General Webquest Directions: Put your name, date and block at the top. Find the answers by visiting the links found directly following the questions and reading ALL of the information based on these four macromolecules - carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids. Type you response after each question.…
Allen debates firstly on the utilitarian arguments and thus possible benefits of the death penalty. Accordingly to Allen capital punishment is a deterrent and an understandable reaction of those who have been affected by the homicides. However, the significance of deterrence is unclear. Studies result only minimum support for deterrence as a consequence of executions, or what Allen in other words is trying to say: death penalty is to discourage or, scare if you will, the people from committing a murder (the death penalty in the U.S. today in practise, only applies for murder) (2), and does not have any effect. “Capital punishment remains a freakishly rare punishment” says Allen. This is a reaction to the following, if capital punishment has indeed barely sufficient deterrence or caution effects like what was just argued, it can just as well be an argument for its increased use instead of its decreased use. People do not feel alarmed enough for the consequences to prevent them from committing a murder. Clearly, it is difficult to understand the arguments from deterrence and finding a way to interpreted them sufficiently.…
Ron Fridell states, "The basic principles of deterrence are that punishments are necessary to deter crime and encourage law abiding behavior. Punishment must also fit the crime with more serious crimes requiring more serious punishments. (61) I agree with the author because capital punishment serves as a device to discourage certain forms of behavior by making the consequences of these actions unpleasant. Capital punishment is acceptable under those terms and it is necessity to the betterment of society. Micheal Kronwetter said, "No other punishment deters men so effectively as the punishment of death."(19) As an example, murder peaked in 1990 with 2,200 deaths, when New York did not have the death penalty. In 1997, when capital punishment was reinstated the murders for the year totaled 767. Deterrence obviously worked in relation to these crimes. There seems to be a direct relationship between deterrence and the effects of capital…
The death penalty is an extremely vital way of the criminal justice system. The punishment of death can help decrease crime rates. Also, this way of death can lessen the amount of criminals and give families closure. It gives closure because, the families now know that this person will never be able to hurt them or anyone else ever again. The death penalty is a very good way to end many troubles within the U.S.…
The death penalty is set in place to punish individuals for the most violent crimes. Its purpose to keep the death penalty legal was to deter people from doing these horrible crimes. That attempt has failed terribly. According to a report conducted by the National Research Council, it was said that we could not depend on the death penalty to deter the effect of murder rates. “Claiming that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on murder rates are fundamentally flawed and should not be used when making policy decisions” (Radelet & Locock, 2012).…
Crime is a major problem in our world today. Some people in our country live in fear that they will be the next victim of a crime; they could be robbed, raped, or even murdered. There are so many theories on how to stop crime. One of the theories is the use of the death penalty as a deterrent. There are a lot of issues that surround that idea that make the use of the death penalty just as bad as the accused committing murder. It is very contradictive, inconsistent, and unethical. Although some people believe that the death penalty deters crime, there are many arguments against it. For example, the costs are extremely high, racism is involved, and there are innocent people on death row to list a few.…
In our country’s justice system the death penalty is good for many things, such as, serving as a deterrent for violent crimes all over the nation. We as humans have the ability to decide for ourselves whether an idea is good or bad. Often times to do this we look at the actions of others to earthier strengthen our confidence in our idea or to deter the idea that we have. This is the same concept that the death penalty brings to our society. the death penalty according to Richard Worsnop a writer for the CQ Researcher, “…is traditionally justifiyed in society for two reasons, retribution and detturance(Williams). The Latter of the two in retrospect is the most important. In our justice system the main crimes that are punishable by the death penalty are felony murder or murder in the first degree(Mitchell). Felony murder is defined as, “a killing treated as a murder because, though…
Some may say that the death penalty is helpful to society because it intimidates criminals into committing less crimes, particularly murders, when in reality, studies like one done by Benjamin S. Tyree of the University of Richmond show that there is no correlation between the use of the death penalty and lower murder rates, and if anything, states that do not use the death penalty, have lower murder rates than those that do (Deter, Tyree). If that is the case, then it is obvious that the death penalty does not benefit our country.…
Criminal deterrence will continue to be a valuable part of criminological studies. The rational choice perspective has expanded tremendously in the last few decades. It allows criminologist to examine the reasoning process of not only offenders, but the victims as well. The concept of deterrence assumes a much higher degree of rationality. Deterrence doctrine uses the three functions of certainty, severity, and speed of punishment as key elements in the rational decision making process aimed at deciding between criminal and non-criminal paths of conduct (2013). The death penalty does serve as a deterrence from crime. But studies have indicated this might not be the case for every offender. But I would argue that even the deterrence of one individual…
The gains associated with capital punishment are the affect it can have on effectively deterring criminals from not only murderer, but any serious crime (Cameron 1989). It is used as an intimidation factor for which people weigh the cost and benefits of their actions, and in a case where the cost is their life, the probability of them committing a crime will decrease (Shepherd 2004). The significant relationship it shares with the homicide rate has been found that 150 fewer homicides take place in reaction to one execution happening to a convicted murderer (Cooter and Ulen 2012). Looking at this relationship directly from an economic perspective, capital punishment can be seen as a commodity; an increase in it leads to an increase in consumer welfare as it decreases the chance of another victim being murdered (Cameron 1993). The effect that deterrence has on society is seen as a public good as well because of the positive, widespread affect it has on a larger number of consumers by increases their safety and security. By increasing the amount of resources the government puts towards conviction and punishment for criminal activities, it will allow for a reduction in harm (Cooter and Ulen 2012) and allow the demand for protection and a safer environment to be met. Capital punishment is the strongest alternative of punishment to create the largest deterrent…
A deluded minority have the false impression that by presenting the death penalty as a punishment, it will act as an ‘effective deterrent’ – putting people off committing such savage crimes. Contrary to this view, I feel that labelling the death penalty as an ‘effective deterrent’ is misguided.…
Another benefit of the death penalty is that it decreases crime. A study was done in states where the death penalty was enacted and for every execution, 14 people are deterred from committing a murder each year (Muhlhausen). When criminals see the high form of punishment murders receive, they are fearful of what consequences they would face if they performed a similar violent crime.…
“In the early 1970, the top argument in favor of the death penalty was general deterrence” (Radelet & Borg, 2000, page 2). The authors argue that the death penalty does not prevent others from committing the same offense. They describe how deterrence studies have failed to support the hypothesis that the death penalty is more effective at preventing criminal homicides than along imprisonment.…
People also believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to criminals, the most powerful weapon to prevent the crime occurred. But the fact is the death penalty compared with other kinds of punishment, the death penalty does not deter crime has a special function. Offenders can be divided into two categories: Impulsive type and plan type. For impulsive, they are in the non-rational state at the time of crime, reckless commission of a crime, the death penalty cannot afford deterrent for them. For the plan type, there are too many elements need priorities than death, such as Benefits available on crime, criminal attitude towards his life and so on. Thus, the deterrent effect of the death penalty not prominent than other kinds of punishment. As some homicide, injury, rape, crimes were mostly due to some conflicts or situations stimulation, so that the loss of reason, impulsive, and at the moment committed a crime. In this case, the perpetrators are often impossible to accurately discretionary legal consequences of his crime may cause. For these people, the death penalty deterrence can be said too late to play. Furthermore, most of these people will regret afterward, in fact, sentenced these people to death runs counter to repentance, even those who escaped will continue to stimulate criminal psychology. According to studies, many murderers have that idea after killed first person: "kill one person is dead, kill more people is dead too, so it's ok to kill more.” So the death penalty maybe is an indirect stimulation of the…
Philosopher Emmanuel Kant made an argument stating that killing someone for deterrence is using them as a tool, and it is unjust within itself (Pojman 70). Many think that by having the death penalty as a consequence for first degree murder, the rates of homicide will drop, because it will “put fear into the hearts of people”(Costanzo 96), but that is not correct. In a survey done by the Death Penalty Information Center, the number of murders in a state implementing the death penalty within the last twenty years have been higher than in a state without the penalty. As recently as 2010, the murder rate of states with the penalty was 25% greater than states without the penalty (“Deterrence”). Those statistics show that although the law may stop a few individuals, it is not a considerable enough number to call it deterrence.…