The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?
The death penalty is one of the main solutions to prevent crime rates in different states. It should be legalized in all fifty states, to avert from crime, keep repeat offenders off of the streets, and to reduce taxpayers the cost of keeping those found guilty of immoral crimes in prison low. The death penalty can, in fact, prevent outrageous crimes from being committed when it is lawful in a state. Social scientists have stated, “The act of general deterrence, which is when the punishment dissuaded potential criminals from committing crimes, keeps criminals from going through with crimes” (Baird and Rosenbaum). Heinous crimes have been reduced highly in the states that have a capital punishment law such as Texas. Not only does it keep criminals from going through with the crimes, it causes the offenders to suffer for their wrong actions. Many states have passed the law of the death penalty, while other states, such as New York, claim that it is morally wrong and does not solve the problem. Though I can concur with the states that have not passed the law, by putting these deviant people to death, it will cause safer environments for the innocent. For a particular state such as Texas to be able to say they have less crime due to a solution is impressive; every state should want to have the ability to say the same. In Austin, Texas, the population is 768,970, the violence crime is 5.23, and the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter is 0.03 (Miller). Though the population is less in Buffalo, New York, with a population of 268,655, there is more crime here. The violence crime is 14.59 while the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter is 0.22 (Miller). There has to be a reason why crime is so high in New York and not as high in Texas; the answer is most likely the death penalty. Though it is a very dirty job to execute these criminals, it is ultimately more helpful then harmful. Part of what the death penalty is doing is setting an example for those people who are also doing crime to consider their actions first. “Evidence for capital punishment’s general deterrent effect comes from three sources: logic, firsthand reporters, and social science research” (Cassell and Bedau 189). Logic supports the conclusion that the death penalty is the most effective deterrent for some kinds of murders, those that require reflection and forethought by persons of reasonable intelligence and unimpaired mental faculties. Firsthand reports from criminals and victims confirm our logical intuition that the death penalty deters (Cassell and Bedau 190). Senator Dianne Feinstein recounted her experience in the 1960s sentencing of a women convicted of robbery in the first degree. She asked the women why was the gun that she brought unloaded, the women replayed, “So I would not panic, kill somebody, and get the death penalty” (Cassell and Bedau 190). This is a great example of how the death penalty does cause people to question their actions before they go through with them. Even if this was the only case where a life was saved, one innocent life is worth putting to death a psycho killer. Texas is one of many states showing the greatest relative improvements overtime due to the death penalty. Not only does the death penalty deter crimes but it also saves innocent lives. Individuals against the death penalty argue that it is not the cause of less crime, all the death penalty is, is murder. In reality, it has been proven otherwise that it does, in fact, save innocent lives. By keeping the criminals in prisons their whole lives, we are faced with other possible problems such as: breaking out of jail, killing of prison guards or other inmates. “Statistical studies and common sense aside, it's undeniable that the death penalty saves some lives: those of the prison guards and other inmates who would otherwise be killed by murderers serving life sentences without parole, and of people who might otherwise encounter...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document