Death penalty opponents state "Those who support the death penalty see it as a solution to violent crime." Opponents, hereby, present one of many fabrications. In reality, executions are seen as the appropriate punishment for certain criminals committing specific crimes. So says the U.S. Supreme Court and so say most death penalty supporters. Opponents equate execution and murder, believing that if two acts have the same ending or result, then those two acts are morally equivalent. This is a morally untenable position. Is the legal taking of property to satisfy a debt the same as auto theft? Both result in loss of property. Are kidnapping and legal incarceration the same? Both involve imprisonment against one's will. Is killing in self-defense the same as capital murder? Both end in taking human life. How absurd. Opponents’ flawed logic and moral confusion mirror their "factual" arguments--there is, often, an absence of reality. The moral confusion of some opponents is astounding. Some equate the American death penalty with the Nazi holocaust. Opponents see no moral distinction between the slaughter of 12 million totally innocent men, women, and children and the just execution of society's worst human rights violators.
The author, David Sharp, believes the incapacitation effect saves lives--that is, that by executing murderers you prevent them from murdering again and do, thereby, save innocent life. The evidence of this is conclusive and unquestionable. Furthermore, he says that the individual deterrent effect also proves that executions save innocent life. This effect represents those potential murderers who did not murder under specific circumstances because of their fear of execution. He claimed that there are many, perhaps thousands, of such documented cases, representing many innocent lives saved by the fear of execution. Circumstances dictate that the majority of these cases will never be documented and that the number of innocent lives saved by individual deterrence will be, and has been, much greater than we will ever be able to calculate. Finally, there are more than 30 years of respected academic studies, which reveal a general, or systemic, deterrent effect, meaning that there is statistical proof that executions produce fewer murders. However, such studies are inconclusive because there are also studies that find no such effect--not surprising, as the U.S. has executed only 0.08% of their murderers since 1973. Because such studies are inconclusive, we must choose the option that may save innocent lives. For, if there is a general deterrent effect, and we do execute, then we are saving innocent lives. But, if there is a general deterrent effect and we don’t execute murderers, we are sacrificing innocent lives. If our judgments are in error regarding general deterrence, then such error must be made on the side of saving innocent lives and not on the side of sacrificing innocent lives. Furthermore, the individual deterrent effect could not exist without the general deterrent effect bring present. The individual deterrent effect is proven. Therefore, even though it may be statistically elusive, the general deterrent effect is proven by individual deterrence.
I agree with the author and his opinions, which he impressively supported with facts, about the death penalty controversy in America. The three effects he stated present a strong morale argument for executions. If all murderers are given the death penalty they surely will never have the power to destroy anyone else’s life again. And if these executions can show other criminals how murderers are punished, they will think twice about committing such an act. Executions can save the lives of both criminals and the people. The statistics can prove it. Our choice is to spare the lives of the murderers and to, thereby, sacrifice the lives of the innocent or to execute those murderers and to, thereby, spare the lives of the innocent. I suggest we continue using the death penalty since it currently has a positive impact and an effect on society as a whole.
