Death Penalty Research Paper

The idea of capital punishment deterring crime is difficult to determine; some could rationalize that the death penalty should in theory stop potential murders from committing crimes. However, this rationalization has never been concretely proven. The research into capital punishment’s effect on deterrence is immense; however, the majority of research on this issue has differential findings. Although some research suggests conclusively that capital punishment deters crime, others found that it fails to do this. Understanding deterrence, the death penalty, and the results of

The eighth amendment helps letting americans not have to go through unusual and cruel punishments. “It is not just criminal sentences themselves that are subject to the cruel and unusual test; the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual provision has been used to challenge prison conditions such as extremely unsanitary cells, overcrowding, insufficient medical care and deliberate failure by officials to protect inmates from one another,” (“Eighth Amendment,” Annenberg Classroom). This site explains and breaks down the eighth amendment. It becomes apparent that this amendment helps protect the people from usual and cruel punishments. There are specific examples to a cruel and unusual punishments. “Cruel and unusual punishment includes torture, deliberately degrading punishment, or punishment that is too severe for the crime committed,” (Dictionary.com). This is a basic understanding for how we can make sure to stay away from these types of punishments. One of the biggest oppositions or conflicts with the eighth amendment there is is the death penalty. The question that comes from it is whether or not the death penalty can be considered a cruel and unusual punishment. “Eighth

All of the research that I have done suggests that the death penalty is not a major source of deterrence for criminals to commit severe crimes such as homicide. In a 2009 survey of America’s top criminologists, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and written by Professor Michael Radelet, eighty-eight percent of the expert criminologists stated that they do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent for criminals to commit homicide. Respondents to this survey were asked to base their answers on research, rather

The death penalty has existed for several decades in the United States executing over 1,431 people since 1976, when the death penalty no longer violated the eighth amendment. Charles Brooks, a black male, aged 40, was executed in Texas in 1982, for the Murder of white male, David Gregory. Brooks was the first person to be executed by the use of lethal injection, since it had been reinstated in the United States. Since this first execution occurred, Americans have been debating on whether or not race plays a role in who lives, and who dies on death row. Despite all the anti-discrimination laws, the United States is faced with the challenge of racial tension and discrimination, which has a direct effect

The Eighth Amendment is intended to protect prisoners before they’re tried and after they’re convicted. It restricts excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. When looking back at laws from early America compared to the laws now, they were dramatically different regarding the death penalty. For example, in the 1600s, the Divine, Moral and Martial Laws, which provided the death penalty for even minor offenses such as stealing grapes, killing chickens, and trading with Indians, was proposed. Now, capital or first degree murder are typically the only offenses that will result in the death penalty as a punishment, where a couple hundred years ago people could get executed for simple, foolish offenses. Additionally, the Roper v.

The death penalty in Indiana, should it be legal or illegal? Personally I believe that the death penalty should be legal, here’s why. One why should, us the tax payers, have to pay more money out of our pockets each and every year to keep people in prison when they should be dead. Two, our prisons are becoming overcrowded and using the death penalty on this certain inmates would open up some room. Finally, they committed the crime of murder or rape so why should they not get the ultimate punishment for what they did. Those are just the three main reasons on why death penalty should be legal in Indiana.

Conclude The resource tested deterrence theory asking criminology expects if they believe that the death penalty actually lowers crimes or

In the Eighth Amendment, there is a section called the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause. This states that the punishment for a crime can’t be inhumane and it must be fitting to the crime. For example, you can’t put someone to death for stealing an apple. Because of this Amendment the death penalty is heavily debated as a fitting and humane way of dealing with capital crimes.

The “deterrent hypothesis” is that murder rates would be higher in states without the death penalty than in states that use the death penalty. However, when murder rates were compared both before and after abolition of the death penalty in states, no substantial increase in homicides occurred. (Peterson) According to Amnesty International, “A New York Times survey, released in September 2000, found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% to 101% higher than in states without the death penalty.” (“Death Penalty Facts”)

17). Most murderers, in Greenburg’s opinion, are ruled by their whims and therefore will not consider the possibility of being put to death for their actions (Greenburg, par. 18). Moreover, Greenburg points out that the majority of killers are not very smart or disturbed whether by their own doing or with the help of drugs or alcohol (par. 18) Using the reality that so few people are actually executed Greenburg creates an interesting case against the death penalty: if virtually no one dies, how can criminals be deterred by such a unlikely consequence? Greenburg realizes we can never know the exact thoughts of a would be killer, but looking at his interpretation of the reality of our legal system, it not hard to understand his prediction of its ineffectiveness. While Greenburg provides practical reasons to combat deterrence, Michael L. Radelet and Traci L. Lacock in the article “Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates?: The Views of Leading Criminologists,” give expert opinions by summarizing the opinions of leading behavioral scientists. This valuable and insightful resource shows how criminologists have recently shifted away from the belief that death is an effective deterrent. Why? Earlier research showed that execution directly paralleled with lowered homicide and removal of criminals from death row resulted in increased homicides. (Radelet & Lacock 494) But later search found these major studies to be skewed and largely unconnected to murder

In America, the death penalty plays a major role in society. The government has the power to dictate people’s lives which can be viewed as a crime and a form of injustice. In this country, there are many states with and without this punishment in which they decide how they would like to perceive this law. As of this day, there are still groups of people that would disagree or agree to this act of punishment. Logically speaking, the death penalty should not be legal in any given circumstances. Studies show that during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there was a minor if not all, number of executions. “The 1960s brought challenges to the fundamental legality of the death penalty. Before then, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments were interpreted as permitting the death penalty” (Introduction, Center). Over a period of time, the number of executions that has been given by the government to file a charge and kill the defendant has increasing. This subject shows the effect of the death penalty in America before and after the start of this law being established.

The test for deterrence is not whether executions produce lower murder rates, but that executions produce fewer murders than if the death penalty did not exist. For example, the fact that the state of Delaware executes more people per capita (1/87,500) than any other state and has a murder rate 16 times lower than Washington, D.C. (5/100,000 vs 78.5/100,000) is not proof, per se, that the death penalty deters murder in Delaware or that the lack of the death penalty escalates murders and violent crime in Washington, D.C., which has the highest violent crime and murder rates in the U.S. Be careful how you explain and understand deterrence.

Have you ever gotten blamed for something you did not do, and no matter what you try you are unable to prove your innocence? Now imagine being put to death by a group of your “peers” for that same reason. This is the hard reality that those who are sentenced to the death sentence face. I am not saying all inmates who are on death row are innocent, but according to (deathpenaltyinfo.org) there are 3,070 people on death row and according to (niemanwatchdog.org) around 4% to 8% of these individuals are innocent.

America has been deluded into believing that the death penalty is an effective deterrent for homicide. It is a hot issue, a favorite amongst politicians. But what these political pundits fail to mention is that conclusive evidence proves that not only is the death penalty an ineffective crime deterrent, it is also an expensive, unjust and undignified policy for any government to enact.

The Eighth Amendment protects those from cruel and unusual punishment. The Eighth Amendment even protects those who are facing the death penalty. There has been many cases where people are close to execution, consequently continue to sit on death row. By virtue of the Eighth Amendment right as well as the government’s acknowledgment of it there has been a decline in the death penalty.