Death Penalty A policy claim is a piece of argument that holds that a certain condition or position should be upheld or let to exist. A policy claim therefore expresses the writer’s argument that the position is necessary and hence portrays a sense of obligation. A policy claim can therefore be easily recognized because of the modal verbs used in it like ‘must’, ‘ought to’, ‘need’ or even ‘have to’ among others. The modal verbs play a crucial role in communicating the sense of obligation. The claim of policy therefore goes ahead to advocate for the adoption of a specific policy because there is a problem at hand that calls for a solution. The society we live in has always relied on punishment as a way of discouraging persons who would undertake criminal activities from engaging in such unlawful actions. The same society we live in, somehow believes that murder tops the least of criminal acts and as such must be discouraged by attaching the strongest punishment for would be violators, the death penalty. Even the bible prescribes a death penalty for murder. The rationale being that when a murderer is executed through a death sentence, the would-be murderers would not even toy with the idea of killing someone because they would be afraid to lose their own lives in the process. For several years, criminologists have studied the rates of murder to establish if indeed there is how they are reduced by the very likelihood that convicted murderers would always be executed but the results from such studies continue to be inconclusive. Those who are of the school of thought that the death penalty indeed prevented new murder cases hold that the inconclusiveness of these studies is probably simply because the death penalty is an intervention that is rarely used. They hold that even when used, it is always because of a long process that takes several years before it is finally done. This piece is going to argue against death penalty as a deterrence tool against murder. In Europe, the campaign against the death penalty started back in the 1750s by academicians like Voltaire and Jeremy Bentham. These brains held that the death penalty was unnecessarily overrated as a crime deterrence tool and that it was unnecessarily cruel. They instead advocated for life imprisonment as an alternative means of punishing such offenders. This was the beginning of a worldwide move to see the death penalty abolished. The state of Michigan in the US was the first one in the United States of America to abolish death penalty in 1847 (Bedau, pg 34). Several other countries across the world more so in Western Europe and Latin America have since abolished it. The British however abolished it in 1965. All these were because there was a problem since even persons who were only supposed to be guilty of manslaughter, ended up being convicted for a death penalty (Heilbrun, pg 57). Besides this, there are several social, ethical and moral issues that death penalty seriously violates .

1. Death Penalty
A policy claim is a piece of argument that holds that a
certain condition or position should be upheld or let to exist. A
policy claim therefore expresses the writer’s argument that the
position is necessary and hence portrays a sense of obligation.
A policy claim can therefore be easily recognized because of
the modal verbs used in it like ‘must’, ‘ought to’, ‘need’ or even
‘have to’ among others. The modal verbs play a crucial role in
communicating the sense of obligation. The claim of policy
therefore goes ahead to advocate for the adoption of a specific
policy because there is a problem at hand that calls for a
solution. The society we live in has always relied on
punishment as a way of discouraging persons who would
undertake criminal activities from engaging in such unlawful
actions. The same society we live in, somehow believes that
murder tops the least of criminal acts and as such must be
discouraged by attaching the strongest punishment for would be
violators, the death penalty. Even the bible prescribes a death
penalty for murder. The rationale being that when a murderer is
executed through a death sentence, the would-be murderers
would not even toy with the idea of killing someone because
they would be afraid to lose their own lives in the process. For
several years, criminologists have studied the rates of murder to
establish if indeed there is how they are reduced by the very
likelihood that convicted murderers would always be executed
but the results from such studies continue to be inconclusive.
Those who are of the school of thought that the death penalty
indeed prevented new murder cases hold that the
inconclusiveness of these studies is probably simply because the
death penalty is an intervention that is rarely used.
They hold that even when used, it is always because of a long
process that takes several years before it is finally done. This
piece is going to argue against death penalty as a deterrence
tool against murder.

2. In Europe, the campaign against the death penalty started
back in the 1750s by academicians like Voltaire and Jeremy
Bentham. These brains held that the death penalty was
unnecessarily overrated as a crime deterrence tool and that it
was unnecessarily cruel. They instead advocated for life
imprisonment as an alternative means of punishing such
offenders. This was the beginning of a worldwide move to see
the death penalty abolished. The state of Michigan in the US
was the first one in the United States of America to abolish
death penalty in 1847 (Bedau, pg 34). Several other countries
across the world more so in Western Europe and Latin America
have since abolished it. The British however abolished it in
1965. All these were because there was a problem since even
persons who were only supposed to be guilty of manslaughter,
ended up being convicted for a death penalty (Heilbrun, pg 57).
Besides this, there are several social, ethical and moral issues
that death penalty seriously violates but it does not even result
in deterrent as claimed by its proponents.
There is indeed a problem with the death penalty because
apart from the issue of deterrence there is also the issue of
morality that continue to bedevil it even today. It is a non-
contested belief in the moral circles that the state does not
enjoy the absolute right to put its people to death. The question
of whether two wrongs in terms of killing someone who had
murdered the other, has continued to elicit mixed reactions
among the public. It is worth noting here that even in the face
of these moral questions, a large majority of the population like
in the UK, still favor the application of death penalty for
murder criminals. It is worth believing that in the event that a
majority of the people stand for something especially in a
democracy, it is only fair that their opinion is factored in but
with equal consideration for the downside of their views
(Bedau, pg 178). There are those who argue in favor of the
death penalty by insisting that either way, people are still going
to die even if not by a decision of the court. Others have held
that the argument against the death penalty is biased since those

3. advocating it have not raised their voices against death cases
resulting from activities of the doctor or even from suffering
terminal illnesses like cancer.
The first argument is that death penalty permanently
incapacitates the criminal. This sees to it that the justice system
eliminates the hardcore criminals and hence has been seen as a
safety measure for those who would fall victims of the criminal
because it is common sense that a dead criminal has no capacity
to commit crime again. The second argument has been that it is
better to eliminate these cruel criminals rather than use the
taxpayer’s money to take care of them in state prisons. In the
US, the cost has been that of executing the offender since the
US legal system allows for several appeals that can go for as
long as 12 years unlike in the UK where the average time is
between 3 to 8 weeks and there is only one chance for an
appeal.
The third argument is support of death penalty is
retribution. This argument holds that through retribution, the
murderer is forced to pay for the crimes he/she committed in a
way that is real because he/she is not subjected to a
rehabilitative process but made to suffer for the wrongs
committed. This rule of ‘an-eye-for an –eye’ also referred to as
‘lax talens’ is however being questioned for its rationality and
whether it still has a place in today’s society. The other reason,
which is in contention, is that it brings about deterrence. The
question in regards to deterrence is whether death penalty really
deters potential criminals from engaging in murder. It has been
hard to prove this in one way or the other because in most
cases, the number of persons that are executed in a year is
always very small compared to the number that is sentenced to
death in the same period (Bedau, pg 202), . Those who argue in
support of this position point that in countries where the death
sentence has been implemented unopposed like in Singapore,
the cases of murder are significantly low. This can only be
absolute in the case where execution fro murder is almost an
absolute certainty and the public knows the same. As an anti-

4. death penalty crusader, I believe that the element of deterrence
can only function effectively if it is applied in a situation where
the crime is to be organized and therefore the criminals have the
time to think about their act and the possible consequences for
the same. However if the crime of murder is being committed
just in the heat of the moment, punishment can never act as a
deterrent because there is no time to consider the consequences.
A study undertaken in Italy in 2007 revealed that 311
individuals who were serving life sentences without parole had
petitioned their government to execute them because they
argued that life sentences without parole was very harsh and
therefore they would better be put to death (Bedau, pg 56). This
in a way means that the death penalty is not as harsh as life
sentence without parole, which opponents of death penalty have
always advocated.
In the UK, ever since the abolition of the death penalty in
1965, the rates of unlawful executions by the public has been on
the rise ever since. The figures at the home office for instance,
indicate that in 1964, there were about 300 unlawful killings
that had occurred but it increased to 565 in 1994 and then 834
in the year 2004. The same records also reveal that there have
been instances of recidivism where murder convicts who were
sentenced to life imprisonment but later released, end up
committing other crimes like rape, murder and other criminal
acts. The number of persons in prison serving life sentences for
committing murders has also increased tremendously. The fact
that the rates of murders went up during the time when the
death penalty was upheld in Britain does not prove anything to
the effect that if the death penalty could have been enforced all
the way, the murder cases could have reduced. This is
particularly because there are other measures that have since
been put in force such as tighter gun control and easier methods
of divorce that have also reduced the cases of murder
significantly. Pro-death penalty proponents have however
argued that due to the enforcement of death penalties, even
hard-core criminals have been changing their tactics (Parks, pg

5. 57). This has been seen in a change of pattern where robbers
have switched from robbing during the day and weekdays, when
they used to leave a trail of blood in murder to stealing during
the weekend where they do not even carry firearms.
For starters, death penalty has seen the execution of
persons who though may have killed their victims, were not
liable for murder charges. In most cases, the only two parties
that should suffice the court with evidence of what transpired
are the accused and the deceased person. However because the
deceased cannot give an account, the defense lawyers and the
prosecution always have to use their skills to determine if it was
a case of murder or manslaughter. Therefore, the death penalty
cannot be used as deterrence when in real sense it only works to
convict persons who are supposed to be convicted of
manslaughter with murder because it will lack the goodwill to
correct mistakes that happen leading to death. The death penalty
also brings unto the family of the accused, unprecedented
pressures and stress of life. This means that the death penalty is
cruel enough to punish even those who are supposed to be out of
the dragnet. The sufferings that the family members undergo are
equally valid and should be taken into consideration. In a
research undertaken in the US, it was established that as at
January 2008, the correction facilities across the country had
2,200 persons serving whole life sentences who were under the
age of 18 at the time they committed the offences. They could
not be put through a death penalty since the US law does not
allow execution of minor offenders (Bedau, pg 174). This can
in another way be used to argue that the death penalty is still
flawed because it provides a leeway for minors to commit the
murders.
To administer death penalties for murder charges on
grounds that it would act as deterrence is a little bit misplaced.
The only instance that a death sentence would act as deterrence
for murder instances is when it is certain that ones one is found
guilty, the penalty is administered regardless of age, sex or even
mental state at the time of the occurrence of the incident (Hann,

6. pg 165). This would also call for prompt executions without
further delays and doing it in such an open manner that the
message is passed across to the public loud and clear. All those
who hold the opinion that death penalty is or can be a proven
deterrent to any future murders have the burden of
responsibility to prove their position. The death penalty is
likely to bring about a brutalized effect on the community
instead of deterring new occurrences. Because of the brutalizing
effect, the murder penalty can only achieve more murders. Data
gathered between 1973 and 1984 reveal that without the death
penalty, the murder rates were lower and amounted to 63% of
the rates compared to the states that retained the death penalty.
This therefore also served to refute claims that death penalty
brought about deterrence.
There are several countries across the world like Canada
and even several States in the US that have significantly lower
crime rates compared to other countries that do not embrace
death penalty. Perhaps this is an indication that having the
death sentences in place, has not worked to reduce murder
cases. It is also a point worth noting that death penalty can
never be a deterrent to murder cases because the persons, who
undertake to commit the murders, never expect to be found
committing the act nor do they put into perspective the possible
consequences of their actions. Normally, murders are
undertaken in either moments of passion or even anger (Bedau,
pg 109). The other instance is when the person who commits the
murder is a drug abuser who acts in an impulsive manner. It
would therefore be in order to address the underlying issues that
make people to act impulsively like drug abuse instead of the
harsh death penalty that has proved ineffective this far. In a
study undertaken in the 60s, Thorsten Sellin compared the
statistics for adjacent countries where one embraced death
penalty and another did not (Bedau, 85). The evidence revealed
that that the rates were almost 1: 1 meaning that death penalty
could not be talked about as deterrence. He therefore held that

7. if at all death penalty halted murder cases, there could have
been a significant difference between the countries that halted it
and those that had not but this was not the case.
The safety of the society can still be guaranteed without
using death sentence because it has not been proven anywhere
that death penalty is better off than life sentence. This,
considering that there are nations that today has the right
legislations to ensure that life sentence can be administered
without parole. When serving life sentence under such
conditions, the offenders are already out of reach of the rest of
the community and hence cannot pose any form of threat to
their security.
All those who support the view that death penalty can be
effective in deterrence hold the position that not all these issues
raised by anti-death penalty crusaders add up. The argument
here is that the moment one takes another’s life, the society’s
wheels of justice go off balance and therefore it is imperative
that the balance is restored by also taking away the murderer’s
life away as a way of avoiding the society from sliding into a
condition where the rule of violence prevails (Bren, pg 39).
Death penalty according the arguments advanced by the
proponents of death penalty seems to ride on the emotional
impulse for those baying for the accused person’s blood to
undertake retribution. In a mature society like the one we live in
today, does not support such impulsive and unmeasured
responses to problems like murder. It is necessary that the laws
used to bring law and order in our society, leads us to certain
higher principles that teach us to always respect life and the
right to life even if it is that of a murderer. To engage in
revenge missions that end with the killing of the accused
persons, only contribute in extending the community’s chain of
disorder and violence. In addition, people lose their sense of
caution and may not really respect life in the end (Bedau, pg
67). A policy of ‘kill the killer’ is not one that appeals to man’s
sense of reason nor does it appeal to our sense of morality,
which believes that to produce good is to sow good.

8. My position on this matter therefore can be best summed
in a statement from the Judaism and Catholic reform and
conservative movement in the US, confessed in their National
Council of Synagogues and Bishops’ meeting of committee
members in 1999. Their position was that; “Respect for all
human life and opposition to the violence in our society are at
the root of our long-standing opposition (as bishops) to the
death penalty. We see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle
of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture.
As we said in confronting the Culture of Violence: 'We cannot
teach that killing is wrong by killing.' We oppose capital
punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible
crimes, but for what it does to all of us as a society.
Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of
us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot
overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we
restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those
convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic
illusion that we can defend life by taking life” (Bedau, pg 123).
I therefore urge the withdrawal of the death penalty policy so
that other effective measures that address the root causes of
murders are used rather than retribution of death penalty that
simply relies on its characteristic of being ‘scary’ to claim
deterrence.

9. Work Cited
Bedau, Hugo. Debating the death penalty: Should Americans
have capital punishment? The experts on both sides make their
case. 2008. New York: Rutledge. Pgs 256 Print
Hann, Robert. Deterrence & the death penalty: a critical review
of the econometric literature. 1977. London: Prentice hall. Pgs
276 print
Heilbrun Alfred. The death penalty: Beyond the smoke and
mirrors. 2006. Chicago: Riverside publications. Pgs 189 print
Parks Peggy. Does death penalty deter crime? (In controversy).
2009. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pgs 178 print
Bren JoAnn. Death penalty: Fair solution or moral failure?
(USA Today’s Debate: Voices and perspectives. 2009.
Manchester: Rutledge. Pgs 217 print