Threat of Death Penalty Rate of Homicide Decreases
Frank Carrington (1978) states- is there any way one can tell whether the death penalty deters murders from killing? There is no way one can tell whether the death penalty deters murderers from killing. The argument goes on that proponents of capital punishments should not have to bear the burden of proving deterrence by a reasonable doubt. Nor should the abolitionist have to prove deterrence by a reasonable doubt -neither side would be able to anyway.
Frank Carrington (1978) claims common sense supports the inference that if, the threat of the death penalty decreases, the rate of murders increases than it may be true. But if the threat had increased, the homicide rate may decrease.
Justice Stewart held in the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia:
Although some of the studies suggest that the death penalty may not function as a significantly greater deterrent than lesser penalties, there is no convincing empirical evidence supporting or refuting this view.
We may nevertheless assume safely there are murders, such as those who act in passion, for whom the threat of death has little or no deterrent effect. But for many others, the death penalty undoubtedly, is a significant deterrent.
There are carefully contemplated murders, such as murder for hire, where the possible penalty of death may well enter the cold calculus that precedes the decision to act ( as cited in Carrington, 1978. p. 87).
J. Edgar Hoover, late director of Federal Bureau of Investigations, asks the
following questions: “Have you ever thought about how many criminals escape punishment, and yet, the victims never have a chance to do that? Are crime victims in the United States today the forgotten people of our time? Do they receive full measure of justice (as cited in Isenberg, 1977, p. 129)?
A criminal on death row has a chance to prepare his death, make a will, and make his last statements, etc. while some victims can never do it. There are many other crimes where people are injured by stabbing, rape, theft, etc. To some degree at least, the victims right to freedom and pursuit of happiness is violated.
When the assailant is apprehended and charged, he has the power of the judicial process who protects his constitutional rights. What about the victim? The assailant may have compassion from investigating officers, families and friends. Furthermore, the criminal may have organized campaigns of propaganda to build sympathy for him as if he is the one who has been sinned against. These false claims are publicized, for no reason, hence, protecting the criminal (Isenberg, I., 1977)
The former Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General of Indiana delivered a speech to Law enforcement officials in Northern Indiana on May 12, 1971 (as cited in Isenberg, 1977):
“Our system of criminal law is to minimize human
suffering by works or order primarily to forestall
violence or aggression. In the question of the death
penalty, we must ask ourselves which action will
serve the true humanitarian purpose of criminal law.
We should weigh the death of the convicted murders against the loss of life of his victims and the possibility of potential victims to murder (p. 129)
In arguments of the death penalty, there are two lives to think about. Too much emphasis is placed on the convicted murderer, the one being executed, and the victim is all forgotten.
I thought you watched that movie and know what it is about? 
