Do You Think The Death Penalty An Effective Punishment To De ✓ Solved

Do you think the death penalty an effective punishment to deter

Death penalty is an issue that has always been debated in America with questions of if it is or not the most cost effective, justifiable, morally right and the most asked question is if death penalty is a deterrent for heinous crimes. Most people in America are so much against the death penalty while some people also happen to support it even those that are based in other countries. After a further investigation was conducted, it was determined that death penalty doesn’t serve any purpose in deterring crimes.

Capital punishment is neither justifiable nor morally right. The research paper covers the following sections: Background of the study, Capital punishment is also referred to as death penalty. According to Oxford Dictionaries, it can be defined as the legally authorized killing of a person as punishment for a crime. Some of the crimes that can lead to someone being sentenced to death include murder or robbery.

Courts view the capital punishment as the ultimate punishment and there is no appeal from death. Various methods of capital punishment exist and the most widely used method is lethal injection, created to make the death penalty appear more humane. Since its introduction in December 7, 1982, over 1000 prisoners have faced execution through lethal injection. Other methods include lethal gas, hanging, firing squad, and electrocution.

There is, however, other alternatives to death punishment, such as imprisonment for life with or without the possibility of parole. Being imprisoned for life is as harsh as death penalty yet it does not violate human rights. Violation of human rights is a critical issue with the death penalty as it takes life away from a person without their will.

Problem statement: Death penalty is a violation of human rights, raising spiritual debates, court cases, and the role of DNA evidence. Some aspects related to the death penalty are cruel and unusual punishment. Other issues include discrimination, deterrent effects, and due process. Instead of death penalty, there are better means of punishment like life imprisonment.

Purpose statement: The purpose of this research is to discuss death penalties and their consequences on victims. It also explores the pros and cons of death penalties and considers better methods of punishment that would be preferable to death penalty. If killing is a sin, why would one kill to punish the sinner? Wrongful convictions lead to losses of innocent lives.

Research questions focus on: Is the death penalty an effective method to deter future crimes in the United States? Are there better methods of punishment? What are the effects on the victim's family?

Hypothesis: The death penalty is not an effective method to deter future crimes in the United States as better methods exist. Alternative methods of punishment include life imprisonment, both with and without parole.

Death penalty has negative effects on the accused and the victim's family. It often causes psychological trauma, especially if wrongful execution occurs. Victims’ families often suffer immensely, particularly children who lose parents.

Conceptual perspectives: The death penalty violates human rights. Every individual has the right to life and dignity. Placing a person's life in the hands of the government constitutes a rights violation. It also raises ethical concerns regarding the state's capacity to decide life or death.

The significance of this study is to convince the U.S. government that capital punishment should not be the primary means of punishing heinous crimes. By opposing death penalty, we protect human rights.

Delimitations: This study only covers the deterrent effect of crimes in the United States, including local, state, and federal laws.

Limitations: There is a lack of comprehensive records regarding many death penalty cases throughout history, leading to an incomplete understanding.

General overview of the research design concludes that the federal judiciary has limited the use of the death penalty.

Section one discusses why the death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent for heinous crimes, highlighting human rights violations and the lack of true justice.

Section two reviews the literature on the debate surrounding deterrent effects. Supporters argue its effectiveness, while opponents see it as an outdated and ineffective measure. Gerber and Johnson argue that it should be abolished, citing evidence that indicates capital punishment does not prevent crime.

Schabas categorizes the death penalty as government-sanctioned murder, with a growing movement against it. Some suggest modifications to ensure legality, emphasizing the need for juror agreement on guilt.

Conceptual framework: The debate continues, exploring ethical considerations without bias. Abolishing the death penalty does not inherently increase or decrease murder rates. Perspectives vary based on evidence interpretation.

Luckily, organizations like Amnesty International advocate against the death penalty and educate the public using statistics and facts that highlight issues related to race, mental health, and wrongful convictions.

Paper For Above Instructions

The discourse surrounding the death penalty spans decades, incorporating legal, ethical, and social considerations. This paper examines whether capital punishment effectively deters crime within the context of the United States. It assembles a broad array of perspectives, examining the moral implications while suggesting viable alternatives.

Historically, the death penalty has been a contentious issue. Various states in the U.S. continue to support capital punishment as a means of justice for society. Nevertheless, numerous studies indicate no correlation between the death penalty and a decrease in crime rates. For instance, Ndung'u (2015) asserts that regions with harsher penalties do not experience lower homicide rates.

Critics of capital punishment consistently highlight its moral inadequacies. Schabas (2002) argues that capital punishment equates to premeditated murder, stripping individuals of their human dignity. This aligns with critique from Amnesty International, which points to the irrevocable nature of the death penalty and the risk of executing innocent people (Amnesty International, 2023).

Further analysis sheds light on wrongful convictions—which underscore the risks embedded in capital punishment. According to the Innocence Project (2021), 20% of those exonerated from death row were initially wrongfully convicted. This alarming statistic renders the death penalty particularly concerning, as it jeopardizes innocent lives and irreparably alters familial structures.

Additionally, the psychological impact on victims' families cannot be overlooked. The trauma from losing a loved one to wrongful execution significantly burdens families, compounding grief with unanswered questions about justice (Lillquist, 2005). Capital punishment complicates the grieving process and often perpetuates cycles of violence within communities.

Alternatives to capital punishment also warrant discussion. Life imprisonment provides a means of ensuring public safety while respecting human dignity (Gerber & Johnson, 2007). Such sentences can be rendered without the moral dilemmas associated with execution. Furthermore, life sentences with parole foster rehabilitative potential, allowing individuals to reintegrate into society and reduce recidivism (Zimring & Hawkins, 2001).

In creating a just and humane judicial system, safeguarding human rights stands paramount. The embrace of restorative justice practices promotes healing for victims while concurrently addressing the needs of offenders (Zehr, 2002). Rejecting the death penalty aligns with principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as emphasized in foundational documents like the Declaration of Independence.

This paper, through critical analysis and synthesis of existing literature, concludes that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent to crime. The potential for wrongful executions, the persistence of societal violence, and the psychological toll on families advocate for its abolishment. Further policy-making should focus on restorative approaches, fostering justice while upholding the intrinsic human dignity of every individual.

References

• Amnesty International. (2023). The death penalty in 2022: Global overview. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/
• Gerber, R. J., & Johnson, J. M. (2007). The top ten death penalty myths: The politics of crime control. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Publishing Group.
• Innocence Project. (2021). DNA exonerations in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/
• Lillquist, E. (2005). Absolute certainty and the death penalty. American Criminal Law Review, 42(1), 45.
• Schabas, W. (2002). The abolition of the death penalty in international law. Cambridge University Press.
• Ndung'u, M. (2015). The death penalty: A human rights perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(4), 289-295.
• Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. J. (2001). The future of America's death penalty: An introduction to the study of the evolving nature of the death penalty. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.