Essay On Harsh Punishment

Capital Punishment Punishment is the imposition of a penalty as retribution for a crime, and the retribution deserves those who do the crime. The main idea of this chapter is whether the killer deserves to die or not, and we ought to kill them or not. Stephen Nathanson argues against the punishment that leads to execution. He said that the actual and moral beliefs based on the death penalty are wrong and must be repealed. Many people said that the death penalty is the best way to deter murder and thus save lives.

While many opponents argue the economics of the issue, they fail to acknowledge that the main goals of punishment are to correct behavior that is deviant from the law and to prevent similar incidences from occurring. Without capital punishment, the culprits would not have to confront the potential of death, meaning that the marginal cost of violent crime would be diminished. Therefore, capital punishment is an effective method to deter

As we know, there are many ways criminals can be punished. When sentencing happens, the defendant is usually sentenced to the following punishments, listed from minor to extreme: Fines Community service Diversion programs Probation GPS monitoring Jail Prison Death penalty (Rio Salado, 2022). Most of these punishments can be listed under either the utilitarian or retributive theory of punishment. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to 'deter' future wrongdoings.

The way to stop people from committing horrific acts is to not say how bad the punishment will be, but to have a more effective police force laying down the

Deterrence theory states that people follow the law because they are scare of getting caught or being punished. In this article, “The Death Penalty Deters Crime,” David Muhlhausen, expert on criminal justice programs in the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis and a research fellow in empirical policy analysis, confirms the deterrence theory. By means of statistical data and research dating, Muhlhausen contends that the death penalty does deters murder crime which ultimately saves lives. He also believes that executions and murder rates are somehow connected to each other. Even though, some adequate emotional appeals appeared, Muhlhausen’s article failed to prove, logically, the deterrence theory.

This is because the offenders would perceive execution to be more severe that life imprisonment. This indicates that deterrence is effective in the modern American criminal justice

While I find both views on punishment convincing and effective in different ways, I believe that the reductivist approach to punishment is and will be the most effective to decrease levels of crime in society. People with alcohol, drug and mental health issues should be rehabilitated and should be taught right from wrong while in incapacitation, to protect the public from the particular offender until they do reform. While retributivism focuses on harming offenders to ‘teach them a lesson’, it will never have a positive effect as they are then taught a lesson by more violence which doesn’t resolve the crime they have committed. If offenders pay their time in prison and get support through treatments and programs provided by prisons, they can come back into society viewing the world in a different way. I also believe that with the support given to offenders who need that help, there will be considerate decreases of crime as criminals need specialist help to overcome the problems they have, as the reasons they have committed crimes such as robbery, theft, drug dealing, will be because of these problems and has a knock on effect to them becoming criminals.

”4 The NAS also pointed out that their deterrence research came to the conclusion that “potential offenders may not accurately perceive, and may vastly underestimate, those risks and punishments associated with committing a crime. ”4 Incarceration has an even less effect on violent crimes, since they are often crimes of passion and are not premeditated. Because of that, severe terms of incarceration will not have an effect on an offender’s choice to commit a criminal offense.

The death penalty on the other hand would have been effective if the overall public minded to consider it a system for ending criminal acts. While a monstrous number would ensure the nonattendance of the death penalty in their real system, the wrongdoing rate continues going higher for countries that still practice the death penalty. Regardless, there is lacking accurate data to exhibit that death penalty has been convincing similarly as maintaining a strategic distance from criminal acts. It infers

Punishing individuals for wrongdoing is an ethical issue that is still current in modern day society. It can be argued that we need punishment for various different reasons. Without punishment, crimes would not be illegal and it would be hard to differ between what is right and what is morally wrong. Punishment highlights the need to focus on the consequences of our actions and show us what could happen if we go against the law. Punishment has the ability to make criminals better individuals through deterrence and rehabilitation.

Although supporters of the death penalty often suggest arguments that cite retribution for violent crimes as being instrumental in justice, several studies and research have revealed that taking the life of another human being through capital punishment only perpetuates a cycle of violence. Therefore, it is necessary to abolish the capital

It can be noted that the way one is punished is often unjust. “The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to…. have one or more of the following objectives: to denounce unlawful conduct; to deter the offender and other persons from committing offenses; to separate offenders from society” (Pratt, January 26th, 2016). Even though there is a fundamental purpose of sentencing most of the time, the crime does not fit the offender (Pratt, January 26th, 2016).

So, Beccaria argues that we should measure the crimes and the appropriate punishment by the “harm they cause society” (14). Hence, since not all crimes are of the same calibre as “every crime, however private it may be, offends society, […] not every crime threatens it directly with destruction” (18), we must differentiate between the most severe crimes, such as those that threaten the foundation of society and milder crimes that threaten the individual. After this has been established, it is then possible to assign the appropriate punishment which will act as an effective deterrent to prevent others from executing the same crime. It is important to keep in mind that if punishments are given out arbitrarily, then it diminishes its effect and can only instigate further crimes. For example, if a person were to steal a pack of gums at a store and is aware that the punishment for such a crime is the death penalty, then they will likely commit other crimes in order to prevent themselves from getting caught.

"There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than long terms of imprisonment.”. Many think criminals should do their time so they are punished for what they have done. A lot don’t think they should be able to have the chance to leave this world so

Emma Damare Professor Jones English 103 5 February 2018 Death Penalty: More Harmful than Helpful The death penalty has been around causing problems for decades, starting before the 1800’s and still creating issues today. The only people who gain anything from having the death penalty is the government. This is because they determine whether or not the inmate is “curable” from their possible mental sickness based on the crime they commit. Some inmates get out for good behavior or parole, but the rest aren’t given a second chance at life.