital Punishment and Deterrence
Abstract
Capitol Punishment has been around since the beginning of mankind; eye for an eye and
tooth for a tooth. Since then the public have debated for or against capital punishment
revolving around issues of deterrence, retribution, discrimination and Irreversibility.
Leaving us with the responsibility to analyze the factors surrounding capital punishment.
A number of studies have also been done specifically on the deterrent effects of capital
punishment. Many officials believes that capital punishment not only prevent s the
offender from committing additional crimes but deters others as well. The research of
Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon J. Hawkins demonstrated that punishment is an effective
deterrent for those who are criminally inclined. Another research has been to examine
murder rates in given areas both before and after an execution. Clear and cole(2000) have
examined more than 200 studies evaluating the effectiveness of the death penalty in
deterring crime. A recent study found that a significant deterrent effect is associated with
the increased use of capital punishment since 1977 ( Dezhbakhsh, Rubin and Shepherd,
2001).
Michael Radelet and Ronald Akers attempted to determine if having the Death Penalty
indeed act as a deterrent on criminal homicide. Is the theory of “Just Deserts” (Bedau,
1978; Finckenenauer, 1998) in anyway credible? It is also often argued that death is what
murderers deserve, making criminals reap what they sow. Most believe that in order to
assure deserts, the punishment should always fit the crime. It would require us to rape
rapists, torture torturers, and inflict other horrible and degrading punishment on
offenders. It would require us to betray traitors and kill multiple murderers again and
again, punishments impossible to inflict. ( Bedau 1978).
However the principle of just deserts is understood to require that the severity of
punishments must be proportional to the gravity of the crime, and that murder being the
gravest crime deserves the severest punishment, then the principle is no doubt sound. But
it does not compel support for the death penalty. What it does require is that crimes other
than murder be punished with terms of imprisonment or other deprivations less severe
than those used in the punishment of murder. Criminals no doubt deserve to be punished,
and punished with severity appropriate to their culpability and the harm they have caused
to the innocent. But severity of punishment has its limits -- imposed both by justice and
punishment is an asset to society: it is the only punishment that fits the crime, it deters potential criminals
There is a common knowledge that capital punishment would prevent people from committing crime. But until now, there has not been any actual statistics or scientific researches that prove the relationship between the capital punishment and the rate of crimes. According to Jack Weil, “criminals, who believe that their chances of going to jail are slight, will in all probability also assume that their chances of being executed are equally slight. Their attitude that crime pays will in no way be altered” (3). Most people commit a crime when they are affected by the influence of drugs, alcohol or even overwhelmed emotions, so they cannot think logically about they would pay back by their lives. Also, when criminal plan to do their crime, they prepare and expect to escape instead of being caught. Some people believe that the threat of severe punishment could bring the crime rates down and that capital punishment is the ultimate crime deterrent. However, in fact, the rate of ...
...l punishment as a just and morally sound method of justice. After all, "An eye for an eye" seemed to be a rationale that many embraced as fair. Now there is an era of closer examination of what is truly just and morally ethical, as well as economically sound. A consequence needs to be fair, humane, and effective. Does capital punishment meet these criteria? There are compelling reasons to change the system we have blindly acclaimed. Hopefully we are in the process of implementing a new way of dealing with an age-old dilemma.
This essay has identified sanctions imposed on offenders including imprisonment and community corrections. Described how punishment is justified with the just desert and deterrence theory. Discussing the rate of individuals being imprison comparted to community, provided rates for assault which shows crime being maintained and community member feel safe enough to allow for this to
...New England area and northern-more Middle West area, and the higher rates found in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. Sellin grouped the states according to geography but made sure that the populations of each group also had similar social and economic conditions. Within these groups he found it impossible to distinguish the abolition state from the non-abolition states according to crime rates. Therefore, he found the homicide death rates of these grouped states to be similar, no matter their position on the death penalty. The inevitable conclusion is that all things remaining the same, executions have no discernible effect on rates of homicide. This study sparked debate and lead many other researchers to conduct their own analysis of data at different points in time up to the present in order to support or contradict Sellin’s findings in accordance with their own views.
With the field of philosophy, the concept of "desert" suggests the status of deserving a particular response based upon prior action. The term is often invoked within conversations dealing with blame and justice. However, philosophers disagree on whether desert justifies responsive behaviors such as punishment or revenge. This debate is particularly significantly within the context of a legal system that purports to punish criminals in a manner that is consistent with their crimes.
The capital punishment has been cited as a reasonable sentence by those who advocate for retribution. This is essentially when it comes to justice so that people take full responsibility for their individual actions. Studies have proved that the decision to take away life of a person because they committed a certain crime serves to perpetuate the crime in question. It also serves to enhance the progress of organized and violent crime. It has been noted that various flaws in the justice system has led to the wrong conviction of innocent people. On the other hand, the guilty have also been set free, and a plethora of several cases has come up when a critical look at the capital punishment has been undertaken. Killers hardly kill their victims deliberately, but they probably act on anger, passion, or impulsively. In this regard, it is not proper to convict them exclusively without
Two major claims: death penalty serves as a deterrent and death penalty is morally justified because murderers can’t live and you have a right to kill them.
Eagan, Jeffrey A. “Capital Punishment: Deterrent Effects and Capital Costs.” Law.columbia.edu. Columbia Law School, 2013. Web. 12 Feb. 2013.
The death penalty has existed almost as long as civilization itself, established in the Eighteenth Century B.C. in one of the first large societies, by the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon, which prescribed the death penalty for 25 unique crimes. Furthermore, the death penalty continued to be used in early civilization, such as in the Hittite Code, the Draconian Code of Athens and the Roman law of the Twelve Tablets, which spanned hundreds of years. At the time, most death sentences were horrific and painful, including drowning, beating, burning, impalement and crucifixion. Later, in countries such as Britain, hanging became the predominant method of giving capital punishment, and William the Conqueror, who ruled at around that time, abolished the death penalty altogether, then, a dramatic move. However, the death penalty was restarted in the Sixteenth Century under Henry VII, where thousands and thousands of people w...
Americans have argued over the death penalty since the early days of our country. In the United States only 38 states have capital punishment statutes. As of year ended in 1999, in Texas, the state had executed 496 prisoners since 1930. The laws in the United States have change drastically in regards to capital punishment. An example of this would be the years from 1968 to 1977 due to the nearly 10 year moratorium. During those years, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment violated the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, this ended in 1976, when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. They stated that the punishment of sentencing one to death does not perpetually infringe the Constitution. Richard Nixon said, “Contrary to the views of some social theorists, I am convinced that the death penalty can be an effective deterrent against specific crimes.”1 Whether the case be morally, monetarily, or just pure disagreement, citizens have argued the benefits of capital punishment. While we may all want murders off the street, the problem we come to face is that is capital punishment being used for vengeance or as a deterrent.
The death penalty has been around for centuries. It dates back to when Hammurabi had his laws codified; it was “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Capital punishment in America started when spies were caught, put on trial and hung. In the past and still today people argue that, the death penalty is cruel, unusual punishment and should be illegal. Yet many people argue that it is in fact justifiable and it is not cruel and unusual. Capital punishment is not cruel and unusual; the death penalty is fair and there is evidence that the death penalty deters crime.
When you think of an extreme crime, you think of murder. When you think of an extreme punishment, you think of the death penalty. Crimes of such severity sometimes deserve equal punishment and we as a society accept this. However, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan argues that society seriously questions the appropriateness of the death penalty. It is true that over the years since the death penalty was first implemented, it has undergone some changes, but this does not suggest that we believe that the death penalty is unacceptable.
Murder should be punished in a manner similar to the way it was committed. A man convicted of a cold-blooded shooting murder such as a drive-by shooting should go before a firing squad. Each man in that firing squad would fire one at a time so the convicted would not know when the angel of death would come for him. A man convicted of strangulation murder should be hung at high noon. A man convicted of a beating death should be slowly beaten until death comes. A Jeffery Dahmer style murderer should suffer dismemberment and decapitation.
According to David Garland, punishment is a legal process where violators of the criminal law are condemned and sanctioned with specified legal categories and procedures (Garland, 1990). There are different forms and types of punishment administered for various reasons and can either be a temporary or lifelong type of punishment. Punishment can be originated as a cause from parents or teachers with misbehaving children, in the workplace or from the judicial system in which crimes are committed against the law. The main aim of punishment is to demonstrate to the public, the victim and the offender that justice is to be done, to reduce criminal activities and to deter people from wanting to commit any form of crime against the law. In other words it is a tool used to eliminate the bad in society or to deter people from committing criminal activities.