With the 110 states that have made the death penalty illegal, data from the European nation without the death penalty shows that the United States has more than twice as many homicides as in Europe (Shin, 2007). This is another appropriate example of countries that do not apply the death penalty with lower homicide rates than their counterparts that apply the death penalty. However, it should be noted that these statistics do not mean that the country applying the death penalty causes a brutal effect. They fully demonstrate that deterrence does not in any way lead to a decrease in the number of homicides reported each year. What jurisdiction does the law have over his own life? The United States was founded on the rights to life, liberty and property. The death penalty, also known as the death penalty, is a form of punishment in which a criminal is killed for his murder. The denial of life, the […] The American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice and the Law and Society Association conducted a survey on the death penalty. A large majority of respondents believed that punishment is not a proven deterrent to homicide. More than 80% of respondents strongly believe that current research does not support a deterrent effect on the death penalty. Some criminologists suggest that the death penalty causes more homicides each year.
The brutalization effect means that murder rates will tend to rise due to executions in the United States. In short, people with or without the death penalty will always commit crimes. Although some studies explain that the death penalty is an effective form of deterrence, there is a lack of conclusive evidence to prove that people are deterred. The death penalty is therefore not effective and should be banned altogether. This article focuses on whether the death penalty is effective and fair. This must be done from a biblical point of view and from a research point of view based on whether or not the death penalty deters crime. Based on the purpose of this paper, the definition of the death penalty «refers to the sentencing process of convicted persons […] The scenario with lawyer Diane Marshall can be used as a case study to prove the ineffectiveness of the death penalty. A convicted murderer told him that even if people were told they were cooked in oil, they would not be deterred because criminals have in mind that they will not be caught committing crimes. Most of the time, criminals do not stop and think about the possible consequences of the actions they take. It has been suggested that public execution is a good way to get criminals to think about the implications of their actions.
It was common in cities and towns across the United States and served as a lasting emotional and visual dramatization that made people think more about the consequences of crime. In the 1880s, however, this method ceased to work. This was because it was barbaric and deliberately undermined the deterrent function. It is believed that society uses a long history of punishment as a way to scare people away from crime. The fact that many believe that society has the greatest interest in curbing murder and should therefore apply the highest form of deterrence. That deterrent is the death penalty. This has been supported by the popular view that in cases where murderers are killed, potential future murderers are deterred by the instilled fear of losing their lives. However, it should be noted that, contrary to deterrent ideas, some studies have shown that the death penalty does not have a deterrent effect. The assumption can be seen as the only fact that resonates in people`s minds when they say that the death penalty is an effective deterrent.
However, it should be noted that the assumption is far from the facts. There is not enough evidence to prove that such a death penalty can have a deterrent effect. It is firmly believed that the great fear of such punishment or justice can deter murder or other crimes that merit this form of punishment. If that were true, people would not take drugs, would not run on highways because they are afraid of being chased. That`s how I feel because there are crimes in the sense that if someone thinks about being sentenced to death, it should come to mind. The utilitarian theory is a perfect example of how I believe the death penalty should be considered. That`s how I feel because of the reasons behind the theory. Since it is forward-looking and hopes to deter other criminals from committing the same act, it shows that the focus is not on the murder itself, but on future criminals who might commit the same act. Everyone can give their own opinion on which theory is morally correct, but when it comes to which theory is best for society, utilitarian theory is by far the best. The death penalty is an advantage for society; It discourages potential culprits and also serves as retaliation for offenders and is not at all unethical. Arguments against the death penalty often do not hold up if they are analysed more closely.
It is important for the country to be united on this issue, as opposed to the fact that some States apply the death penalty and others do not. The death penalty can be a very useful device for convicting offenders who have committed a percentage of the worst known offences. It is fundamental that we begin to pass laws that legalize the death penalty throughout the United States so that justice can be served. In Canada, capital punishment has proven to be an ineffective form of deterrence. The country decided in 1976 to abolish this form of punishment and has sought other ways to punish capital crimes. A year earlier, approximately 721 homicides had been committed in Canada (Chandlier, 1976). In 2001, there were a total of 554 homicide cases in Canada, representing a 23% decrease in homicides before the abolition of the death penalty. While the death penalty was certainly a form of deterrence, one wonders why there were 167 other cases of homicide committed while the country applied the death penalty. In 1999, 5.7 million homicides per 100,000 population were recorded, while the homicide rate in the United States was nearly three times lower, at 1.8 million in the same population sample (Banner and Banner 2009). One wonders how active and potential killings are influenced by state actions. They are more affected by the simple explanation by the phrase «You murder and we execute you». From this generalization, we can deduce the idea that the death penalty would serve as a form of deterrence.
However, it is unfortunate that the statistics do not agree with the idea that deterrence is effective. In the true sense, criminals can be considered psychologically unaffected, regardless of the direction in which they are. This leads to the conclusion that the death penalty is not a good form of deterrence and cannot deter people from committing crimes. The history of the death penalty dates back to ancient China and Babylon. However, the first recorded death sentence took place in Egypt in the 16th century BC, where executions were carried out with an axe. From the beginning, people were treated according to their social status; These rich people have rarely been brutally executed; […] The death penalty has been used for centuries to punish those who commit heinous crimes. The death penalty has been a controversial issue for years, as its concepts of deterrence, just punishment and retribution are divided. For it to be executed, there would have to be legal action. Crimes punishable by death fall into this category, such as murder, adultery, rape and certain types of fraud. This form of punishment was introduced in the 18th century BC during the reign of King Hammurabi of Babylon (Good, 1967). He codified punishment for 25 crimes.in different 7th century BC. The draconian code of Athens made the death penalty the only form of punishment for all crimes.
In the 5th century BC. the Romans carried out this form of punishment (from the 12 tablets) with crucifixions, drowning, live burns and stakes (Smith, 2012). In the 10th century AD, Britain carried out the death penalty by hanging. However, William the Conqueror opposed the death penalty during his reign. However, Henry VII had about 7200 people executed by cantonment, beheading, hanging, cooking and burning at the stake (Block & Hostettler, 1997). Human behavior and history have shown that rational human instincts do not prevent people from committing crimes. If that were the case, we would never apply the death penalty. They would only inform the public about the law and they would be so afraid that they would never commit a crime again. It is unfortunate that there are people who commit crimes out of passion and who care less about the possible repercussions. With or without the death penalty, people will be forced to commit crimes.
It should therefore be noted that the option of the death penalty is never conclusive evidence or justification in the criminal justice system to prevent people from committing crimes. For my contemporary work, I have chosen a subject that is constantly discussed, the question of the death penalty and whether it is human.