Abolitionists claim that capital punishment does not deter murderers from killing or killing again. They base most of their argument against deterrence on statistics. States that use it extensively show a higher murder rate than those that have abolished the death penalty. Also, states that have abolished the death penalty and then reinstituted it show no significant change in the murder rate. They say adjacent states with the death penalty and those without show no long term differences in the number of murders that occur in that state. And finally, there has been no record of change in the rate of homicides in a given city or state following a local execution. Any possibly of deterring a would-be murderer from killing has little effect. Most retentionists (people for capital punishment) argue that none of this statistical evidence proves that capital punishment does not deter potential criminals. There is absolutely no way prove, with any certainty, how many would-be murderers were in fact deterred from killing They point out that the murder rate in any given state depends on many things besides whether or not that state has capital punishment. They cite such factors as the proportion of urban residents in the state, the level of economic prosperity, and the social and racial makeup of the population.
The Term Paper on Capital Punishment 41
... its judicial murder. Capital Punishment is brutal act that does not enhance respect for human life. Abolitionists also believe that "the state is a ... spectacle of official, violent homicide that teaches the permissibility of killing people to solve a social problems-the worst possible example ... is an excellent way to deter crime, and it is not a cruel and unusual punishment. However, there has been no ...
But a small minority is ready to believe in these statistics and to abandon the deterrence argument. But they defend the death penalty base on other arguments, relying primarily on the need to protect society from killers who are considered high risks for killing again. Incapacitation is another controversial aspect of the death penalty. Abolitionists say condemning a person to death removes any possibility of rehabilitation. They are confident in the life-sentence presenting the possibility of rehabilitating the convict. But rehabilitation is a myth. The state does not know how rehabilitate people because there are plenty of convict murderers who kill again. The life-sentence is also a myth because overcrowding in the prisons. Early parole has released convicted murderers and they still continue murder. Some escape and murder again, while others have murdered someone in prison. There are countless stories in prisons where a violent inmate kills another for his piece of chicken. Incapacitation is not solely meant as deterrence but is meant to maximize public safety by remove any possibility of a convict murderer to murder again. The issue of execution of an innocent person is troubling to both abolitionists and retentionists alike.
Some people are frightened of this possibility enough to be convinced that capital punishment should be abolished. This is not true at all. The execution of innocent people is very rare because there are many safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. There is legal assistance provided and an automatic appeal for persons convicted of capital crimes. Persons under the age of eighteen, pregnant women, new mothers or persons who have become insane can not be sentenced to death. Retentionists argue almost all-human activities, ranging trucking to construction, costs the lives of some innocent bystanders. These activities can not be simply abandoned, because the advantages outweigh the losses. Capital punishment saves lives as well as takes them. We must accept the few risks of wrongful deaths for the sake of defending public safety. Abolitionists say the cost of execution has become increasingly expensive and that life sentence is more economical. A study of the Texas criminal system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. This high cost includes $265,640 for the trial; $294,240 for the state appeals; $113,608 for federal appeals (over six years); and $135,875 for death row housing.
The Research paper on Capital Punishmen Death Punishment Penalty
... In Maryland, a comparison of capital trial costs for the years 1979-1984 concluded that a death penalty case costs around 42 percent more than ... Some of those who support the death penalty defend it as a cost-effective alternative to life imprisonment. They argue that it is ... a life sentence. A 1982 study in New York concluded that the average capital murder trial and first stage of appeals costs U. ...
In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum-security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000. This is a huge amount of taxpayer money but the public looks at it as an investment in safety since these murders will never kill again. Retentionists argue that these high costs are due to “the lengthy time and the high expense result from innumerable appeals, many over ‘technicalities’ which have little or nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence, and do little more than jam up the nation’s court system. If these ‘frivolous’ appeals were eliminated, the procedure would neither take so long nor cost so much” The moral issues concerning the legitimacy of the death have been brought by many abolitionists. They think that respect for life forbids the use of the death penalty, while retentionists believe that respect for life requires it. Retentionists says the bible (Genesis 9:6) says, “Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man may his blood be shed.” This classic argument in favor of the death penalty has usually been interpreted as a proper and moral reason for putting a murderer to death. “Let the punishment fit the crime” is its secondary counterpart (Cox).
Both quotes imply that the murderer deserves to die and it was his own fault for putting himself on death row. Supporters of capital punishment say that society has the right to kill in defense of its members, just as an individual has the right to kill in self defense for his or her own personal safety. This analogy is somewhat doubtful, however, as long as the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to violent crimes has yet to be proven. 2) This part will be brief. The conflict theory looks at the social inequality. Now they feel that the capital punishment is making it more worst because there are so many inequalities in the death penalty issue. For example there are more blacks being executed than the whites, even though they both committed the same crime but the blacks will have more chances of getting a death penalty. Not only the color of the skin but the class status are also inequality. The poor cannot afford a good lawyer, they?re stuck with a bad lawyer so it?s more likely they will be executed than the rich. The functionalist will think the death penalty is a thing that will scare people from committing the crimes. It will reduce the crimes. They are more concerned with the amount of money spend on the death rows.
The Term Paper on The Death Penalty To Kill Or Not To Kill
Should the death penalty exist in modern day society As the number of churchgoers continues to climb, many religions have made their stands against the death penalty well known. Although most people may not want to believe it, there have been a number of innocent people killed by the death penalty. And with the public not being able to witness executions, how do we as a society get the message out ...
But sentencing a person to death is not cheap too. The functionalist also notes that there are also dysfunction behind the death penalty. 3) Well, it is hard for me to answer. I?m in middle of both sides. I?m not sure which one is right. But in my opinion, I believe that if we abolish the death penalty, we could end up in huge debts. The debts are just for paying the prisoners in the death row. The prisons could become overcrowded. We don?t want to have ?the final solution? a plan set up by Adolf Hitler. He wanted to eliminate Jews. Same with us, if the prisons become overcrowded, we don?t want the idea to appear ?the final solution? is to kill all criminals. If the death penalty is abolished, it will not improve the people?s behavior. Right now most people would rather to die than to spend lifetime in cell. So its hard to say, what will happen if we abolish the death penalty, but I know one thing for sure is that the prisons will become over crowded and also the murder rates will not change.
