Should the death penalty be abolished?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Should the death penalty be abolished?
Position‹2 of 2: No, we should not abolish the death penalty
Argument1 of 5›: The death penalty saves lives

By discouraging heinous crime, the death penalty saves countless innocent lives.

The argument

Before committing a crime, criminals weigh the potential costs and benefits of their actions. If people know that they could lose their lives for 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. 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. In this way, the death penalty saves lives.

Premises

[P1]Criminals weigh potential costs and benefits before committing crimes, so harsher punishments deter criminal activity. [P2] The possibility of losing one's life is the most severe cost and triggers the instinct of self-preservation more powerfully than lesser penalties. [P3] By deterring would-be offenders, the death penalty prevents violent crimes and thereby saves innocent lives. [C] Therefore, we should not abolish the death penalty.

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, the criminal will not stop to consider the risk of execution, because carnal impulses leave no room for such consideration. For this reason, the death penalty does not preserve innocent lives.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The model of rational calculation fits acquisitive and planned offending far better than the killings for which capital punishment is actually imposed, which are frequently impulsive, intoxicated or driven by rage. [Rejecting P2] What deters is the perceived certainty and swiftness of being caught rather than the severity of the eventual sentence. A punishment that is, as the argument concedes, rarely imposed and carried out years later is weak on both counts. [Rejecting P3] The empirical claim is where this fails. Comparisons between retentionist and abolitionist jurisdictions have not established a deterrent effect, and a National Research Council review concluded that the existing studies are simply not informative enough to support one.