Home Categories About
argument top image
Should the death penalty be abolished? Should the death penalty be abolished?
Yes, we should abolish the death penalty Yes, we should abolish the death penalty
No, we should not abolish the death penalty No, we should not abolish the death penalty
The death penalty targets racial minorities The death penalty targets racial minorities
The death penalty targets the poor The death penalty targets the poor
The death penalty targets people with mental illnesses or intellectual disabilities. The death penalty targets people with mental illnesses or intellectual disabilities.
Wrongful convictions are common Wrongful convictions are common
The death penalty wastes taxpayer money The death penalty wastes taxpayer money
The death penalty violates the sanctity of human life The death penalty violates the sanctity of human life
The death penalty deters crime The death penalty deters crime
The death penalty gives victims closure The death penalty gives victims closure
The death penalty administers justice because some people deserve death The death penalty administers justice because some people deserve death
The death penalty saves lives The death penalty saves lives
The death penalty affirms the value of human life The death penalty affirms the value of human life
Debate Mini Map

Should the death penalty be abolished?
Back to question

No, we should not abolish the death penalty

< (2 of 2)

The death penalty deters crime

The risk of harsh punishment deters people from committing heinous crimes.
Margaret Thatcher Ronald Reagan
< (1 of 5) Next argument >

The Argument

Like everyone else, criminals rationalize their decisions. Before committing a crime, they weigh the potential costs and benefits of their action. If people know that they could be executed for their crimes, they are less likely to commit them. This idea is known as the deterrence theory. Under this framework, harsh punishment prevents criminal activity. For this reason, we should not abolish the death penalty. Although it is rarely applied, the death penalty’s existence deters crime. If people know that their crimes could lead to their lives being taken, they are more likely to abstain from heinous wrongs. In this way, the death penalty saves lives and rids our societies of crime. The death penalty ultimately makes our communities safer, because it forces people to consider the potential consequences of their actions, pitting a natural instinct for self-preservation against their desire to commit a crime.

Counter arguments

Although this argument seems logical, it wrongly assumes that criminal activity is premeditated and rational. In most cases, people commit heinous crimes while overwhelmed by strong physical impulses such as rage or sexual desire. Crime is carnal. It leaves no room for rational thought. As a result, reason is often not a part of a criminal's decision-making process. The criminal will not stop to consider the risk of execution, because reason does not motivate crime. Evil impulses motivate crime. Additionally, if a person stops to consider the risk of execution, he or she can easily dismiss this concern with an assurance of avoiding this punishment. They can avoid the death penalty through evading arrest, hiring strong legal representation, or twisting the crime's narrative. For these reasons, the death penalty does not deter crime.

Proponents

Premises

[P1] If people know that they could be executed for their crimes, they are less likely to commit them. [P2] In this way, the death penalty deters crime.

Rejecting the premises

References

In the Wild

This page was last edited on Wednesday, 8 Jul 2020 at 18:37 UTC

Explore related arguments