Detterence

When we talk about death penalty, we usually consider the following question: Does the death penalty

prevent future crimes? Those in favor of death penalty agree that death deters better than life

imprisonment or any other form of punishment. Those opposed naturally believe that, for certain crimes,

other forms of punishment are more effective.

Even though many people believe that most murders are emotionally charged at spontanious events,

deterrence theorists view murder as rational behavior. They assume that potential offenders are aware of

the consequences of their acts (including the death penalty as possible form of punishment) and that they

calculate the gains and losses from murdering. Consequently, murder is discouraged since the threat of

losing one's own life, probably outweighs the rewards gained from taking another.

According to Davis, "There are two modes of deterrence: general deterrence and specific deterrence."

When we talk about general deterrence, we refer to the idea that punishing the offenders "deters" others

from commiting similar crimes. That is; it convinces those would-be-criminals that the crime has no

"positive side." On the other side, there is specific deterrence. It refers to the fact that executing an

offender, prevents that person from killing again. This means that at least that specific offender is

deterred. In order to achieve maximum deterrence, sanctions need to be severe enough to outweigh the

benefits from crime.

Many studies have been done examining the relationship between murder and death and comparing

murder rates in areas with and those without death penalty. However, none of these studies have shown

that death penalty results in lower murder rates, nor that the abolition of it has murder rates increased.

For informatrion on States with the death penalty v. states without it click here