FREE ESSAY ON DEATH PENATLY

DEATH PENATLY

Abolitionists claim that capital punishment does not deter murderers from killing or
killing again. They base most of their argument against deterrence on statistics. States
that use it extensively show a higher murder rate than those that have abolished the
death penalty. Also, states that have abolished the death penalty and then reinstituted
it show no significant change in the murder rate. They say adjacent states with the death
penalty and those without show no long term differences in the number of murders that
occur in that state. And finally, there has been no record of change in the rate of
homicides in a given city or state following a local execution. Any possibly of deterring
a would-be murderer from killing has little effect.
Most retentionists (people for capital punishment) argue that none of this statistical
evidence proves that capital punishment does not deter potential criminals. There is
absolutely no way prove, with any certainty, how many would-be murderers were in fact
deterred from killing They point out that the murder rate in any given state depends on
many things besides whether or not that state has capital punishment. They cite such
factors as the proportion of urban residents in the state, the level of economic
prosperity, and the social and racial makeup of the population. But a small minority is
ready to believe in these statistics and to abandon the deterrence argument. But they
defend the death penalty base on other arguments, relying primarily on the need to
protect society from killers who are considered high risks for killing again.
Incapacitation is another controversial aspect of the death penalty. Abolitionists say
condemning a person to death removes any possibility of rehabilitation. They are
confident in the life-sentence presenting the possibility of rehabilitating the convict.
But rehabilitation is a myth. The state does not know how rehabilitate people because
there are plenty of convict murderers who kill again. The life-sentence is also a myth
because overcrowding in the prisons. Early parole has released convicted murderers and
they still continue murder. Some escape and murder again, while others have murdered
someone in prison. There are countless stories in prisons where a violent inmate kills
another for his piece of chicken. Incapacitation is not solely meant as deterrence but is
meant to maximize public safety by remove any possibility of a convict murderer to murder
again.
The issue of execution of an innocent person is troubling to both abolitionists and
retentionists alike. Some people are frightened of this possibility enough to be
convinced that capital punishment should be abolished. This is not true at all. The
execution of innocent people is very rare because there are many safeguards guaranteeing
protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. There is legal assistance
provided and an automatic appeal for persons convicted of capital crimes. Persons under
the age of eighteen, pregnant women, new mothers or persons who have become insane can
not be sentenced to death. Retentionists argue almost all-human activities, ranging
trucking to construction, costs the lives of some innocent bystanders. These activities
can not be simply abandoned, because the advantages outweigh the losses. Capital
punishment saves lives as well as takes them. We must accept the few risks of wrongful
deaths for the sake of defending public safety.
Abolitionists say the cost of execution has become increasingly expensive and that life
sentence is more economical. A study of the Texas criminal system estimated the cost of
appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. This high cost includes $265,640 for the trial;
$294,240 for the state appeals; $113,608 for federal appeals (over six years); and
$135,875 for death row housing. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas
maximum-security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000. This is a huge
amount of taxpayer money but the public looks at it as an investment in safety since
these murders will never kill again. Retentionists argue that these high costs are due to
the lengthy time and the high expense result from innumerable appeals, many over
'technicalities' which have little or nothing to do with the question of guilt or
innocence, and do little more than jam up the nation's court system. If these 'frivolous'
appeals were eliminated, the procedure would neither take so long nor cost so much 
The moral issues concerning the legitimacy of the death have been brought by many
abolitionists. They think that respect for life forbids the use of the death penalty,
while retentionists believe that respect for life requires it. Retentionists says the
bible (Genesis 9:6) says, Whosoever sheds man's blood, by man may his blood be shed. This
classic argument in favor of the death penalty has usually been interpreted as a proper
and moral reason for putting a murderer to death. Let the punishment fit the crime is its
secondary counterpart (Cox). Both quotes imply that the murderer deserves to die and it
was his own fault for putting himself on death row. Supporters of capital punishment say
that society has the right to kill in defense of its members, just as an individual has
the right to kill in self defense for his or her own personal safety. This analogy is
somewhat doubtful, however, as long as the effectiveness of the death penalty as a
deterrent to violent crimes has yet to be proven.
2) This part will be brief. The conflict theory looks at the social inequality. Now they

feel that the capital punishment is making it more worst because there are so many
inequalities in the death penalty issue. For example there are more blacks being executed
than the whites, even though they both committed the same crime but the blacks will have
more chances of getting a death penalty. Not only the color of the skin but the class
status are also inequality. The poor cannot afford a good lawyer, they're stuck with a
bad lawyer so it's more likely they will be executed than the rich. 
The functionalist will think the death penalty is a thing that will scare people from
committing the crimes. It will reduce the crimes. They are more concerned with the amount
of money spend on the death rows. But sentencing a person to death is not cheap too. The
functionalist also notes that there are also dysfunction behind the death penalty. 
3) Well, it is hard for me to answer. I'm in middle of both sides. I'm not sure which one
is right. But in my opinion, I believe that if we abolish the death penalty, we could end
up in huge debts. The debts are just for paying the prisoners in the death row. The
prisons could become overcrowded. We don't want to have "the final solution" a plan set
up by Adolf Hitler. He wanted to eliminate Jews. Same with us, if the prisons become
overcrowded, we don't want the idea to appear "the final solution" is to kill all
criminals. If the death penalty is abolished, it will not improve the people's behavior.
Right now most people would rather to die than to spend lifetime in cell. So its hard to
say, what will happen if we abolish the death penalty, but I know one thing for sure is
that the prisons will become over crowded and also the murder rates will not change.