Capital Punishment

A detailed Summary of Capital Punishment

Certain individuals who commit crimes do so at their own free will, and many have no doubts as to the consequences of their actions. To some, it matters not the possibility that if they are caught, there is the chance they may be executed. Sometimes the crimes committed by certain persons are done so in a manner that would confuse any other human being.

My personal belief is that there is no need for capital punishment in our society. Advocates say that capital punishment is needed in order to prevent future criminals, but this is not entirely the case. Research has shown that capital punishment, as a deterrent, has no positive or negative effect. An influential student of the deterrence question, Thorsten Sellin, conducted a study that would attempt to determine the effect of capital punishment on future crime. He studied the homicide rates in contiguous states, some with and some without the death penalty, on the assumption that these states were as alike as possible in character of population, social and economic conditions, etc. His conclusion was that the death penalty had no effect on the murder rate (Sellin, 63).

This is not to say that the study performed by Sellin was perfect, for it di

d contain flaws. In his attempt, he looked for correlations between the homicide rate and the legal status of the death penalty, rather than the number of executions actually carried out in the states where it was legal punishment. As it may be true that contiguous states are similar in certain respects, their differences may be quite apparent. Sellin looked for characteristics evident in all of the states he compared, but these same factors may not be part of the real reason that leads to homicide. He had no way of knowing if these states were equal in all other respects, such as apprehending and convicting those who commit murder. There is simply no absolute in controlling all factors.

In essence, the reasoning behind RLT is in its objective, which is to distribute harm toward the guilty rather than toward the innocent. In recognizing the advantages of RLT over its rivals, it is also necessary to point out the flaws in this theory. The first problem is that RLT claims that the punishment should be no greater than the intended acts of the offender. How can harm to a victim be measured? Cederblom attempts to compensate for this problem. He states, "A punishment is excessive if the offender would reasonably prefer to suffer the probable consequences of the offense . . . rather than suffer the probable consequences of the punishment" (Ibid, 313). The second problem is the extent to which punishment actually deters crime. It should also be emphasized that in no way does RLT assert or depend on the proposition that punishment deters crime. Evidence obtained to determine the effectiveness of punishment in deterring crime is unreliable.

It is evident that the issue of capital punishment is complex and intricate in its understanding and comprehension. The future of this form of punishment is unclear because the evidence in favor of it, and against it, is interpreted in different ways that allow proponents or opponents to advance their own views. What also hinders the advance of this debate is that fact that the installation and implementation of capital punishment is inconsistent, for it is abolished, then brought back again. Many factors are taken into account in determining whether capital punishment is effective, but I am in complete agreement with Peter Passell when he says, "proof is simply beyond the capacity of empirical social science" (Passell, 79).

The issue of deterrence has been the basis on which advocates or abolitionists have grounded their arguments. It would be safe to assume that both sides have varying definitions for the term "deterrence" and the manner in which they utilize that definition to their advantage.

Some common words found in the essay are:
Gertrude Ezorsky, Thorsten Sellin, Considering RLT, Thirdly RLT, Capital Punishment, Theory RLT, Jerry Cederblom, Theory Punishment, Peter Passell, capital punishment, threat punishment, individuals commit, retributive liability, death penalty, Retributive Liability, individuals commit crimes, criminal law, probable consequences, ezorsky makes, suffer probable, punishment theory, suffer probable consequences, retributive liability theory,

Approximate Word count = 1797
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: English