Capital Punishment is the practice of executing someone as a punishment for a crime they have committed. Suitably, it is often referred to as the Death Penalty. This form of punishment can be dated back to (remove?) almost four thousand years in the Code of King Hammaurabi, and is often reserved for the most detestable of crimes such as murder, terrorism, and high treason. Currently, about 140 countries around the world have abolished the Death Penalty, and although 57 countries impose this sentence, less than 30 practice it regularly. One can see, that as time passes, the morals and values of human societies change, this in turn changes the laws that govern our very societies, and as well as the punishments for breaking those laws correspondingly.
…show more content…
It is does not deter serious crimes because no current data exists to prove otherwise exists, and because crimes like murder are committed when people are not in a rational state-of-mind. First off, a study conducted in the United States by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, revealed that states that have the Death Penalty have 48% to 101% higher homicide rates than states without. For example, in 2011 Iowa, a non-death penalty state, had 46 murders, compared to Mississippi, a death penalty state, which had 239 murders that year. Now these two states have relatively the same population of around three million, so it’s not like the numbers are skewed in anyway. Moreover, experts believe that it is not the existence of the death penalty in a state is not a factor that causes its high or low crimes rate; rather it is the socio-economic factors that play a role in crime rates. Next, the NC Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (2015) suggests that “most people on death row committed their crimes in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness.” The NCCADP findings explain why imposing the death penalty would also not deter crime. States impose the death penalty under the assumption that people would not commit crimes because they would fear the consequences, in this case death. However, …show more content…
One would think that executing someone is much cheaper than keeping them alive in prison for the rest of their lives, due to executions being a onetime scenario versus a life sentence which last until the criminal has died of natural causes. Nonetheless, this claim is proven false in virtue of a death sentence not being a quick and swift process. This is because once a criminal has been sentenced to death he/she can keep on appealing or pursuing an appeal until a decision has been made by the highest of courts. By then legal fees and the cost of housing a criminal on death row, can be upwards of around $1.2 million or higher. Compared to the $30 thousand per year it costs, to support an inmate in prison. The California Commission on Fair Administration of Justice (2008) affirms that “Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)." (p. 10) In other words, abolishing the death penalty could save California taxpayers over $200 million. This would mean that the government of California will have more funding for state infrastructure, health care (medicare), and education,
It is does not deter serious crimes because no current data exists to prove otherwise exists, and because crimes like murder are committed when people are not in a rational state-of-mind. First off, a study conducted in the United States by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, revealed that states that have the Death Penalty have 48% to 101% higher homicide rates than states without. For example, in 2011 Iowa, a non-death penalty state, had 46 murders, compared to Mississippi, a death penalty state, which had 239 murders that year. Now these two states have relatively the same population of around three million, so it’s not like the numbers are skewed in anyway. Moreover, experts believe that it is not the existence of the death penalty in a state is not a factor that causes its high or low crimes rate; rather it is the socio-economic factors that play a role in crime rates. Next, the NC Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (2015) suggests that “most people on death row committed their crimes in the heat of passion, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or while suffering from mental illness.” The NCCADP findings explain why imposing the death penalty would also not deter crime. States impose the death penalty under the assumption that people would not commit crimes because they would fear the consequences, in this case death. However, …show more content…
One would think that executing someone is much cheaper than keeping them alive in prison for the rest of their lives, due to executions being a onetime scenario versus a life sentence which last until the criminal has died of natural causes. Nonetheless, this claim is proven false in virtue of a death sentence not being a quick and swift process. This is because once a criminal has been sentenced to death he/she can keep on appealing or pursuing an appeal until a decision has been made by the highest of courts. By then legal fees and the cost of housing a criminal on death row, can be upwards of around $1.2 million or higher. Compared to the $30 thousand per year it costs, to support an inmate in prison. The California Commission on Fair Administration of Justice (2008) affirms that “Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present system ($137 million per year), the present system after implementation of the reforms ... ($232.7 million per year) ... and a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty ($11.5 million)." (p. 10) In other words, abolishing the death penalty could save California taxpayers over $200 million. This would mean that the government of California will have more funding for state infrastructure, health care (medicare), and education,