The killed inmate probably deserved to be executed anyways.But what if the death penalty was a deterrent to violent crime? This point does not satisfy the argument that the death penalty is necessary.Statistics cited in favor of the death penalty are often dubious by including only murder rates per capita and the number of executions in some lengthy period of time. It is neither conclusive nor factors in other circumstances such as regional disparities, ethnicity of the violators and the executed, and what other factors (such as law enforcement efforts) had been implemented in that time that may have prevented violent crime.Tags: Argumentative Essay On MarijuanaAnti Essays PasswordCollege Acceptance EssayEssay On Professional Values And EthicsMulti Paragraph Essay PersuasiveGround Rules Ptlls EssaysIn Essay Form
In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s.” In the United States, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average.
In a state-by-state analysis in the US of the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.
When Thomas Aquinas wrote, “The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state,” he was probably under the same misguided impression as today’s advocates of the death penalty that murdering murderers prevents murdering.
He was also probably under an understandable impression that his prediction would be proven right someday with statistics and data, much like modern supporters who may be aware that there are no real statistics that prove the death penalty is a deterrent to violent crime yet hope there someday will be.
It should also be stressed that once a heinous crime has been committed, there are probably few if any deterrents to further crimes to avoid arrest and trial, especially if there is the prospect of the death penalty being applied to the initial criminal act.
In Dudley Sharp’s 1997 paper, “Death Penalty and Sentencing [Dis]Information”, Sharp argues that with no death penalty and only life without parole, there is no deterrent for [life without parole] inmates killing others while in prison or after escape.This is laughable, but only because Sharp is apparently sincere about this statement.By this reasoning, the death penalty must be used to keep our prisons safe and kill those who kill in prison, rather than weighing our approaches at making prisons safer.But yet, those in favor of the death penalty still attempt to use statistics and data to their advantage despite most data not being in favor of their argument.Some use basic information, such as that 99.9% of all convicted capital murderers and their attorneys argue for life, not death, in the punishment phase of their trial.Said conclusions include the fact that it is not, as those in favor of the death penalty will argue with arguably inconclusive statistics, a deterrent to violent crime, is not an acceptable penalty for a violation of the social contract, is not more "economical" than life imprisonment, and by its nature permits a risk of executing innocent individuals regardless of the implementation of numerous safeguards.Addresses the applications of punishment in Western penal and judicial systems, the argument of deterrence, the social contract, the subservient position of the state in relation to its population, miscarriages of justice, human rights abuses, and the appeal to emotion. It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in Rational Wiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of Rational Wiki editors' thoughts.On a state-to-state comparison, states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates.Admittedly, these statistics are also subject to heavy scrutiny on the basis of being circumstantial and narrow.