"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." These statements were said by John McAdams of the Marquette University Department of Political Science about deterrence. Even though an American said these statements, I strongly believe that any pro death penalty person would say the same thing. .
It is no triumph that death sentences are routinely carried out, or even that such a device is necessary within our society. Yet the fact remains that society does require a death penalty, and to believe that the topic is one-sided or easily answered would be a fatal mistake. It is best to note the absolutes of the death penalty - first, that once it is carried out, there is no reversing the outcome. It seems an obvious point, but it is worth remembering, as it warns us that state-sanctioned executions must never be taken lightly. Just as firm is the fact that in most cases, the death penalty is a matter of justice and equality. With most crimes, the purposes of the punishment are to rehabilitate the convict and to send a warning to others who would commit similar crimes. In contrast, the death penalty intends neither to rehabilitate nor dissuade others from capital crimes. Certainly, the threat of the ultimate penalty may give pause to a small percentage, but most capital cases involve a defendant who is far from rational enough to weigh the costs and benefits of his action. Still, this misconception of the death penalty as a deterrent is one limp argument constantly trotted out against capital punishment. Many people ask, "If the death penalty is working, why isn't the murder rate falling?" The answer is that the death penalty is a matter of justice and societal preservation.
