DEATH PENALTY ARGUMENTS:

Deterrent or Revenge
(Pros and Cons)
INTRODUCTION

What is Capital punishment? Capital punishment is the death penalty. It is used today and
was used in ancient times to punish a variety of offenses. Even the bible advocates death for murder
and other crimes like kidnapping and witchcraft.
When the word death penalty is used, it makes yelling and screaming from both sides of
extremist. One side may say deterrence, while the other side may say, but you may execute an
innocent man.
Today, one of the most debated issues in the Criminal Justice System is the issue of capital
punishment or the death penalty. Capital punishment was legal until 1972, when the Supreme
Court declared it unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia stating that it violated the Eight and
Fourteen Amendments citing cruel and unusual punishment. However, in 1976, the Supreme Court
reversed itself with Gregg v. Georgia and reinstated the death penalty but not all states have the
death penalty.
Thirteen states do not have the death penalty: Alaska, District of Colombia, Hawaii, Iowa, Main,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.
AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY (CONS)
Death Penalty Fails to Rehabilitate
What would it accomplish to put someone on death row? The victim is already dead-you
cannot bring him back. When the opponents feel fear of death will prevent one from committing
murder, it is not true because most murders are done on the heat of passion when a person cannot
think rationally. Therefore, how can one even have time to think of fear in the heat of passion
(Internet)?
ACLU and Murderers Penniless
The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) is working for a moratorium on executions and
to put an end to state-sanctioned murder in the United States. They claim it is very disturbing to
anyone who values human life.
In the article of the ACLU Evolution Watch, the American Bar Association said the quality
of the legal representation is substantial. Ninety-nine percent of criminal defendants end up
penniless by the time their case is up for appeal. They claim they are treated unfairly. Most
murderers who do not have any money, receive the death penalty. Those who live in counties pro-
death penalty are more likely to receive the death penalty. (Internet).
Death Penalty Failed as a Deterrent
Some criminologist claim they have statistically proven that when an execution is
publicized, more murders occur in the day and weeks that follow. A good example is in the Linberg
kidnapping. A number of states adopted the death penalty for crime like this, but figures showed
kidnapping increased. Publicity may encourage crime instead of preventing it (McClellan, G.,
1961).
Death is one penalty which makes error irreversible and the chance of error is
inescapable when based on human judgment . On the contrary, sometimes defendants insist on
execution. They feel it is an act of kindness to them. The argument here is - Is life imprisonment a
crueler fate? Is there evidence supporting the usefulness of the death penalty securing the life of
the citizens (McClellan, G. 1961)?
Does the death penalty give increased protection against being murdered? This argument
for continuation of the death penalty is most likely a deterrent, but it has failed as a
deterrent. There is no clear evidence because empirical studies done in the 50s by Professor
Thorsten Sellin, (sociologist) did not give support to deterrence (McClellan, G., 1961).
Does not Discourage Crime
It is noted that we need extreme penalty as a deterrent to crime. This could be a strong
argument if it could be proved that the death penalty discourages murderers and kidnappers. There
is strong evidence that the death penalty does not discourage crime at all (McClellan, G., 1961).
Grant McClellan (1961) claims:
In 1958 the10 states that had the fewest murders fewer
than two a year per 100,000 population -were New Hampshire
Iowa, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Wisconsin,
Rhode Island, Utah, North Dakota and Washington. Four of
these 10 states had abolished the death penalty.

The 10 states, which had the most murderers from eight to
fourteen killings per100,000 population were Nevada,
Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, and Virginia - all of them
enforce the death penalty. The fact is that fear of the
death penalty has never served to reduce the crime rate (p. 40).
Conviction of the I nnocent Occurs
The states that have the death penalty should be free of murder, but those states have the
most murders, and the states that abolished the death penalty has less. Conviction of the innocent
does occur and death makes a miscarriage of justice irrevocable. Two states Maine and Rhode
Island abolished the death penalty because of public shame and remorse after they discovered they
executed some innocent men.

Fear of Death Does not Reduce Crime.

The fear of the death penalty has never reduced crime. Through most of history
executions were public and brutal. Some criminals were even crushed to death slowly under heavy
weight. Crime was more common at that time than it is now. Evidence shows execution does not
act as a deterrent to capital punishment.
Motives for Death Penalty - Revenge
According to Grant McClellan (1961), the motives for the death penalty may be for
revenge. Legal vengeance solidifies social solidarity against law breakers and is the alternative to
the private revenge of those who feel harmed.
FOR THE DEATH PENALTY (PROS)
Threat of Death Penalty Rate of Homicide Decreases
Frank Carrington (1978) states- is there any way one can tell whether the death penalty
deters murders from killing? There is no way one can tell whether the death penalty deters
murderers from killing. The argument goes on that proponents of capital punishments should not
have to bear the burden of proving deterrence by a reasonable doubt. Nor should the abolitionist
have to prove deterrence by a reasonable doubt -neither side would be able to anyway.
Frank Carrington (1978) claims common sense supports the inference that if, the threat of
the death penalty decreases, the rate of murders increases than it may be true. But if the threat had
increased, the homicide rate may decrease.
Justice Stewart held in the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia:
Although some of the studies suggest that the death
penalty may not function as a significantly greater
deterrent than lesser penalties, there is no convincing
empirical evidence supporting or refuting this view.

We may nevertheless assume safely there are murders,
such as those who act in passion, for whom the threat of
death has little or no deterrent effect. But for many others,
the death penalty undoubtedly, is a significant deterrent.

There are carefully contemplated murders, such as murder
for hire, where the possible penalty of death may well enter
the cold calculus that precedes the decision to act
( as cited in Carrington, 1978. p. 87).

J. Edgar Hoover, late director of Federal Bureau of Investigations, asks the
following questions: Have you ever thought about how many criminals escape
punishment, and yet, the victims never have a chance to do that? Are crime victims in the United
States today the forgotten people of our time? Do they receive full measure of justice (as cited in
Isenberg, 1977, p. 129)?
A criminal on death row has a chance to prepare his death, make a will, and make his last
statements, etc. while some victims can never do it. There are many other crimes where
people are injured by stabbing, rape, theft, etc. To some degree at least, the victims right to
freedom and pursuit of happiness is violated.
When the assailant is apprehended and charged, he has the power of the judicial process
who protects his constitutional rights. What about the victim? The assailant may have compassion
from investigating officers, families and friends. Furthermore, the criminal may have organized
campaigns of propaganda to build sympathy for him as if he is the one who has been sinned
against. These false claims are publicized, for no reason, hence, protecting the criminal (Isenberg,
I., 1977).
The former Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General of Indiana delivered a speech to Law
enforcement officials in Northern Indiana on May 12, 1971 (as cited in Isenberg, 1977):
Our system of criminal law is to minimize human
suffering by works or order primarily to forestall
violence or aggression. In the question of the death
penalty, we must ask ourselves which action will
serve the true humanitarian purpose of criminal law.
We should weigh the death of the convicted murders
against the loss of life of his victims and the possibility
of potential victims to murder (p. 129)
In arguments of the death penalty, there are two lives to think about. Too much emphasis is
placed on the convicted murderer, the one being executed, and the victim is all forgotten.
Crime Rate I ncreases
Millions are being killed and will be killed because our justice system is not
working. Millions have already been killed and will be killed every year. According to Time
Magazine, there are 2,000,000 people beaten in the United States. Some are knifed, shot, or
assaulted (Internet).
Crime growth has been going up in the past because of too much leniency going hand in
hand with the increased rate of people being victimized. There are many loop holes devised for
offenders, and because of that crime rate has increased drastically. Between l960 to 1968 crime
rate increased 11 times. More and more people are being murdered, raped, assaulted, kidnapped,
and robbed, etc. (Isenberg, I., 1997).
Free Will
When you commit a felony, it is a matter of free will. No one is compelled to commit
armed robbery, murder, or rape. The average citizen does not have a mind or intentions to become
a killer or being falsely accused of murder. What he is worried about is being a victim.
Deterrent in 27 States
Opponents argue that there is no deterrent effect by using the death penalty. According to
Baily, who did a study from l967 to l968, the death penalty was a deterrent
in 27 states. When there was a moratorium on Capital Punishment in the United States, the study
showed murder rates increased by 100%. The study also reviewed 14 nations who abolished the
death penalty. It (the study) claimed murder increased by 7% from five years before the abolition
period to the five years after the abolition (Internet).
Studies were made by Professor Isaac Erlich between the period of 1933 and 1969. He
concluded An additional execution per year may have resulted in fewer murders (Bedau, 1982, p.
323).
The number of years on the average spent in death row is 10 years. It is known, with all the
appeals, the death penalty is not swift! In fact, most murderers feel they most likely will never be
put to death. If the death penalty was swift and inevitable, there certainly would be a decrease in
homicide rates. (Internet).
Death Feared
Most people have a natural fear of death- its a trait man have to think about what will
happen before we act. If we dont think about it consciously, we will think about it
unconsciously. Think- if every murderer who killed someone died instantly, the homicide rate
would be very low because no one likes to die. We cannot do this, but if the Justice system can
make it more swift and severe, we could change the laws to make capital punishment faster and
make appeals a shorter process. The death penalty is important because it could save the lives of
thousands of potential victims who are at stake (Bedau, H., 1982).
In a foot note Bedau (1982) cites, Actually being dead is no different from not being born,
a (non) experience we all had before being born. But death is not realized. The process of dying
which is a different matter is usually confused with it. In turn, dying is feared because death is
expected, even though death is feared because it is confused with dying (p. 338).
Death is an experience that cannot be experienced and ends all experience. Because it is
unknown as it is certain, death is universally feared. The life of a man should be sacred to each
other (Bedau, H., 1982, p. 330).
I nnocent Executed - no Proof
Opponents claim lots of innocent man are wrongly executed. There has never been any
proof of an innocent man being executed!! A study by Bedau-Radlet claimed there were 22 cases
where the defendant have been wrongly executed. However, this study is very
controversial. Studies like Markman and Cassell find that the methodology was flawed in l2
cases. There was no substantial evidence of guilt, and no evidence of innocence. Moreover, our
judicial system takes extra precautions to be sure the innocent and their rights are protected. Most
likely an innocent person would not be executed (Internet).
Death Penalty Saves Lives
The question is whether or not execution of an innocent person is strong enough to abolish
the death penalty. Remember, the death penalty saves lives. Repeat murders are eliminated and
foreseeable murders are deterred. You must consider the victim as well as the defendant.
Hugo Bedau (1982) claims:
The execution of the innocent believed guilty is a
miscarriage of justice that must be opposed whenever
detected. But such miscarriage of justice do not
warrant abolition at the death penalty. Unless the
moral drawbacks of an activity practice, which include
the possible death of innocent lives that might be saved
by it, the activity is warranted. Most human activities like
medicine, manufacturing, automobile, and air traffic, sports,
not to mention wars and revolutions, cause death of
innocent bystanders. Nevertheless, advantages outweigh
the disadvantages, human activities including the penal
system with all its punishments are morally justified ( p. 323).


Wesley Lowe states, As for the penal system, accidentally executing an innocent person, I
must point out that in this imperfect world, citizens are required to take certain risks in exchange for
safety. He says we risk dying in an accident when we drive a car, and it is acceptable. Therefore,
risking that someone might be wrongfully executed is worth saving thousands of innocent people
who may be the next victim of murder (Internet).
Death Penalty - Right to Live
Opponents say the State is like a murder himself. The argument here is, if execution is
murder, than killing someone in war is murder. Our country should stop fighting wars. On the
contrary, is it necessary to protect the rights of a group of people. Hence, the death penalty is vital
to protect a persons right to live! Is arresting someone same as kidnapping someone? In the same,
executing someone is not murder, it is punishment by society for a deserving criminal.
Bible Quotes
Huggo A. Bedau (1982) states one popular objection to Capital punishment is that it
gratifies the desire for revenge regarding as unworthy. The bible quotes the Lord declaring
Vengeance is mine (Romans 12:19). He thus legitimized vengeance and reserved it to
Himself. However, the Bible also enjoins, The murderer shall surely be put
to death (Numbers 35:16-18), recognizing that the death penalty can be warranted whatever the
motive. Religious tradition certainly suggest no less (p. 330).
All religions believe having life is sacred. If we deprive someone else life, he only suffers
minor inconvenience; hence, we cheapen human lifethis is where we are at today.
Death Penalty Deterrent Effect
If we do not know whether the death penalty will deter others, we will be confronted with
two uncertainties . If we have the death penalty and achieve no deterrent effect, than, the life of
convicted murderers has been expended in vain (from a deterrent point of view)here is a net
loss. If we have the death sentence, and deter future murderers, we spared the lives of future
victims-(the prospective murderers gain, too; they are spared punishment because they were
deterred). In this case, the death penalty is a gain, unless the convicted murderer is valued more
highly than that of the unknown victim, or victims (Carrington, F., l978).
Capital Punishment is not excessive, unnecessary punishment, for those who knowingly
and intentionally commits murder in premeditation, to take lives of others. Even though capital
punishment is not used so often, it still is a threat to the criminal.
J ustice
Justice requires punishing the guilty even if only some can be punished and sparing the
innocent, even if all are not spared. Morally, justice must always be preferred to equality. Justice
cannot ever permit sparing some guilty person, or punishing some innocent ones, for the sake of
equalitybecause others have been spared or punished. In practice, penalties could never be
applied if we insisted that they can be inflicted on only a guilty person unless we are able to make
sure that they are equally applied to all other guilty persons. Anyone familiar with the law
enforcement knows that punishments can be inflicted only on an unavoidable shudder selection of
the guilty (Bedau, H., 1977).
Irwin Isenberg (1977) said, when you kill a man with premeditation, you do something
different than stealing from him. I favor the death penalty as a matter of justice and human
dignity even apart from deterrence. The penalty must be appropriate to the seriousness of the crime
(p. 135).
Life is Sacred
In an interview with Professor van den Haag, a psychoanalyst and adjunct professor at New
York University, was questioned, Why do you favor the death penalty? His answer was that
the Federal prison had a man sentenced to Life who, since he has been in prison committed three
more murders on three separate occasions .They were prison guards and inmates. Theres no more
punishment he can receive, therefore, in many cases, the death penalty is the only penalty that can
deter. He went on saying I hold life sacred, and because I hold it sacred, I feel that anyone who
takes some ones life should know that thereby he forsakes his own and does not just suffer an
inconvenience about being put into prison for sometime (as cited in Isenberg, 1977, p. 135)
An Eye for an Eye
Some people argue that the capital punishment tends to brutalize and disregards
society. Do you agree? Some people say the that penalty is legalized murder because it is like an
eye for an eye. The difference between punishment and the crime is that one is legalized and the
other is not! People are more brutalized by what they see on T.V. daily. People are not brutalized
by punishments they are brutalized by our failure to serious punish, the brutal acts.
Could the same effect be achieved by putting the criminal in prison for life? Life in
prison means in six months the parole board can release the man to 12 years in some states. But
even if it were real life imprisonment, its deterrent effect will never be as great as that of the death
penalty. The death penalty is the only actually irrevocable penalty. Because of that, it is the one
that people fear the most (Isenberg, I., 1977).
The framers of the constitution clearly believed that Capital punishment was an acceptable
mess of protecting society form wicked dissolute men Thomas Jefferson liked to talk about it
(Carrington, F., 1978).
CONCLUSION
My research on issues on the death penalty is one of the most debatable in the criminal
justice system. Today, there are many pros and cons to this death penalty issues. However, if
people weigh the arguments properly, and have empathy for the victims, they will be more inclined
to favor capital punishment. As a matter of fact, most people in the U.S. today are in favor of
it. But we need more states to enforce the death penalty.
As you may have read in the arguments, the death penalty help to curtail future murderers,
thus, we can save more lives. The chances of murdering an innocent man is very minute.