There are many 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 that 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. The United States 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. 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 judgment is 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. 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. Individually and collectively, these effects present a strong moral argument for executions. Executions save lives. 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. .
Wrongful Conviction.
Wrongful conviction is a serious thing to consider when talking about the death penalty. In the past, there were many people wrongfully executed for crimes that they did not commit all in the name of justice.