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.