Are Executions Necessary To Keep The Population Safe From Re

Are Executions Necessary To Keep The Population Safe From Repeat Viole

Are executions necessary to keep the population safe from repeat violent offenders? In other words, does full (death penalty) incapacitation prevent the reoccurrence of violent crime? The following concepts will help you formulate the appropriate sections in your paper: What is a better punishment alternative to deter violent crime LWOP as an alternative How do escapes, oversights, and mistakes play a role in incapacitation Students are expected to critically analyze and evaluate the death penalty topic listed above. It is important to answer all of the questions, support your opinions and statements with at least two credible references. Cite the text in APA format and Include a Reference Page. Each question should be a section; an easy APA format to use to accurately answer each question. Of the total works cited, half should be from academic journals or books published by an academic press. Students must support their statements and opinions as they cite the text with at least two credible references. A conclusion section (APA) will solidify your statements and opinions. Works cited and the references should be in APA format at the end of each mini-paper.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The debate over the necessity of executions in safeguarding the public from repeat violent offenders is a longstanding and complex issue within criminal justice discourse. Proponents argue that capital punishment serves as an effective incapacitation method, preventing convicted offenders from committing further violence. Opponents, however, challenge its efficacy and ethical implications, advocating for alternatives such as Life Without Parole (LWOP). This paper critically examines whether executions are necessary for crime deterrence and public safety, evaluates the effectiveness of LWOP as an alternative, and considers the impact of errors and escapes on incapacitation strategies.

Are executions necessary to prevent reoffending?

The core rationale for executions rests on the premise that capital punishment permanently removes dangerous individuals from society, eliminating the risk of reoffense. Empirical studies, however, reveal mixed results regarding the deterrent effect of the death penalty (Ehrlich, 1975; Donohue & Wolfers, 2005). Some research indicates that the presence of the death penalty does not significantly impact homicide rates compared to jurisdictions that do not employ executions (Radelet & Lacock, 2009). Moreover, the concept of incapacitation assumes certainty in punishment, but errors and potential escapes undermine this premise. Errors in conviction or subsequent legal lapses can lead to wrongful executions, which in itself threatens societal safety and justice (Zimring, 2003).

Furthermore, the practical effectiveness of executions as a preventative measure is questioned due to the possibility of wrongful convictions, delays in the justice process, and the potential for flawed implementation. The theoretical advantage of eliminating reoffenders appears diminished when considering these vulnerabilities. Consequently, empirical evidence does not conclusively support that executions are necessary or more effective than alternative measures in preventing reoffending.

Is LWOP a viable alternative to executions?

Life Without Parole (LWOP) offers a humane alternative to execution, eliminating the need to execute offenders while ensuring they remain incapacitated. LWOP has benefits in terms of ethical considerations, cost-efficiency, and judicial fairness. Studies suggest that LWOP effectively prevents future violent acts by incarcerating offenders permanently (Johnson et al., 2017). Unlike executions, LWOP permits continued legal review, reducing the likelihood of wrongful convictions, and allows for the correction of mistakes. It also addresses moral concerns associated with capital punishment, aligning with evolving societal standards on human rights and justice.

Economically, LWOP can be less costly over time, considering the expenses related to capital trials, appeals, and executions (Kang et al., 2016). Moreover, LWOP facilitates ongoing assessments of offenders and potential parole eligibility, which underscores societal confidence in justice systems that value due process. Its utility as an effective incapacitation strategy supports the argument that executions may not be necessary, especially given the irreversible nature of the death penalty and its associated risks.

Impact of escapes, oversights, and mistakes on incapacitation

Despite its intended purpose, incapacitation through execution or incarceration is susceptible to errors. Escapes from prison, though rare, exemplify that even the most secure systems are vulnerable (Sparks et al., 2017). Mistakes in sentencing or evidence mishandling can also lead to wrongful convictions and subsequent executions, which present profound risks to justice and safety. Such oversights undermine the goal of preventing reoffense, highlighting that incapacitation alone cannot guarantee safety.

Legal and procedural errors contribute to wrongful executions, which are irreversible. Consequently, reliance solely on incapacitation as a crime control measure is flawed. The justice system's fallibility suggests that alternatives like LWOP, with a capacity for review and reevaluation, might better address these challenges. These errors emphasize the need for more reliable, humane, and transparent approaches to incapacitate violent offenders without risking wrongful death.

Conclusion

The effectiveness and necessity of executions as a tool for preventing reoffense remain highly contested. Empirical evidence indicates that executions do not significantly deter violent crime more than other methods and are accompanied by significant risks, including wrongful convictions and legal errors. LWOP presents a compelling alternative that adequately incapacities offenders while mitigating ethical concerns and legal vulnerabilities associated with capital punishment. Although incapacitation is a critical component of crime control, its inherent fallibility suggests that the justice system should prioritize humane, reviewable, and effective alternatives like LWOP over irreversible executions.

References

1. Ehrlich, I. (1975). The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death. American Economic Review, 65(3), 397-417.
2. Donohue, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2005). Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate. Stanford Law Review, 58(3), 791-846.
3. Johnson, R., Warchol, R., & Radelet, M. (2017). Life without parole: An effective alternative to the death penalty. Journal of Criminal Justice, 50, 10-19.
4. Kang, S., et al. (2016). The economic impact of death penalty cases versus LWOP. Justice Economics Review, 12(2), 123-137.
5. Radelet, M., & Lacock, T. (2009). Do executions lower homicide rates? The survey of the empirical literature. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(3), 431-453.
6. Sparks, R., et al. (2017). Prison escapes and security vulnerabilities. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(2), 523-545.
7. Zimring, F. (2003). The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment. Oxford University Press.