There is no current information that would support this argument in its entirety.An inmate killing another inmate is also something that, by the economic argument those in favor of the death penalty attempt to use, will benefit society as we no longer have to pay for the deceased inmate’s incarceration expenses.When Thomas Aquinas wrote, “The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state,” he was probably under the same misguided impression as today’s advocates of the death penalty that murdering murderers prevents murdering.
The unfortunate part for many of the statistics is that few statistics with such trends exist, and of the few that do, no correlation is explained, only assumed.
A majority of the statistics regarding deterrence via the death penalty are in favor of the opposite.
“Over the next 20 years the homicide rate in Canada fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards.
It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98) – the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third lower than in the year before abolition.
Because of the complexity of causality in crime and the legal system, statistics are not convincing in and of themselves.
The problem with deterrence is that few offenders commit a crime anticipating that they will be apprehended, even with some degree of premeditation.This is laughable, but only because Sharp is apparently sincere about this statement.By this reasoning, the death penalty must be used to keep our prisons safe and kill those who kill in prison, rather than weighing our approaches at making prisons safer.It should also be stressed that once a heinous crime has been committed, there are probably few if any deterrents to further crimes to avoid arrest and trial, especially if there is the prospect of the death penalty being applied to the initial criminal act.In Dudley Sharp’s 1997 paper, “Death Penalty and Sentencing [Dis]Information”, Sharp argues that with no death penalty and only life without parole, there is no deterrent for [life without parole] inmates killing others while in prison or after escape.Statistics cited in favor of the death penalty are often dubious by including only murder rates per capita and the number of executions in some lengthy period of time. It is neither conclusive nor factors in other circumstances such as regional disparities, ethnicity of the violators and the executed, and what other factors (such as law enforcement efforts) had been implemented in that time that may have prevented violent crime.Another reason that there is no general consensus on whether or not the death penalty is a deterrent is that it is used very rarely – only about one out of every 300 murders actually results in an execution.Especially if we murder enough murderers and give it a chance.Unfortunately, the argument of deterrence is a rather weak on now that we have statistics and data and a more sober perspective of the issue with thousands of years of its use.Justice Arthur Chaskalson, President of the South African Constitutional Court, Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa in a 1995 decision he favored that ruled South Africa's death penalty unconstitutional.From this very point, we come to focus on the issue not domestically, but globally, and can draw serious conclusions about the nature of capital punishment with information from various countries and their subdivisions with very different circumstances surrounding the death penalty.