As the number and severity of crimes are at their peak in today’s society, the severity of the punishment is also as deadly. The punishment should fit the crime. Capital punishment is just because it can act as a deterrent to murder, can be retributive and incapacitates the offender.

The death penalty has an indirect effect on crime. Deterrence would be stronger if the death penalty were imposed more consistently and carried out more promptly. However, capital punishment has some impact on future murders, if only by stopping those who are executed from killing again. But that direct effect can be accomplished through lifetime imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The death

Life imprisonment is a lesser deterrent than the death penalty. Even though the offender is stripped of their freedom, they remain alive. That is not really fair to the victim and the victim’s family, nor does it set an example for those who will commit murder. “Over forty percent of the persons on death row in 1992 were on probation, parole, or pretrial release at the time they murdered.” (Dilulio) The death penalty has turned the tables on fear and put it back where it belongs, in the heart of the criminal. It has restored confidence in the criminal justice system. Our laws can and must take every responsible step to prevent others from enduring the heartache by families of the victim. By reinstating the death penalty, America has sent a clear message to criminals that the lives of our children are worth more than just a 15-year prison term.

It costs approximately $25,000 to $30,000 a year to house an inmate. (O’Sullivan) Granted life imprisonment is more cost effective, but what about the victim. The victim and the victim’s family would be more than happy to pay or contribute to the $3 million to put their attacker to death. A punishment should be proportionate to the crime regardless of the price.

Incapacitation prevents future crimes against society by punishing the offenders properly. Society is sympathetic towards the offender and not sympathetic enough towards the victim. Our government should execute for the most heinous crimes.

Is the death penalty just? The theories of deterrence, retribution and incapacitation prove it is. When the life of an individual is unjustly taken by another individual, the horror of the community for such an act cannot be adequately and proportionately manifested except as the community surmounts sentiment and extracts the life of the killer in payment. (Radelet and Borg)

Incapacitation suggests that we should execute the most heinous killers in order to prevent them from killing again. (Radelet and Borg) Society needs to be protected from the recidivist murders. No executed prisoner has ever killed again! Convicted murderers will undoubtedly kill again if, instead of being executes, they are sentenced to life in prison.

Th

Some topics in this essay:
Death Penalty, Borg Retribution, Capital Punishment, O’Sullivan Granted, Supreme Court, Florida William-Harold, death penalty, Fifth Amendment, John O’Sullivan, O’Sullivan Incapacitation, Enter Here”, capital punishment, life imprisonment, victim’s family, penalty argument, costs death penalty, cost effective, death row, revenge retribution, sentenced life, penalty imposed, victim victim’s family, death penalty imposed, deterrence retribution incapacitation, life liberty property,