Capital punishment may seem justifiable at the moment, yet it presents many issues that deter people’s opinions on it. The United States has held many trials involving capital punishment as a sentence where it raised many controversial debates for those who favor or abolish it. Capital punishment is not the only option for punishment in such heinous crimes, with life in prison without parole as an alternative choice.
Those who favor capital punishment reason with the theory of deterrence. This theory suggests that we must punish an offender in order to discourage potential offenders from committing similar offenses. In this assertion, it is thought that this kind of punishment will send a message and instill fear in potential offenders preventing …show more content…
As Radelet mentions in “The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates”, “85% of the experts agree that the empirical research on deterrence has shown that the death penalty never has been, is not, and never could be superior to long-term imprisonment.” (45). Life in prison has as much as an effect if not more, on preventing future murders from happening again. The effect of deterrence is declining due to the de jure of capital punishment and its de facto aspect. There is a lengthy wait between the punishment phase and the execution phase. Therefore, deterrence is having a rapid less effect on the prevention of murderers killing. Given the extreme severity of the nature of the death penalty, deterrence should be accepted as a justification for capital punishment only if its effect can be proven to be consistent and reliable. If it fails to do this, the executions of the sentenced criminals will produce nothing but the deaths of the …show more content…
“Marquart and Sorensen found that among those whose death sentences were commuted in 1972, only about one percent went on to kill again.” (Radelet 46). These numbers propose that one in every 100 prisoners would most likely go on and kill again. At that point, this ideology would be proven to be counteractive, as you must kill 99 innocent people to execute the 1 who would go on and kill again. During the era where no prisons were available for sentences such a life imprisonment, incapacitation made sense. However, if it is convinced enough that convicted murderers will never be released from imprisonment, the support for death penalty should decline. If you can avoid the death penalty and still punish an offender as harshly then that is a more ideal path to follow. Since the Furman decision in 1972, there has been an increasingly availability of life without parole as a substitute for the death penalty. In states such as Florida, the public expressed increasing support of the idea of entirely prohibiting the death penalty if the option of life without parole was
Those who favor capital punishment reason with the theory of deterrence. This theory suggests that we must punish an offender in order to discourage potential offenders from committing similar offenses. In this assertion, it is thought that this kind of punishment will send a message and instill fear in potential offenders preventing …show more content…
As Radelet mentions in “The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates”, “85% of the experts agree that the empirical research on deterrence has shown that the death penalty never has been, is not, and never could be superior to long-term imprisonment.” (45). Life in prison has as much as an effect if not more, on preventing future murders from happening again. The effect of deterrence is declining due to the de jure of capital punishment and its de facto aspect. There is a lengthy wait between the punishment phase and the execution phase. Therefore, deterrence is having a rapid less effect on the prevention of murderers killing. Given the extreme severity of the nature of the death penalty, deterrence should be accepted as a justification for capital punishment only if its effect can be proven to be consistent and reliable. If it fails to do this, the executions of the sentenced criminals will produce nothing but the deaths of the …show more content…
“Marquart and Sorensen found that among those whose death sentences were commuted in 1972, only about one percent went on to kill again.” (Radelet 46). These numbers propose that one in every 100 prisoners would most likely go on and kill again. At that point, this ideology would be proven to be counteractive, as you must kill 99 innocent people to execute the 1 who would go on and kill again. During the era where no prisons were available for sentences such a life imprisonment, incapacitation made sense. However, if it is convinced enough that convicted murderers will never be released from imprisonment, the support for death penalty should decline. If you can avoid the death penalty and still punish an offender as harshly then that is a more ideal path to follow. Since the Furman decision in 1972, there has been an increasingly availability of life without parole as a substitute for the death penalty. In states such as Florida, the public expressed increasing support of the idea of entirely prohibiting the death penalty if the option of life without parole was