Theory

There are no facts that can precisely state that the death penalty deters crime. A utilitarian thought can not be used in this scenario. The utilitarian theory is attempting to serve a greater good. In this case the argument is that the death penalty deters crime, so in return by the execution of one person you are saving a greater amount. But, in its defense this is not true.

The death penalty does not deter crime and in fact murders have rose 4.8 percent in 2006. This has been the largest increase since 1991. In addition, there has been articles that state that between 1933 and 1969 the homicides had dropped 8 percent for each execution conducted. The important fact that has been left out was that during this time frame execution had decreased by 80 percent. In other words, the fewer executions resulted in fewer homicides. So in fact the death penalty does not deter crime and therefore it is not serving the greater good.



Another theory that can be applied is Kant’s Categorical Imperative. According to the Kantian theory one needs to treat people as end; not simply as means. People that feel that the death penalty deters crime are treating people as means. They are attempting to achieve a goal regardless of the end result of an individual. Death penalty as a deterrent fails to pass Kant’s Categorical Imperative, subsequently leading the punishment to be morally wrong.

Pro-Death Penalty views...

As for the scientific studies, there are no true facts that have determine that the death penalty does not deter homicides. If all murderers are sentenced to the death and executed, potential offenders will think twice before committing a murder.

A professor from the State University of New York stated, “In fact, the empirical analysis suggest that on the average tradeoff between the execution of an offender and the lives of potential victims what it might have saved was the scale of magnitude of 1 for 8 for the period 1933-67 in the United States” (Ehrlich).

Meaning that for every one execution, eight victims will survive. By these facts alone one can use utilitarian thought, where the execution on one life is serving the greater good. In a utilitarian theory it is justified to kill a few if it will save the lives of many. It does not matter if the person is innocent or guilty the end result is what matters. Murders are not just committed in the heat of passion, but at times are well thought and planned. These individuals would be deterred if they knew that they would be executed without hesitation once incarcerated for murder.

Does it deter crime?

Scientific studies cannot prove that the death penalty deters crime. The death penalty does not work as a deterrent because the majority of people who do commit murders do not expect to be caught and furthermore the person acts in the heat of passion. According to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Crime Report, areas of the country that use the death penalty are the least safe for police officers. These stats show that the death penalty does not deter crime, but influences it. Former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox stated, “It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you’ll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse” (Death). To date, there has not been any evidence that the death penalty deters murderers rather than a life sentence without parole. We must provide justice to all or loose it all.

Cont...The Legal System

There are times when guilty individuals are set free due to mistrials. The law has been arranged so innocent people are not executed. Many moral dilemmas have risen from this argument; the law has deemed that it is better to let a murderer free than execute an innocent individual. This in fact is treating individuals as ends and not simply as means. When the law fails and executes an innocent individual then the law has contradicted its purpose and that is why the death penalty needs to be abolished. Once an execution is conducted, there is no way to repent if a mistake has been made.

Governor George Ryan of Illinois stated, “I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state’s taking of innocent life... Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate” (Amnesty).

The execution of an innocent person involves numerous of moral dilemmas.

The Legal System

Our capital punishment system holds many flaws, for example, where innocent people are sentenced to death and executed. Studies have shown that in 2003 alone there have been 10 exonerations. Once one is executed, there is no way to turn it around, even if mistakes have been made. Life in prison is the most logical manner to punish one; this makes sure that the system does not kill an innocent person. A study conducted by Columbia University Law School, “found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted” (Death). The death penalty should not be taken lightly and without a flawless system the death penalty should be abolished.