Will the Death Penalty Deter Crime?

Taxpayers well be paying less if we remove the death penalty, LWP will require less resources that what will be provided during the death penalty. Life without parole is a more lenient punishment for people who have brutally mistreated and murder people,

Ayala chose not to seek the death penalty in the case regarding Markeeth Lloyd, due to her beliefs that the death penalty should not primarily be a deterrent to crime. Historically, it has been shown the death penalty has been imposed on the innocent way too often, exorbitant to taxpayers and lastly, it adversely affecting both families of murder victims and families of the accused. Additionally, it has been apparent that co-victims had improved physical and psychological health and greater satisfaction with the legal system in cases where perpetrators received life sentences, rather than death sentences as well. In knowing Markeeth Lloyd killed two individuals, had a long criminal history and was a threat to society, I believe he had demonstrated to be tried for the death penalty. Although this case was highly publicized and nearly two percent of murderers actually get the death penalty, this does not mean leaving hardened criminals without stringent punishment, and I have to disagree with D.A.

Even though it is true that taking the life of another is not right, it is even truer that the punishment should fit the crime. The death penalty is an exercise of justice that promotes retribution for crime and moral punishment for those who choose to take human life. Also, it prevents society 's worse offenders from re-offending, and it provides justice for the victims whose lives were cut short without a second thought. To better understand why capital punishment is a justifiable act, Kant 's theory gives a clear and logical understanding of the eye for an eye approach. Additionally the utilitarian view also explains why capital punishment is justifiable in regards to comfort for the victim 's family and prevention of re-offending.

Haag (2007) writes that the death penalty is feared more than imprisonment because of its finality in that the person is excommunicated from the living. As such, it is a more effective and necessary form of punishment. Berns (1996) writes that the law must be “inspiring or commanding ‘profound respect or reverential fear’” for it to be effective in deterring criminals. However, people in favor of abolishing the death penalty can argue that despite its deterrence benefits, the life of the murderer is important. This means that the victim’s life is less important even though the offender is the one who has committed a crime.

The government aside from compassion for those effected by the convict, supports the penalty because of “cost of death vs. life in prison” according to Robert Evnen, Nebraskan for capital punishment attorney. He claims “… ‘cost studies’…” essentially reveal most murders take a life without parole which costs the government inmate finances whereas the penalty gives the offender no room for an appeal. Capital punishment puts an end to a life that deserves ending due to the choices made of ending an innocent person. In my opinion, looking at both sides as to why and why not the death penalty should be instated or abolished, I agree that it should be a constitutional law reinforced in every state, with each state continuing to define capital punishment as it chooses. Although it violates some of the constitutions laws in different ways, it saves the government

Also on Gale Student Resources in Context, 2014 also commented on the innocent affect by the death penalty said …that the death penalty is an effective deterrent against those who would consider committing such a crime as murder, and that it is justifiable punishment for the taking of another innocent person’s life. They cite national and local crime statistics that show murder rates decline when the death penalty is enforced, and that murder rates rise substantially when a state’s death penalty has been

In conclusion we should have better gun control. There are roughly 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States. That’s a big number of deaths. There should be a law were every gun how has ever been checked out or bought to have a number and if stole they have to report about just in case someone is trying to use it for the something bad. For the better and the sake of our planet we should have better gun control considering it will save a lot of lives.

That’s when plea bargains come into play because if not careful, than the defendant can play right into the system`s hands even if innocent. Innocence is another reason why people who are convicted of heinous crimes don’t deserve the death penalty. Many people spend years on death row, who are innocent before finally being released. ( Innocence

Putting them to death prevents the risk of prison attacks along with prison escapes. Additionally, these men may be let out on good behavior before their life sentence has been served and cause havoc in their cities once again. The death penalty can improve in its efficiency, its effectiveness and its certainty, but it is no doubt the best way to take care of the men and women who take the lives of innocent civilians in our country. The use of a life sentence simply does not do the job that the death penalty does. These men will have relationships in prison along with human interaction and other quality moments that they do not deserve.

There are many types of execution which is used in different country around the world. Should death penalty be abolished? Justice Marshall stated that the death penalty was an ineffective punishment to determine the crimes and lead to execute innocent people. The death penalty did not deter crime and life imprisonment was a more effective deterrent. Convicted were rarely executed.