Death Penalty

Argument 1: The Deterrent Effect "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." - John McAdams The death penalty's purpose is to dissuade criminals from performing crimes, the knowledge that a death penalty exists often deters criminals from performing a crime. The decision to murder, rape or steal is often based on the reward and the punishment, some people might decide that a life sentence is not so bad and proceed to perform a crime, however man fears nothing more than death, it is in our genes, we do not want to die. Statistics show that the average murderer often pleads guilty in court, they will readily receive the punishment, as long as it is not death. If the death penalty is practiced, criminals will know that they will face execution if they perform a large enough crime, therefore they will be less likely to do it. In short the death penalty should be legalized because it helps save innocent lives. For example in 2005 capital punishment was abolished in Mexico, since then, Mexico has become an epicenter of murder, kidnapping, and drug wars, people sentenced to prison often escape due to the fact that if they do not break any other laws while escaping they are not charged for anything and no extra time is added to their sentence, which is under the assumption they are even captured. If the death penalty was in place people will think twice before committing a crime, as they cannot come back after they have been put to death. Crime rates are also increasing dramatically over the last half century 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 to Time Magazine, there are 2,000,000 people beaten in the United States. Some are knifed, shot, or assaulted. 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 loopholes 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). However there are no loopholes to the death penalty. Argument 2: Repeated Murders A lot of the time the words: "A sentence to a prison prevents a criminal from doing any harm" does not keep its word. Some statistics supporting this evidence are that more than 500,000 crimes were committed by people who have already committed a crime in a single year - and around half of those were committed by "career" criminals, each with more than 25 previous offences. 1,800 domestic burglaries, and almost 3,000 thefts, were committed by convicted burglars, while 650 violent offences were carried out by people previously convicted of violent crime. And 1,200 sex crimes were committed by known sex offenders. Of the 134 dangerous or sexual offenders charged with a serious further offence last year, 26 were managed with regular multi-agency public protection meetings, other figures showed. Three of these were assessed as posing the highest risk to the public and eight serious case reviews were ordered after the offenders went on to kill or rape, or tried to murder or rape, despite being monitored. Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements panels, which include police, councils and other Government agencies, were set up to manage the risks to the public from dangerous criminals after they leave prison. Life sentences do not stop repeated murders from happening as well Andrew Dawson, George Johnson, Ernest Wright, David Cook and Desmond Lee were all allowed out on licence despite getting life sentences. Some even killed again within weeks of being released from prison. Andrew Dawson was given a life sentence in 1982 after admitting the murder of a 91-year-old Henry Walsh in his flat at Ormskirk, Lancashire, stabbing him a dozen times with bread knife. Within weeks of his release in 2010, he stabbed defenseless John Matthews and Paul Hancock to death in separate attacks, before leaving their bodies in their bathtubs in Derby. The 51-year-old told police he felt an 'urge to kill' before knocking on the men's doors in the block of flats, where he also lived, and hacked them to death. How does the death penalty affect this? Simple, the death penalty will prevent these repeated murders, to not institute death penalty is to allow the 250"000 crimes, each committed by people with 25 previous crimes, to go by. Should we simply allow this to go on, or should we take action against it and institute the death penalty. Argument 3: Safety is Utmost Although the death penalty does risk the chance that it will accidentally kill an innocent man, by killing a murderer we have prevented the death of other people, this is supported by argument 2, if a murderer given a life sentence, they will most likely kill if the chance arises, an example would be licensed leaves, as they can not be punished any more. The death penalty would remove the chances that a murder would kill again, and the death penalty could also serve as a warning to people in life sentences, telling them that there is a higher punishment, one that they cannot come back on. If letting a person die means keeping more people safe, then we should let the person die. People that want to kill have means of doing so, and we they do they often kill many, many scenarios involve people killing ten or more. 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. The number of repeated murders in this world is far, far more than the number of repeated murders. Thank You