Discuss the arguments for and against the death penalty. Be sure to present the arguments along the three key themes, on which many arguments depend.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The arguments for and against the death penalty can often be identified within one of three identifiable themes: deterrence, retribution, and arbitrariness. Supporters of the death penalty, when using the argument of deterrence, argue that the death penalty is the ultimate example of specific deterrence and the offender cannot kill again. This is a very effective way of preventing recidivism. In addition, supporters argue for general deterrence suggesting that would-be murderers will reconsider their acts due to fear of execution. This is based on the belief that when individuals observe that the death penalty is imposed on others, others will be deterred from committing crimes that can result in the death penalty. Opponents of the death penalty will argue against the utility of deterrence as there is evidence to indicate that the use of the death penalty can increase crime (brutalization hypothesis). In addition, most people who commit murder do not usually plan on being caught and do not contemplate the outcome of their actions during the commission of the crime. When considering specific deterrence, opponents argue that life sentences without the possibility of parole are just as effective as preventing recidivism. In addition, if it is later found out that the offender was innocent, it is possible to remedy the case. The second theme is retribution. Proponents often argue for the use of just desserts or punishments that “fit the crime.” This belief often implies that offenders committing a crime should be punished in a manner that is commensurate with the severity of the crime they committed. It is recognized by most proponents that this approach cannot restore the victim’s family members to their prior state of existence but that the execution of the offender can bring closure to the family. Opponents of the death penalty argue that retribution is not logical but rather an emotional response to criminality and nothing more than revenge. The contention is that revenge is not decent or civilized. Simply put, the use of the death penalty is barbaric and cannot be justified under the guise of retribution. The last theme is arbitrariness. Supporters of the death penalty argue that the death penalty is not arbitrarily applied and even argue that more Caucasian American offenders are executed than are minority offenders. Opponents argue that the raw numbers support this claim; however, African Americans are overrepresented within the death row population, and this points to racial disparity, which could imply racial discrimination. Opponents and supporters agree that no matter how much the system tries we can never perfectly calibrate a sanction to be exactly commensurate with the crime that is committed. Opponents argue that permanent punishments (death) should be avoided.