Deterrence and Retribution of the Death Penalty
Two of the most highly debated aspects of the death penalty in today’s world are the effects of its deterrence. Deterrence is how well, if at all, having the practice of capital punishment in place prevents criminals from committing capital crimes because they are fear the consequences. Retribution refers to whether or not a punishment is actually deserved by the criminal and if it is morally correct to implement. These two topics work their way into almost every debate regarding this topic, and are used to support both viewpoints. Some think that if a criminal knows that he will be punished by death, it will cause him to at least think twice about the crime. Others believe that if someone wants to commit a capital offense, they will do so regardless of what the consequences are. In regards to retribution, this is usually one of the main ways that people justify their stance on the matter. Many people suppose that if someone murders someone else, then they deserve to have their life taken from them. This belief stems from the age old saying “an eye for an eye”. Still, many others think that it is wrong, or morally unjust, to take someone’s life, whether or not they killed someone. People in the United States are born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life is the first thing mentioned here. It is wrong to kill someone, even if they did commit a crime that seems to warrant death. It is like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it. As the old saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right. This is a practice that is unjust and needs to be stopped, regardless of the crime committed.
Throughout the late 20th and into the 21st century, when the public’s opinion on capital punishment has changed greatly and began leaning towards abolishment, there has been countless amounts of research done to see if the death penalty actually does influence the decisions made by criminals. So far, there is no statistical evidence regarding these claims (Stevens). This raises the question, “How can the deterrence of the death penalty logically support the use of it if there is no evidence backing up that claim?” The answer to this question is that it cannot. The punishment does not cause criminals to think twice about the crimes they commit, so it seems to be that this is not a logical reason to support the use of capital punishment.
This leads into the idea that retribution is the main reason for the death penalty to still be in place. In 1950, Lord Justice Denning of England and Wales said “some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong-doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not.” (Stevens). This is reasonable considering that if a person commits a crime of such vulgar nature, such as mutilating another’s body or painfully torturing the victim to death, then people are going to want justice and revenge. However, the ways that the death penalty is implemented in today’s world have changed greatly from the ways used in the past. Methods such as burning the convicted criminal at the stake and quartering, which lead to painful deaths, seemed to be adequate given the crime committed. Today, we have traded these methods for others that we find more humane and easier on the inmate. This basically takes away from the purpose. If the prisoner is going to be killed quickly and painlessly, they do not go through the pain and suffering they caused their victim. It seems that life imprisonment would be worse to endure than being killed so swiftly that they do not even know they are dying until they are gone.
According to the court case Furman v. Georgia, “[A] penalty may be cruel and unusual because it is excessive and serves no valid legislative purpose.” (Stevens). In other cases, such as Enmund v. Florida, the death penalty was found to be excessive punishment for someone who did not actually want to murder their victim. In Coker v. Georgia, it was found that capital punishment “is an excessive punishment for the crime of raping a 16 year old woman” (Stevens). The implementation of the death penalty relies greatly on these enactments, although it is still said that the use of the death penalty is based on the Eighth Amendment, which states that cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional (Stevens). All of these reasons point to the fact that this punishment is unnecessary.
This practice has many people who support it, but their reasons for doing so seem to be inaccurate. It does not cause criminals to reconsider before they commit a capital offense, nor does it truly punish the prisoner sufficiently for their actions. Capital punishment has many reasons why it should not be used in today’s world, and these are some of the most significant ones.
Throughout the late 20th and into the 21st century, when the public’s opinion on capital punishment has changed greatly and began leaning towards abolishment, there has been countless amounts of research done to see if the death penalty actually does influence the decisions made by criminals. So far, there is no statistical evidence regarding these claims (Stevens). This raises the question, “How can the deterrence of the death penalty logically support the use of it if there is no evidence backing up that claim?” The answer to this question is that it cannot. The punishment does not cause criminals to think twice about the crimes they commit, so it seems to be that this is not a logical reason to support the use of capital punishment.
This leads into the idea that retribution is the main reason for the death penalty to still be in place. In 1950, Lord Justice Denning of England and Wales said “some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong-doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not.” (Stevens). This is reasonable considering that if a person commits a crime of such vulgar nature, such as mutilating another’s body or painfully torturing the victim to death, then people are going to want justice and revenge. However, the ways that the death penalty is implemented in today’s world have changed greatly from the ways used in the past. Methods such as burning the convicted criminal at the stake and quartering, which lead to painful deaths, seemed to be adequate given the crime committed. Today, we have traded these methods for others that we find more humane and easier on the inmate. This basically takes away from the purpose. If the prisoner is going to be killed quickly and painlessly, they do not go through the pain and suffering they caused their victim. It seems that life imprisonment would be worse to endure than being killed so swiftly that they do not even know they are dying until they are gone.
According to the court case Furman v. Georgia, “[A] penalty may be cruel and unusual because it is excessive and serves no valid legislative purpose.” (Stevens). In other cases, such as Enmund v. Florida, the death penalty was found to be excessive punishment for someone who did not actually want to murder their victim. In Coker v. Georgia, it was found that capital punishment “is an excessive punishment for the crime of raping a 16 year old woman” (Stevens). The implementation of the death penalty relies greatly on these enactments, although it is still said that the use of the death penalty is based on the Eighth Amendment, which states that cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional (Stevens). All of these reasons point to the fact that this punishment is unnecessary.
This practice has many people who support it, but their reasons for doing so seem to be inaccurate. It does not cause criminals to reconsider before they commit a capital offense, nor does it truly punish the prisoner sufficiently for their actions. Capital punishment has many reasons why it should not be used in today’s world, and these are some of the most significant ones.