The Death Penalty and its Consequences: Permanent Punishment Nikki Partlow-Loyall
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Abstract
This essay discusses the due process and just nature of the death penalty. Discussed are the pro-death penalty arguments of deterrence preventing crime and retribution being just and providing closure. There are also the opposing counterparts that deterrence doesn’t work, and that retribution is a slowed down version of revenge that leaves no one any better off.
There are crimes that exist that are so revolting and twisted that many believe the perpetrator should be put to death. In the United States, those crimes include murder and treason. Is a life for a life truly just, or is it just blood lust and revenge? To begin to talk about the arguments about the death penalty one should first understand the incredible complexity of the punishment.
There is a long way to go between sentencing someone to death and any type of executing them. The first step is the pre-trial decision to seek the death penalty. The death penalty can only be given if the accusing party specifically chooses to pursue it. After that comes sentencing. There are “31 states that …show more content…
The first is the deterrence argument. Many people believe that the death penalty serves as a warning to keep people from commiting crimes. The looming threat of death serves as a warning to potential criminals using fear. In 1973 Isaac Ehrlich came out with analysis which stated that for every inmate that got executed, 7 innocent people were saved by deterring potential murderers. ("Deterrence (In Support of the Death Penalty)", 2001) There are studies that say deterrence doesn’t work, but this argument says that the reason more evidence isn’t seen is because the rate of punishment is too slow. The death penalty also prevents any convict from murdering ever
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
Abstract
This essay discusses the due process and just nature of the death penalty. Discussed are the pro-death penalty arguments of deterrence preventing crime and retribution being just and providing closure. There are also the opposing counterparts that deterrence doesn’t work, and that retribution is a slowed down version of revenge that leaves no one any better off.
There are crimes that exist that are so revolting and twisted that many believe the perpetrator should be put to death. In the United States, those crimes include murder and treason. Is a life for a life truly just, or is it just blood lust and revenge? To begin to talk about the arguments about the death penalty one should first understand the incredible complexity of the punishment.
There is a long way to go between sentencing someone to death and any type of executing them. The first step is the pre-trial decision to seek the death penalty. The death penalty can only be given if the accusing party specifically chooses to pursue it. After that comes sentencing. There are “31 states that …show more content…
The first is the deterrence argument. Many people believe that the death penalty serves as a warning to keep people from commiting crimes. The looming threat of death serves as a warning to potential criminals using fear. In 1973 Isaac Ehrlich came out with analysis which stated that for every inmate that got executed, 7 innocent people were saved by deterring potential murderers. ("Deterrence (In Support of the Death Penalty)", 2001) There are studies that say deterrence doesn’t work, but this argument says that the reason more evidence isn’t seen is because the rate of punishment is too slow. The death penalty also prevents any convict from murdering ever