Article Summary #1:
Author William Tucker uses his 2000 American Spectator article to explain why the death penalty is actually a deterrent to criminals. Tucker analyzes the statistics of crime over the years and concludes that when death penalty rates are up, murder rates are down, and when execution rates decrease, the rate of homicides rises (par. 13). While many criminologists believe that the death penalty doesn’t affect the amount of murders that take place in America, Tucker counters by saying, “The results are plain to see. Beginning at almost the exact point when executions ended, murder soared to unprecedented heights. The murder rate tied the 1933 record in 1973, broke it in 1974, broke it again in 1980, and peaked a third time …show more content…
12). While Tucker admits that the death penalty isn’t suitable for all types of crime, such as rape or burglary, he believes it is justified when used to prevent murders. There are two different types of murder according to Tucker: crime of passion or stranger/felony murders. Both of these should result in the death penalty because in both situations, the criminal finds it best to kill their victim (par. 21). In both cases, it is usually easy for the perpetrator to be identified by the victim, so in murdering them, they are taking away the biggest piece of evidence that could land them in jail, or more specifically, on death row. If their ultimate goal is to rape persay, they will go in, and and get the job done, and in the past, they would then kill their victim so that there was no one to testify against them. Now, with capital punishment in place, people are more hesitant to murder the people they are taking advantage of because that has a greater chance of putting them on death row, instead of just in prison. Tucker points out, “By 1990, the average armed robber was serving three years in jail; the average murderer was serving eleven. Meanwhile, less than half the felony and stranger murders in the country were being solved. Was there any real risk in
Author William Tucker uses his 2000 American Spectator article to explain why the death penalty is actually a deterrent to criminals. Tucker analyzes the statistics of crime over the years and concludes that when death penalty rates are up, murder rates are down, and when execution rates decrease, the rate of homicides rises (par. 13). While many criminologists believe that the death penalty doesn’t affect the amount of murders that take place in America, Tucker counters by saying, “The results are plain to see. Beginning at almost the exact point when executions ended, murder soared to unprecedented heights. The murder rate tied the 1933 record in 1973, broke it in 1974, broke it again in 1980, and peaked a third time …show more content…
12). While Tucker admits that the death penalty isn’t suitable for all types of crime, such as rape or burglary, he believes it is justified when used to prevent murders. There are two different types of murder according to Tucker: crime of passion or stranger/felony murders. Both of these should result in the death penalty because in both situations, the criminal finds it best to kill their victim (par. 21). In both cases, it is usually easy for the perpetrator to be identified by the victim, so in murdering them, they are taking away the biggest piece of evidence that could land them in jail, or more specifically, on death row. If their ultimate goal is to rape persay, they will go in, and and get the job done, and in the past, they would then kill their victim so that there was no one to testify against them. Now, with capital punishment in place, people are more hesitant to murder the people they are taking advantage of because that has a greater chance of putting them on death row, instead of just in prison. Tucker points out, “By 1990, the average armed robber was serving three years in jail; the average murderer was serving eleven. Meanwhile, less than half the felony and stranger murders in the country were being solved. Was there any real risk in