The Death Penalty
The death penalty is an interwoven controversy. The law is supposed to bring together the basic principles and purposes of society, including the recognition and protection of individual rights to life, liberty, and the security of people and property. The two separate groups of norms that are woven into the death penalty are desirable social principles and respectable moral principles. The death penalty has shown itself to be an ineffective punishment, due to the fact that, it is an immoral and anti-social practice in today’s society. It does not and will not uphold any of the basic principles that are the basis of the law in this country. This country desires revenge, and that is why we have the death penalty. Do not let people fool you with words such as justice and deterrence, because the death penalty serves neither of these purposes. The fact is, the death penalty is not a deterrent of crime, as the death penalty has been proven not to deter crime. The death penalty cannot be called moral, because taking another human life in such a fashion is not moral. Also, there is always the risk that an innocent man’s life may be taken. Now I ask you, is taking an innocent mans life moral. The discriminate way the death penalty is given to minorities is not a socially acceptable occurrence, especially in today’ s society. Last of all, the death penalty is an uneconomical practice, and wastes valuable social resources in a steady stream of court costs that seem never-ending. When you look at all these circumstances combined, it is futile to argue for the death penalty. The facts shown stand against it. In the end, the death penalty looks to be nothing but legalized murder, and there is no other solution but to execute the death penalty once and for all.
Any punishment should contribute to the reduction of crime; accordingly, the punishment for a crime should not be so idle a threat or so slight a deprivation that it has no deterrent or incapacitative effects. Most of all, it certainly should not contribute to an increase in crime.(Bedau 259) Does the death penalty really deter crime. The death penalty lobby wants you to believe the answer to that question is yes. But, in fact, it is a resounding no. there is a wide consensus among Americans top criminologists that the death penalty does, or can do, little to reduce rates of criminal violence. The United States is the only Western nation that still allows the death penalty, and we also have one of the highest crime rates. During the 1980s, the death penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5 criminal homicides per 100,000, while abolition states averaged a rate of 7.4 per 100,000. That means that murders were actually more common in states with the death penalty. Also, in a nationwide survey of police chiefs and sheriffs, capital punishment was ranked last as a way of reducing violent crime. Only twenty-six percent thought that the death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides. There is no hard evidence that proves the death penalty has a deterrent effect on criminal violence. Governor William Weld of Massachusetts bolsters his belief of the deterrent effect of the death penalty with data from his gut. Also, Ken Nunneley, an Alabama assistant attorney general in charge of the states capital litigation division, obtains his data from the same source. My gut tells me it has a deterrent, let me put it that way. Whether or not the or use of the death penalty is, has been, or could be a deterrent to homicide is a huge question that can not be on the basis of gut feelings. In the following research project, Michael L. Radelet and Ronald L. Akers sent out questionnaires to seventy former presidents from the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, American Society of Criminology, and the Law and Society Association. The presidents were asked to answer some general questions on the basis of your knowledge of the literature and research in...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document