Ogloff's Arguments On Capital Punishment Debate

3. Furthermore, both proponents and opponents argue over crucial aspects about Capital Punishment like deterrence, morality and retribution, incapacitation and rehabilitation, the cost, and the potential risk of executing an innocent person. Capital Punishment, according to proponents, deters potential murderers because they will fear receiving the death penalty themselves. According to Jennifer C. Honeyman and James R. Ogloff, both are lawyers and James Ogloff has worked as a psychologist for thirty years, in Capital punishment: arguments for life and death, “deterrence is used to suggest that executing murderers will decrease the homicide rate,” or “general deterrence” (3). By executing the murderer, the death penalty ensures he or she cannot
kill again, or “specific deterrence” (Honeyman and Ogloff 3). As reported in a 1984 United States poll, “68% of respondents agreed that the death penalty deters crime;” however, opponents argue the “brutalization hypothesis” shows the death penalty has led to an increase in the homicide rate by “legitimizing killing” (Honeyman and Ogloff 4).
Furthermore, Peter Black, senior lecturer in moral theology at the University of Notre Dame Australia, asks in Do circumstances ever justify capital punishment?, “whether capital punishment helps breed a culture of violence and death” is a necessary question one must ask (1-3). The next argued aspect about the death penalty is retribution, and whether someone can truly “deserve” death. Proponents, as stated by Honeyman and Ogloff, may believe a murderer can deserve death for a truly abhorrent crime, while opponents believe “killing is always wrong” due to moral reasoning (4). Moreover, Black asks whether society is “uphold[ing] justice through retribution (3). Opponents of the death penalty would look to rehabilitation as the solution for murderers, and as said by Honeyman and Ogloff, “murderers have one of the lowest recidivism rates of all offenders” (4). Proponents, by executing murderers, incapacitate the murderer from ever being
rehabilitated. However, by incapacitating the murderer, proponents do carry out “specific deterrence” (Honeyman and Ogloff 3). Proponents of the death penalty, furthermore, argue it is more “cost effective than life imprisonment” (Honeyman and Ogloff 4). Yet, opponents point to a 1982 New York study, which concluded “the average capital murder trial and first stage of appeals cost U.S.
tax-payers 1.8 million dollars […] [and] it can cost up to 2.2 million dollars to obtain and carry out a death sentence” (Honeyman and Ogloff 4). The overall cost of executing one individual is estimated to be more than keeping one individual imprisoned for a century (Honeyman and Ogloff 4). Lastly, one of the main arguments from opponents of the death penalty is the potential risk of executing an innocent person. A study from 1988 by Bedau and Radelet, examines Capital Punishment cases from 1900 to 1986 and they were able to identify “350 cases in which defendants were erroneously convicted of capital crimes” (Honeyman and Ogloff 4). Though the study reports 350 cases where people have been wrongly put to death, proponents may argue and point to all the instances where the death penalty has executed correctly convicted murderers. Another aspect to mention is due to the possibility of error, the appeals process “lasts an average of 10 years” which is another cost factor of the death penalty (Honeyman and Ogloff
4). Due to the brittle basis for most of the arguments made by proponents and the opponent’s ability to break apart the flaws in the proponent’s arguments, one might be compelled to agree with the opponents of Capital Punishment. Whether one agrees with proponents or opponents also falls to whether one values justice or mercy over the other, whereas proponents argue the death penalty carries out justice and opponents believe mercy is more important.