Dylan Pidich. Boston College Philosophy. . "Does The Retributive

Powerful Fighter Muhammad Ali once said “I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs”. So I’ll go to jail, so what?” Most people believe that the justice system is in place to protect society and rehabilitate those who have done wrong— but that’s not always the case. Being imprisoned is hard enough, however being unfairly incarcerated or put to death for a crime one did not commit is insanity. In Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson implements impactful, heartbreaking anecdotes and addresses the lack of credibility in the criminal justice system to establish his own as rhetorical devices, to try and alter the reader’s perception of the criminal justice system and how truly trustworthy the system actually is.

All of the research that I have done suggests that the death penalty is not a major source of deterrence for criminals to commit severe crimes such as homicide. In a 2009 survey of America’s top criminologists, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and written by Professor Michael Radelet, eighty-eight percent of the expert criminologists stated that they do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent for criminals to commit homicide. Respondents to this survey were asked to base their answers on research, rather

A study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado recently made, found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective way to stop crime. The study by Lacock

In “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives”, written and published by David B. Mulhausen on September 29, 2014, Mulhausen speaks of the reasons why the death penalty is a proper way to bring murderers to justice. He believes that “some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties” (Mulhausen). Not only does he believe that the death penalty is useful to set criminals to justice, but he also believes that the enforcement of the death penalty deters crime rates.

More than two centuries ago, the death penalty was commonplace in the United States, but today it is becoming increasingly rare. In the article “Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?”, Diann Rust-Tierney argues that it should be abolished, and Joshua Marquis argues that it should not be abolished. Although the death penalty is prone to error and discrimination, the death penalty should not be abolished because several studies show that the death penalty has a clear deterrent effect, and we need capital punishment for those certain cases in which a killer is beyond redemption.

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies – which took

Many people question the need for the death penalty, the execution of those who have committed certain crimes, as a capital punishment. For instance, the author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment”, Jack Greenburg, who is a Professor of Law at Columbia University, argues that the death penalty does not benefit society and is not necessary. Likewise, Kevin Johnson, writer of “Study Finds No Evidence Death Penalty Deters Crime”, also argues against the use of the death penalty by pointing out the flaws in the common research of deterrence. On the other hand, some may also argue for the many aids the death penalty offers. Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy at Fordham University, Ernest Van den Haag, with his “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense”, and authors James M. Reams and Charles T. Putnam, with their article, “Making a Case for the Deterrence Effect of Capital Punishment”, both give arguments for the grander justice the death penalty offers. While each of these articles give very well thought out claims for the necessity of the death penalty, using arguments including racism, and deterrence, Van den Haag’s claim gives the clearest and best arguments.

The death penalty has been a controversial topic among society for ages. An issue often brought up when discussing the legality of capital punishment is wrongful convictions. Advocates of the death penalty say that, while wrongful convictions are an issue, those few cases do not outweigh the need for lawful execution of felons who are, without a doubt, guilty. On the other hand, the opponents argue that the death penalty is wrong from both a legal and moral standpoint, an ineffective form of punishment, and should, ultimately, be outlawed. With both advocates and challengers constantly debating on this topic, the death penalty and wrongful convictions continue to be hot buttons issues for Americans and people throughout the world.

It is irrational to think that the death penalty – a remote threat at best – will avert murders committed in drug turf wars or by street-level dealers” (Bedau). This shows that the death penalty is not stopping murders from occurring. The introduction to the death penalty conducted a survey were top criminologists stated that the death penalty does not deter homicide rates (Introduction). “For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9 [Murder rates by the 100,000], while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8” (Introduction).

Lenta (2015) challenges a report on the ethical justification for use of the death penalty as he examines the philosophical investigation conducted by Matthew Kramer, who reports that the death penalty is not an acceptable form of punishment and that repentance is a preferred option. Lenta (2015) relates that the proposal he examined, called the “purgative rationale,” does not offer a convincing argument that the system should be adjusted according to that author’s suggestions. For example, “defilingly evil offenders,” those with abusive or deprived backgrounds, may not have had the societal tools to develop into a fully-functioning adult, and that these adult criminals should be offered a chance at redemption. He further challenges the notion that the community be responsible for incarcerating an offender for the amount of time it takes that person to be repentant. Instead, Lenta (2015) argues that even with repentance, there is no guarantee that the condemned would no longer pose as an affront to humanity, and there is no guarantee that a prescriptive approach toward offenders is more favorable than a punitive

Another issue related to the subject involves whether or not capital punishment actually deters criminals from committing crimes. Most people think that the death penalties primary function is to deter others in the future from committing similar crimes. There is evidence that at times capital punishment does deter. However, there are those or cite evidence or opinion that the capital punishment does not achieve its desired effect. The majority of this paper will focus on whether capital punishment actually deters crime.

"The right to life and dignity are the most important of all human rights and this must be demonstrated by the state in everything that it does, including the way it punishes criminals.” - Justice Arthur Chaskalson. The death penalty is considered, “the legal” punishment for a criminal. Although the death penalty has been used for many years, the thought of it continues to bring shivers down the back of most of society. Even though there has been an abundant of debates whether it should be abolished or not, citizens do not really know the facts behind it. Most of the society assumes that the death penalty is less expensive than life in jail

In contrast, the question of deterrence can be answered objectively using common sense and statistics. By analyzing different arguments for and against the death penalty, such as the "fear of death" myth, the cost of the death penalty, and the racial and economic bias of the death penalty, it can be shown that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent of crime.

An issue that has continually created tension in today's society is whether the death penalty serves as a justified and valid form of punishment. Whenever the word "death penalty" comes up, extremists from both sides start yelling out their arguments. One side says deterrence, the other side says there's a potential of executing an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says execution is murder. Crime is an evident part of society, and everyone is aware that something must be done about it. Most people know the threat of crime to their lives, but the question lies in the methods and action in which it should be dealt with. In several parts of

The majority of states in America resorts to the death penalty; nonetheless there is a trend toward abolishing capital punishment. As of two thousand seventeen there are nineteen states that have abolished the death penalty as a form of punishment for various reasons. Over the years the death penalty has cost the US millions. This punishment violates our Human Rights and evidently does not deter crime as some people may believe. The death penalty is permanent and does not allow a possibility of rehabilitation; taking someone’s life away cannot be justified. The system is flawed for many reasons, some of which are incompetent lawyers, disparities amongst minorities, and wrongful convictions. The death penalty is awfully ineffective on the grounds of being ethical, cost effective, or a deterrent to crime.