By not imposing the death penalty, it is to say that the death penalty is not the best deterrent. Finally, when determining the risk factor involved with each, risking the lives of murder victims outweighs risking the lives of the murderers. Therefore, the best bet is to impose the death penalty.
The "Common Sense and Anecdotal Evidence Argument" is reflected in the following statements:.
1. What people (including potential criminals) fear more will have a greater deterrent effect on them.
2. People (including potential criminals) fear death more than they do any other humane punishment.
3. The death penalty is a humane punishment.
4. Therefore, people (including criminals) will be deterred more by the death penalty than by any other humane punishment.
5. We should impose the death penalty. (Mappes 142) .
This argument infers that people who have the potential to murder fear the death penalty more than they fear any other punishment. The argument goes on to say that the more fear of punishment there is, the less likely a crime will be committed. The third statement listed in the argument above states that capital punishment is a humane punishment and this would make it applicable to use as a deterrent. In summary of the argument, the death penalty should be imposed because it causes the most fear, and is the greatest deterrent of crime. .
Objections to the Best Bet Argument come from a wide variety of reasons that all attempt to prove that the death penalty is not the most effective punishment. "With no factual evidence to prove the death penalty is a uniquely effective deterrent, the most humane and sensible punishment that a person deserves is life imprisonment." This objection relies heavily on the death penalty not being the most effective deterrent of crime and can be countered by saying, "What if the death penalty is the most effective deterrent?" Since it cannot be proven whether the death penalty is uniquely effective or not, this is used in attempts to abolish the death penalty.