The Death Penalty Protects our Society
The death penalty is a punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime. William Tucker, a journalist and author of Vigilante, states that “after the death penalty was abolished, murder rates nearly tripled, rising to an all-time high in the 1980s.” Abolishing the death penalty will cause more murders in our community, and overpopulate our prisons. Many people that oppose the death penalty believe that it kills innocent people, but in reality, most innocent people are released before their sentence. Admittedly, the death penalty can sometimes be incorrectly used on the innocent, but it still remains an effective way of preventing dangerous criminals from returning to society. Despite the fact that murder rates in non-death penalty states remain lower than murder rates in death penalty states, the death penalty should be a part of our justice system because it protects society from
…show more content…
Recent studies concerning the death penalty reveal that “each execution carried out is correlated with approximately 74 fewer murders the following year,” (“Deter Crime”). Executing these criminals that are conducting capital crimes, would prevent them from being able to murder anyone again. In correlation to this, murders would decrease more and more each year the death penalty is active. Jeffrey Howard, a political philosophy lecturer, believes that “criminals should be punished so that they and others will be less likely to commit crime in the future.” Making sure that these murderers, twisted rapists, and others of the same category, know that committing severe crimes will have them put on death row might make them think twice before doing so. By putting fear into the enemies with no fear, could save us hundreds of lives a year, and protect us from future
Many innocent lives are taken due to the death penalty which are often the direct result of bias and discrimination. Needless to say, the death penalty is a poor and definitive response that cannot be undone. Combating this matter requires government intervention, and entails prohibiting the death
Being on death row often prolongs the pain for the inmate. They spend their time in prison fearing the inevitable which for them is death. Today, we live in a society that is very divided on this issue. There are many in support of the death penalty, suggesting that it acts as a positive deterrent against future crime. There are also many
“‘Death sentences represent less than one-tenth of 1% of prison sentences in the United States…,’” (Von Drehle, 9). Furthermore, death row is just a small fraction of the criminal justice system and can not be based on that alone. For instance, what many don't take into account is the justice systems allows for many states, such as the populous state of New York, to ban the death penalty. (state laws, p1)
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, and the debate about its abolition is the largest point of the essay written by Steve Earle, titled "A Death in Texas”. This form of punishment should be abolished for 3 reasons; First, It does not seem to have a direct effect on deterring murder rates, It has negative effects on society, and is inconsistent with American ideals. To begin, the death penalty is unnecessary since it is ineffective at deterring rates of murder. In fact, 88% of the country's top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. In opposition, supporters may argue that it may indeed help to deter murder rates as they have
The Death Penalty: Is it Right? In 1972, the Supreme Court was evaluating a criminal case, Furman v. Georgia. In this case the defendant, William Henry Furman, was burglarizing a house when he was discovered by someone. In attempt to flee, he tripped and accidently set off the gun, killing the person that discovered him.
Whether a criminal is guilty of committing murder or any other capital offense, they should all be given the same sentence - life in prison. How is it fair to allow them to voluntarily choose the death penalty over prison? Criminals willingly sought to break the law and should endure the lifelong debt they owe not only to society but to the family of the innocent victims whose lives have been taken. As asserted by Robert Johnson, a professor of justice and law, and Sandra Smith, a professor of legal studies, death by incarceration is a more effective and suitable form of punishment than the death penalty (Cromie and Zott 174). Although some might argue that it is unfair to keep a criminal alive, they fail to understand that the freedom they once had is permanently lost.
Some see the death penalty as the only means to extract justice for victims. Others see it as a morally reprehensible act where a second wrong is committed in order to make something right. With recent issues surrounding the death penalty in which execution hasn 't gone as planned sparking a nationwide debate, this is my outlook on why I 'm for the death penalty not only being abolished in the state of Texas but in addition to the entirety of the US..
Our judicial system should prioritize incarceration and how lengthy a sentence someone should receive based on the crimes committed. The death penalty may claim to serve justice, but its fatal flaws expose a fundamentally broken and
Although Texas is the state with the greatest number of death row sentences and executions, it has one of the highest crime rates in the entire nation. Therefore, the death penalty is ineffective because it does not diminish the incidence of crimes, take the life of innocent people, is racially unequal, costly, and alternative measure can be implemented
If the cold-blooded killing of thousands does not lower premeditated murder, there is really no point (because let 's face it, the saying “eye for an eye” is childish and socially unacceptable). This same conclusion was agreed upon in a recent poll by almost 90% of the world’s criminological societies (Facts About the Death Penalty). However in all honesty, the argument against the death penalty doesn’t just stop at its redundancy, but also its
While there are far more subjects to discuss regarding to this issue, I feel it necessary to state that I believe the death penalty should exist in a perfect society. I believe that certain crimes and certain situations warrant the punishment of death. However, the our society is not perfect. The justice system has failed to fairly use this punishment in far too many instances, and concludes that they cannot justly wield this
Although the death penalty may bring some closure to families of the victims and even the victims themselves it still should be abolished because the negatives outweigh the positives. People could be murdered by the state even if they are innocent. They are taking away any chance these people have at a normal life even though it's a life that they deserve and did nothing to have it taken away. 6. Conclusion
Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 87(1), 1. doi:10.2307/1143970 This article was written by Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L. Akers. They both consulted experts on criminology and criminal behaviour to evaluate the effectiveness of the Death Penalty.
The major reason why the death penalty should be abolished is that the cost of the death penalty is too much and the USA is in debt to many other countries. What this means is that the death penalty should be abolished and also the cost death penalty is more than the cost of maximum sentence life in prison. According to J. Marceau and H. Whitson, “The Cost of Colorado’s Death penalty,” 3 Univ. of Denver Criminal Law Review “A new study of the cost of the death penalty in Colorado revealed that capital proceedings require six times more days in court and
In the case of the death penalty, it has the added bonus in guaranteeing that the person would not offend again. Supporters of harsh punishments argue that the would-be criminal would consider the costs versus the benefits of committing a crime. If the costs outweigh the benefits, then it is assumed that he would stop what he is doing, effectively ‘deterred’. Furthermore, the usage of harsh punishments to effectively deter crime is ethically justified as it prevents more people from falling victim to crime. However it is extremely difficult to judge a punishment’s effectiveness based on its deterrence effect, consequently we must consider other variables that would entail a person to commit a crime.