DEATH PENALTY ARGUMENTS:

Deterrent or Revenge
(Pros and Cons)
INTRODUCTION

What is Capital punishment? Capital punishment is the death penalty. It is

used today and was used in ancient times to punish a variety of offenses. Even the
bible advocates death for murder and other crimes like kidnapping and witchcraft.
When the word death penalty is used, it makes yelling and screaming from
both sides of extremist. One side may say deterrence, while the other side may
say, but you may execute an innocent man.
Today, one of the most debated issues in the Criminal Justice System is the
issue of capital punishment or the death penalty.

Capital punishment was legal until

1972, when the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia

stating that it violated the Eight and Fourteen Amendments citing cruel and unusual
punishment. However, in 1976, the Supreme Court reversed itself with Gregg v.
Georgia and reinstated the death penalty but not all states have the death penalty.
Thirteen states do not have the death penalty: Alaska, District of Colombia, Hawaii,
Iowa, Main, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island,
Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY (CONS)

Death Penalty Fails to Rehabilitate

What would it accomplish to put someone on death row? The victim is

already dead-you cannot bring him back. When the opponents feel fear of death
will prevent one from committing murder, it is not true because most murders are
done on the heat of passion when a person cannot think rationally. Therefore, how
can one even have time to think of fear in the heat of passion (Internet)?
ACLU and Murderers Penniless
The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) is working for a moratorium on
executions and to put an end to state-sanctioned murder in the United States. They
claim it is very disturbing to anyone who values human life.
In the article of the ACLU Evolution Watch, the American Bar Association said
the quality of the legal representation is substantial. Ninety-nine percent of criminal
defendants end up penniless by the time their case is up for appeal. They claim they
are treated unfairly. Most murderers who do not have any money, receive the death
penalty. Those who live in counties pro-death penalty are more likely to receive the
death penalty. (Internet).
Death Penalty Failed as a Deterrent
Some criminologist claim they have statistically proven that when an execution
is publicized, more murders occur in the day and weeks that follow. A good example
is in the Linberg kidnapping. A number of states adopted the death penalty for crime
like this, but figures showed kidnapping increased. Publicity may encourage crime
instead of preventing it (McClellan, G., 1961).
Death is one penalty which makes error irreversible and the chance of error is
inescapable when based on human judgment . On the contrary, sometimes

defendants insist on execution. They feel it is an act of kindness to them. The

argument here is - Is life imprisonment a crueler fate?

Is there evidence

supporting the usefulness of the death penalty securing the life of the citizens
(McClellan, G. 1961)?
Does the death penalty give increased protection against being murdered? This
argument for continuation of the death penalty is most likely a deterrent, but it has
failed as a deterrent. There is no clear evidence because empirical studies done in
the 50s by Professor Thorsten Sellin, (sociologist) did not give support to
deterrence (McClellan, G., 1961).
Does not Discourage Crime
It is noted that we need extreme penalty as a deterrent to crime. This could
be a strong argument if it could be proved that the death penalty discourages
murderers and kidnappers. There is strong evidence that the death penalty does not
discourage crime at all (McClellan, G., 1961).
Grant McClellan (1961) claims:
In 1958 the10 states that had the fewest murders fewer
than two a year per 100,000 population -were New Hampshire
Iowa, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Wisconsin,
Rhode Island, Utah, North Dakota and Washington. Four of
these 10 states had abolished the death penalty.

The 10 states, which had the most murderers from eight to

fourteen killings per100,000 population were Nevada,

Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, and Virginia - all of them

enforce the death penalty. The fact is that fear of the
death penalty has never served to reduce the crime rate (p. 40).
Conviction of the Innocent Occurs
The states that have the death penalty should be free of murder, but those
states have the most murders, and the states that abolished the death penalty has
less. Conviction of the innocent does occur and death makes a miscarriage of justice
irrevocable. Two states Maine and Rhode Island abolished the death penalty because
of public shame and remorse after they discovered they executed some innocent
men.

Fear of Death Does not Reduce Crime.

The fear of the death penalty has never reduced crime. Through most of
history
executions were public and brutal. Some criminals were even crushed to death slowly
under heavy weight. Crime was more common at that time than it is now. Evidence
shows execution does not act as a deterrent to capital punishment.
Motives for Death Penalty - Revenge
According to Grant McClellan (1961), the motives for the death penalty may
be for revenge. Legal vengeance solidifies social solidarity against law breakers and is
the alternative to the private revenge of those who feel harmed.

FOR THE DEATH PENALTY (PROS)

Threat of Death Penalty Rate of Homicide Decreases
Frank Carrington (1978) states- is there any way one can tell whether the death
penalty deters murders from killing? There is no way one can tell whether the
death penalty deters murderers from killing. The argument goes on that proponents
of capital punishments should not have to bear the burden of proving deterrence by
a reasonable doubt. Nor should the abolitionist have to prove deterrence by a
reasonable doubt -neither side would be able to anyway.
Frank Carrington (1978) claims common sense supports the inference that if,
the threat of the death penalty decreases, the rate of murders increases than it may
be true. But if the threat had increased, the homicide rate may decrease.
Justice Stewart held in the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia:
Although some of the studies suggest that the death
penalty may not function as a significantly greater
deterrent than lesser penalties, there is no convincing
empirical evidence supporting or refuting this view.

We may nevertheless assume safely there are murders,

such as those who act in passion, for whom the threat of
death has little or no deterrent effect. But for many others,
the death penalty undoubtedly, is a significant deterrent.

There are carefully contemplated murders, such as murder

for hire, where the possible penalty of death may well enter
the cold calculus that precedes the decision to act
( as cited in Carrington, 1978. p. 87).

J.

Edgar Hoover, late director of Federal Bureau of Investigations, asks the

following questions: Have you ever thought about how many criminals escape
punishment, and yet, the victims never have a chance to do that? Are crime victims
in the United States today the forgotten people of our time? Do they receive full
measure of justice (as cited in Isenberg, 1977, p. 129)?
A criminal on death row has a chance to prepare his death, make a will, and
make his last statements, etc. while some victims can never do it. There are many
other crimes where people are injured by stabbing, rape, theft, etc. To some
degree at least, the victims right to freedom and pursuit of happiness is violated.
When the assailant is apprehended and charged, he has the power of the
judicial process who protects his constitutional rights. What about the victim? The
assailant may have compassion from investigating officers, families and
friends. Furthermore, the criminal may have organized campaigns of propaganda to
build sympathy for him as if he is the one who has been sinned against. These false
claims are publicized, for no reason, hence, protecting the criminal (Isenberg, I.,
1977).
The former Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General of Indiana delivered a
speech to Law enforcement officials in Northern Indiana on May 12, 1971 (as cited in
Isenberg, 1977):

Our system of criminal law is to minimize human

suffering by works or order primarily to forestall
violence or aggression. In the question of the death
penalty, we must ask ourselves which action will
serve the true humanitarian purpose of criminal law.
We should weigh the death of the convicted murders
against the loss of life of his victims and the possibility
of potential victims to murder (p. 129)
In arguments of the death penalty, there are two lives to think about. Too
much emphasis is placed on the convicted murderer, the one being executed, and the
victim is all forgotten.
Crime Rate Increases
Millions are being killed and will be killed because our justice system is not
working. Millions have already been killed and will be killed every year. According
toTime Magazine, there are 2,000,000 people beaten in the United States. Some are
knifed, shot, or assaulted (Internet).
Crime growth has been going up in the past because of too much leniency
going hand in hand with the increased rate of people being victimized. There are
many loop holes devised for offenders, and because of that crime rate has increased
drastically. Between l960 to 1968 crime rate increased 11 times. More and more
people are being murdered, raped, assaulted, kidnapped, and robbed, etc. (Isenberg,
I., 1997).
Free Will

When you commit a felony, it is a matter of free will. No one is compelled to

commit armed robbery, murder, or rape. The average citizen does not have a mind or
intentions to become a killer or being falsely accused of murder. What he is worried
about is being a victim.
Deterrent in 27 States
Opponents argue that there is no deterrent effect by using the death
penalty. According to Baily, who did a study from l967 to l968, the death penalty was
a deterrent
in 27 states. When there was a moratorium on Capital Punishment in the United
States, the study showed murder rates increased by 100%. The study also reviewed 14
nations who abolished the death penalty. It (the study) claimed murder increased by
7% from five years before the abolition period to the five years after the abolition
(Internet).
Studies were made by Professor Isaac Erlich between the period of 1933 and
1969. He concluded An additional execution per year may have resulted in fewer
murders (Bedau, 1982, p. 323).
The number of years on the average spent in death row is 10 years. It is
known, with all the appeals, the death penalty is not swift! In fact, most murderers
feel they most likely will never be put to death. If the death penalty was swift and
inevitable, there certainly would be a decrease in homicide rates. (Internet).
Death Feared

Most people have a natural fear of death- its a trait man have to think about
what will happen before we act. If we dont think about it consciously, we will think
about it unconsciously. Think- if every murderer who killed someone died instantly,
the homicide rate would be very low because no one likes to die. We cannot do this,
but if the Justice system can make it more swift and severe, we could change the
laws to make capital punishment faster and make appeals a shorter process. The
death penalty is important because it could save the lives of thousands of potential
victims who are at stake (Bedau, H., 1982).
In a foot note Bedau (1982) cites, Actually being dead is no different from not
being born, a (non) experience we all had before being born. But death is not
realized. The process of dying which is a different matter is usually confused with
it. In turn, dying is feared because death is expected, even though death is feared
because it is confused with dying (p. 338).
Death is an experience that cannot be experienced and ends all
experience. Because it is unknown as it is certain, death is universally feared. The
life of a man should be sacred to each other (Bedau, H., 1982, p. 330).
Innocent Executed - no Proof
Opponents claim lots of innocent man are wrongly executed. There has never
been any proof of an innocent man being executed!! A study by Bedau-Radlet
claimed there were 22 cases where the defendant have been wrongly
executed. However, this study is very controversial. Studies like Markman and Cassell
find that the methodology was flawed in l2 cases. There was no substantial evidence
of guilt, and no evidence of innocence. Moreover, our judicial system takes extra

precautions to be sure the innocent and their rights are protected. Most likely an
innocent person would not be executed (Internet).
Death Penalty Saves Lives
The question is whether or not execution of an innocent person is strong
enough to abolish the death penalty. Remember, the death penalty saves
lives. Repeat murders are eliminated and foreseeable murders are deterred. You
must consider the victim as well as the defendant.
Hugo Bedau (1982) claims:
The execution of the innocent believed guilty is a
miscarriage of justice that must be opposed whenever
detected. But such miscarriage of justice do not
warrant abolition at the death penalty. Unless the
moral drawbacks of an activity practice, which include
the possible death of innocent lives that might be saved
by it, the activity is warranted. Most human activities like
medicine, manufacturing, automobile, and air traffic, sports,
not to mention wars and revolutions, cause death of
innocent bystanders. Nevertheless, advantages outweigh
the disadvantages, human activities including the penal
system with all its punishments are morally justified ( p. 323).

Wesley Lowe states, As for the penal system, accidentally executing an

innocent person, I must point out that in this imperfect world, citizens are required to
take certain risks in exchange for safety. He says we risk dying in an accident when
we drive a car, and it is acceptable. Therefore, risking that someone might be
wrongfully executed is worth saving thousands of innocent people who may be the
next victim of murder (Internet).
Death Penalty - Right to Live
Opponents say the State is like a murder himself. The argument here is, if
execution is murder, than killing someone in war is murder. Our country should stop
fighting wars. On the contrary, is it necessary to protect the rights of a group of
people. Hence, the death penalty is vital to protect a persons right to live! Is
arresting someone same as kidnapping someone? In the same, executing someone is
not murder, it is punishment by society for a deserving criminal.
Bible Quotes
Huggo A. Bedau (1982) states one popular objection to Capital punishment is
that it gratifies the desire for revenge regarding as unworthy. The bible quotes the
Lord declaring Vengeance is mine (Romans 12:19). He thus legitimized vengeance
and reserved it to Himself. However, the Bible also enjoins, The murderer shall
surely be put
to death (Numbers 35:16-18), recognizing that the death penalty can be warranted
whatever the motive. Religious tradition certainly suggest no less (p. 330).

All religions believe having life is sacred. If we deprive someone else life, he
only suffers minor inconvenience; hence, we cheapen human lifethis is where we
are at today.
Death Penalty Deterrent Effect
If we do not know whether the death penalty will deter others, we will be
confronted with two uncertainties . If we have the death penalty and achieve no
deterrent effect, than, the life of convicted murderers has been expended in vain
(from a deterrent point of view)here is a net loss. If we have the death sentence,
and deter future murderers, we spared the lives of future victims-(the prospective
murderers gain, too; they are spared punishment because they were deterred). In
this case, the death penalty is a gain, unless the convicted murderer is valued more
highly than that of the unknown victim, or victims (Carrington, F., l978).
Capital Punishment is not excessive, unnecessary punishment, for those who
knowingly and intentionally commits murder in premeditation, to take lives of
others. Even though capital punishment is not used so often, it still is a threat to
the criminal.
Justice
Justice requires punishing the guilty even if only some can be punished and
sparing the innocent, even if all are not spared. Morally, justice must always be
preferred to equality. Justice cannot ever permit sparing some guilty person, or
punishing some innocent ones, for the sake of equalitybecause others have been
spared or punished. In practice, penalties could never be applied if we insisted that
they can be inflicted on only a guilty person unless we are able to make sure that
they are equally applied to all other guilty persons. Anyone familiar with the law

enforcement knows that punishments can be inflicted only on an unavoidable

shudder selection of the guilty (Bedau, H., 1977).
Irwin Isenberg (1977) said, when you kill a man with premeditation, you do
something different than stealing from him. I favor the death penalty as a matter
of justice and human dignity even apart from deterrence. The penalty must be
appropriate to the seriousness of the crime (p. 135).
Life is Sacred
In an interview with Professor van den Haag, a psychoanalyst and adjunct
professor at New York University, was questioned,

Why do you favor the death

penalty? His answer was that the Federal prison had a man sentenced to Life who,
since he has been in prison committed three more murders on three separate
occasions .They were prison guards and inmates. Theres no more punishment he can
receive, therefore, in many cases, the death penalty is the only penalty that can
deter. He went on saying I hold life sacred, and because I hold it sacred, I feel that
anyone who takes some ones life should know that thereby he forsakes his own and
does not just suffer an inconvenience about being put into prison for sometime (as
cited in Isenberg, 1977, p. 135)
An Eye for an Eye
Some people argue that the capital punishment tends to brutalize and
disregards society. Do you agree? Some people say the that penalty is legalized
murder because it is like an eye for an eye. The difference between punishment
and the crime is that one is legalized and the other is not! People are more
brutalized by what they see on T.V. daily. People are not brutalized by
punishments they are brutalized by our failure to serious punish, the brutal acts.

Could the same effect be achieved by putting the criminal in prison for
life? Life in prison means in six months the parole board can release the man to 12
years in some states. But even if it were real life imprisonment, its deterrent effect
will never be as great as that of the death penalty. The death penalty is the only
actually irrevocable penalty. Because of that, it is the one that people fear the most
(Isenberg, I., 1977).
The framers of the constitution clearly believed that Capital punishment was
an acceptable mess of protecting society form wicked dissolute men Thomas
Jefferson liked to talk about it (Carrington, F., 1978).

CONCLUSION
My research on issues on the death penalty is one of the most debatable in
the criminal justice system. Today, there are many pros and cons to this death
penalty issues. However, if people weigh the arguments properly, and have empathy
for the victims, they will be more inclined to favor capital punishment. As a matter
of fact, most people in the U.S. today are in favor of it. But we need more states to
enforce the death penalty.
As you may have read in the arguments, the death penalty help to curtail
future murderers, thus, we can save more lives. The chances of murdering an
innocent man is very minute.
My Opinion
In my opinion, I am in favor of the death penalty, because we can save
innocent lives. Life to me is scared as Professor Haag stated.

My innocent nephew,

Sean Burgado, who was brutally murdered by a shot gun to the chest, did not have a

choice to make a last statement or make a will before he died.

The people on

death row can watch T.V. and enjoy their lives for another 20 years before they are
executed. They can prepare their death by making a will and a last
statement. Seans murder is still unsolved, and the killer is enjoying his life
somewhere. The murderer(s) will probably murder another person some day.
I heard on the news last month, February 2000, where a 62 year-old
grandmother, Betty Beets, was pleading for her life because she was on death row
and was going to be executed. At first, I felt very sorry for her, but after doing
research on her, I learned she had five husbands. She had already killed the fourth
one, and served a prison sentence for murder, and she got out of prison early. She
murdered the fifth husband-she shot him, and buried him in her back yard. Betty
Beets was imprisoned a second time, and now was pleading for her life? It has been
proven these killers do it again and again. The rate of recidivism is high for people
who commit murder and crimes. I feel murderers should be executed the first
time because chances are they will come out of prison and kill another innocent
person again. We need stricter laws and swift death penalty.
I belong to a group called Parents of Murdered Children (POMC). One of the
woman came forward and told me how her husband shot and killed her five year-old
daughter which she witnessed on her birthday. He attempted to kill the two-year old
son, too, but fortunately, the gun he was using didnt go off a second time, because it
was too old and the sons life was sparred. Her husbands intention was to kill the
two children, and himself on her (the wifes) birthday. He said, if I cant have my
children you wont either. Everything to her is still a nightmare.

He (the husband) was sentenced to death, but committed suicide in

prison. She recently learned that prior to the killing he had contracted someone
$5,000 to burn their house while she and the kids were inside.
She said she would have gone to see her husband being executed if he lived
because she didnt want him out again. She said, To me, I think for the most part, I
didnt care what happened to him. I just didnt want him to be out again after what
he did. I told the District Attorney that I was afraid that he would get out and try to
finish what he started (Email, personal communication- March 31, 2000).
There are too many stories like these where people deserve the death penalty
for killing other people. If they are released from prison, they will kill other
innocent lives again.
I believe life is sacred, therefore, one who takes a life should have his own
life taken away, too. The Lord said in Exodus Thou shalt not kill!. It is one of the
Ten Commandments.
The laws today are too lenient. If there is no death penalty in your state, and
a criminal kills someone, it is because he felt he could get out in 10 years or less
from prison. There is no fear of death for him. They see other murderers in the state
get away with murder, so they, too, can get away with it. They dont have to fear
the death penalty. In fact, I read where a husband intentionally moved to a non
death penalty state, so he could murder his wife and get away with it. Many murders
are premeditated. People in the heat of passion should make it a point to evade
the argument or the environment. Remember it could be one of your loved
ones. Can you imagine what it would be like to have your loved one murdered? There

are no words that can explain the loss of your loved one to murder. Call your state
legislature representatives today to enforce the death penalty in your state!
Lori Ornellas

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to look at both sides of the arguments of the
death penalty-the pros and cons, and how our criminal justice system makes
legislatures, courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court chose to resolve issues. Interesting
issues are brought up like the fear of the death penalty, bible quotes, how life is
sacred, and the execution of the innocent. You will note too much emphasis is placed
on the convicted murderer and not on the victim. The murderers get out of prison
early and murder again. There are evidence to both sides of the argument in whether
the death penalty is a deterrent or not. In question of the death penalty, I ask you to
weigh both sides of the argument carefully and make your decision based on the
action that will serve the best humanitarian purpose of criminal law.