However, advocates and opponents of the death penalty dispute the proper interpretation of statistical analyses of its deterrent effect. Opponents of capital punishment see the death penalty as a human rights issue involving the proper limits of governmental power. In contrast, those who want governments to continue to execute tend to regard capital punishment as an issue of criminal justice policy. Because of these alternative viewpoints, there is a profound difference of opinion not only about what is the right answer on capital punishment, but about what type of question is being asked when the death penalty becomes a public issue. Early opponents of capital punishment objected to its brutality. Executions were public spectacles involving cruel methods.
Also, with the ever present chance of mistaken execution, there will remain the question of innocence for those put to death. This decline creates a situation in which the death penalty ceases to be a deterrent when the general public begins to think that one can get away with the crime and go unpunished. Also, the less that the death sentence is used, the more it becomes unusual, thus coming in conflict with the eighth amendment. This is essentially a dilemma, in which the less the death penalty is used, the less society can legally use it. The end result is a punishment that ceases to deter any crime at all. Many contend that the use of capital punishment as a form of deterrence does not work, as there are no fewer murders in states that have the death penalty, then those states that do not have the death penalty. In order for capital punishment to work as deterrence, certain events must be present in the criminal's mind prior to committing the offense. The criminal must be aware that others have been punished in the past for the same offense that he or she is planning, and that what happened to that individual who committed that offense could also happen to them.
