Capital Punishment: Does it Deter Crime - Term Paper Example

Capital Punishment: Does it Deter Crime? Introduction This paper seeks to discuss and analyze capital punishment whether it deters crime or not. This will also examine the other arguments for and against capital punishment and hopefully defend the proposition that it may deter crime and but there are better alternatives of deterring crime and that argument rejecting capital punishment are more justifiable than favoring the same. What is capital punishment and its background? Is the state capacitated to carry it through? “Thoughts on the death penalty” (TDP) said, “Capital punishment is the lawful infliction of death as a punishment and since ancient times, it has been used for a wide variety of offences. The Bible prescribes death for murder and many other crimes including kidnapping and witchcraft. By 1500 in England, only major felonies carried the death penalty - treason, murder, larceny, burglary, rape, and arson. By 1700, however, Parliament had enacted many new capital offences and hundreds of persons were being put to death each year.1” So what is the trend? Is to abolish death or restore? TDP said, “Reform Of The Death Penalty Began In Europe by the 1750’s and was championed by academics such as the Italian jurist, Cesare Beccaria, the French philosopher, Voltaire, and the English law reformers, Jeremy Bentham and Samuel Romilly.  They argued that the death penalty was needlessly cruel, overrated as a deterrent and occasionally imposed in fatal error. Along with Quaker leaders and other social reformers, they defended life imprisonment as a more rational alternative.2” TDP said, “By the 1850’s, these reform efforts began to bear fruit. Venezuela (1853) and Portugal (1867) were the first nations to abolish the death penalty altogether. In the United States, Michigan was the first state to abolish it for murder in 1847. Today, it is virtually abolished in all of Western Europe and most of Latin America. Britain effectively abolished capital punishment in 1965.” It added that in America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (except Israel) most countries still retain the death penalty for certain crimes and impose it with varying frequency.3 Notice that America which proclaims itself as the democratic country is still one the countries which up to this time, believes in capital punishment. The United Kingdom which has a different form of government believes otherwise. TDP said, “In 2004, lethal injection replaced hanging and shooting as the two most common methods of execution followed by beheading.  Lethal injection, which is almost universal in America, is also used extensively now in China, the Philippines, Thailand and Guatemala. Electrocution and the gas chamber are used only in America and seem to be disappearing slowly – the inmate has to elect to die by these methods. Stoning for sexual offences, including adultery, may still occur in some Islamic countries. China, with a quarter of the worlds population, carries out the most executions for a wide variety of offences.”4 Do the states have the right to take the life of a person by imposing death penalty? Before one would talk of penalty as deterrent to crime commission, it is best to answer the question: “Does the states have the right to impose death penalty.” For democratic countries like US, Wikipedia said, “An argument used both in support of and against the death penalty is that one should follow the majority opinion in the country concerned. For example, if a majority of Americans support the death penalty, while in other countries, the public opinion is against, then whatever choice democratic process produce may be considered as the "right" policy for that country. There are two possible objections to this argument. Firstly, voters make up their minds on the basis of ethical arguments offered to them and not the other way round - i.e. ethical arguments should not be decided on the basis of uninformed voting, either for or against death penalty. Secondly, modern democracy is not direct democracy’5 but representative 6democracy. This means that representatives have difficulty understanding the collective wishes of their constituents, such as whether the votes find life sentences as an acceptable alternative or how much priority they place on the issue of the death penalty itself. No representative can be elected if they base their action in direct opposition to the wishes of the voters.”7 TDP said, “The state clearly has no absolute right to put its subjects to death although, of course, almost all countries do so in some form or other (but not necessarily in the conventional form of capital punishment). In most countries, it is by arming their police forces and accepting the fact that people will from time to time be killed as a result and therefore at the states behest.” It added, “A majority of a states subjects may wish to confer the right to put certain classes of criminal to death through referendum or voting in state elections for candidates favouring capital punishment. Majority opinion in many democratic countries tends to be in favour of the death penalty. It is reasonable to assume that if a majority is in favour of a particular thing in a democratic society, their wishes should be seriously considered with equal consideration given to the downside of their views.8” Does not the fact the people could just be emotional with the whole thing? That is a possibility and it the essence of democracy, to change what they want when they wish to. TDP said, “A fact that is conveniently overlooked by anti-capital punishment campaigners is that we are all ultimately going to die. In many cases, we will know of this in advance and suffer great pain and emotional anguish in the process. This is particularly true of those diagnosed as having terminal cancer.  It is apparently acceptable to be "sentenced to death" by ones family doctor without having committed any crime at all but totally unacceptable to be sentenced to death by a judge having been convicted of murder or drug trafficking (the crimes for which the majority of executions are carried out)9.” Bienen , L, said, “Where is the debate over the death penalty? America is the only western country, some would say the only democracy, where capital punishment is still practiced. Public executions are periodic demonstrations of state authority in China, Nigeria, Iraq and Pakistan. Some argue that if the United States is to retain capital punishment, the practice of the State killing people under the authority of the law, then our executions also should be public, as they were until well into this century.10 Opponents of the death penalty argue that if `the public--whoever that is--`really knew--whatever that means-- how capital punishment in America was practiced, they would insist their law makers get rid of it.11 Proponents of the death penalty also argue that the public should `really know what the death penalty is. Others address the issue laterally--by describing some aspect of what the death penalty means in practice in the United States today.12 Gregg v. Georgia ushered in the new capital punishment era in 1976,13 and the execution of Gary Gilmore by firing squad in January of 1977 announced that the new capital punishment really had arrived.14 The era of the United States Supreme Courts emphasis in Gregg and its companion cases upon the due process protections for defendants ensured by the structure of the new capital statutes, with jurors making explicit findings on statutory aggravating and mitigating factors, shifted empirical academic research to jury decision making.15”16 Bienen , L, wondered “that several of the books reviewed here engage in these arguments: what is capital punishment in America at the end of the twentieth century? Why do we still have it? Who is affected by it, and what does it cost? Who is informed about it, and what role does it play in elections? Where is there an open and honest discussion about it, and who are the participants? The books reviewed here raise other nontrivial questions: For whom are they written? What difference do they make, or can they make? The capital punishment engine seems to have its own driving force and momentum. Perhaps it is enough that these authors tell us some part of the story of where we are now in terms of capital punishment in the United States, and how we got there.”17 After establishing the basis of the right we can now proceed on arguing for and against the issue of capital punishment. Each side has its point to discuss the in the following sections. Arguments for the death penalty We will now start with the strongest reason why capital punishment should be there as part of the law. The greatest reason or argument for the practice of capital punishment is to influence the future in helping society to reduce crimes. Stolzenberg and DAlessio confirmed this observation by quoting, Plato and Protagoras as follows “ Punishment is not inflicted by a rational man for the sake of the crime that has been committed--after all one cannot undo what is past--but for the sake of the future, to prevent either the same man or, by the spectacle of his punishment, someone else, from doing wrong again.”18 Deterrence Sunstein and Vermeule said that recent evidence raises legitimate doubts about all of these views. The authors argued that capital punishment may well have deterrent effects; and that there is evidence that few categories of murders are inherently undeterrable. Thus they said that even so-called crimes of passion; some studies find extremely large deterrent effects; and error and arbitrariness undoubtedly occur, but the evidence of deterrence suggests the possibility that some or even many prospective murderers may be receiving a clear signal.19 Does the death penalty deter crime? TDP said “It is hard to prove one way or the other because in most retentionist countries the number of people actually executed per year (as compared to those sentenced to death) is usually a very small proportion.  It would, however, seem that in those countries (e.g. Singapore) which almost always carry out death sentences, there is generally far less serious crime. This tends to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent, but only where execution is an absolute certainty. Anti-death penalty campaigners always argue that death is not a deterrent and usually site studies based upon American states to prove their point. This is, in my view, flawed and probably chosen to be deliberately misleading.20” Other valid reasons supporting capital punishment include Incapacitation of the criminal, cost and retribution. Each is discussed below for clarity. Incapacitation of the criminal Death end the life of the criminal, the possibility of committing another crime ends too. This is the argument that is espoused by this theory. TDP agreed when it said, “Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much cheaper and safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or being released from it.”21 Cost TDP said, “Money is not an inexhaustible commodity and the state may very well better spend our (limited) resources on the old, the young and the sick rather than the long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists, etc. Anti-capital punishment campaigners in America cite the higher cost of executing someone over life in prison, but this (whilst true for America) has to do with the endless appeals and delays in carrying out death sentences that are allowed under the American legal system where the average time spent on death row is over 11 years. In Britain in the 20th century, the average time in the condemned cell was less than 8 weeks and there was only one appeal.22” Retribution This is a tooth for a tooth principle.23 The essence of that saying finds itself fulfilled in retribution. A murderer owes life; hence, he must give his or life too as payment. TDP confirmed the presence of this argument by saying,” Execution is a very real punishment rather than some form of "rehabilitative" treatment; the criminal is made to suffer in proportion to the offence. Although whether there is a place in a modern society for the old fashioned principal of "lex talens" (an eye for an eye), is a matter of personal opinion. Retribution is seen by many as an acceptable reason for the death penalty according to my survey results.24” It would be nice for us to see the application of the arguments on whether they are backed with evidence in reality. Great Britain. Let us see the application of the deterrence theory with Britain. TDP, said, “ The rates for unlawful killings in Britain have more than doubled since abolition of capital punishment in 1964 from 0.68 per 100,000 of the population to 1 .42 per 100,000. Home Office figures show around unlawful killings 300 in 1964, which rose to 565 in 1994 and 833 in 2004. The principal methods of homicide were fights involving fists and feet, poisoning, strangling, firearms and cutting by glass or a broken bottle. 72% of the victims were male with young men being most at risk.  Convictions for the actual crime of murder (as against manslaughter and other unlawful killings) have been rising inexorably.  Between 1900 and 1965 they ran at an average of 29 per year.  There were 57 in 1965 – the first year of abolition.  Ten years later the total for the year was 107 which rose to 173 by 1985 and 214 in 1995. The figure for 2005 is 280.  There have been 71 murders committed by people who have been released after serving "life sentences" in the period between 1965 and 1998 according to Home Office statistics. Some 6,300 people are currently serving sentences of “life in prison” for murder.25” It could be observed from the above that crime increased when death penalty was abolished. The number of years per period covered appear to show a validity of the theory. TPD added “Statistics were kept for the 5 years that capital punishment was suspended in Britain (1965-1969) and these showed a 125% rise in murders that would have attracted a death sentence. Whilst statistically all this is true, it does not tell one how society has changed over nearly 40 years. It may well be that the murder rate would be the same today if we had retained and continued to use the death penalty. It is impossible to say that only this one factor affects the murder rate.  Easier divorce has greatly reduced the number of domestic murders, unavailability of poisons has seen poisoning become almost extinct whilst tight gun control had begun to reduce the number of shootings, however, drug related gun crime is on the increase and there have been a spate of child murders recently. Stabbings have increased dramatically as have the kicking and beating to death of people who have done something as minor as arguing with someone or jostling them in a crowd, i.e. vicious and virtually motiveless killings. As in most Western countries, greatly improved medical techniques have saved many victims who would have previously died from their injuries (e.g. Josie Russell).”26 United States of America. TDP said, “In most states, other than Texas, the number of executions as compared to death sentences and murders is infinitesimally small. Of the 598 executions carried out in the whole of the USA from 1977 to the end of 1999, Texas accounts for 199 or 33%27.” TPD said, “Interestingly, the murder rate in the U.S. dropped from 24,562 in 1993 to 18,209 in 1997, the lowest for years (a 26% reduction) - during a period of increased use of the death penalty. 311 (62%) of the 500 executions have been carried out in this period. The number of murders in 2003 was about 15,600. America still had 5 times as many murders per head of population as did Britain in 1997 whilst Singapore had 15 times fewer murders per head of population than Britain. How can one account for this? There are obvious cultural differences between the 3 countries although all are modern and prosperous. It is dangerously simplistic to say that the rise in executions is the only factor in the reduction of homicides in America. There has been a general trend to a more punitive society, (e.g. the "three strikes and your out" law) over this period and cities such as New York claim great success in reducing crime rates through the use of "zero tolerance" policing policies. But otherwise, there has been political and economic stability over the period and no obvious social changes. Improvements in medical techniques have also saved many potential deaths.28” Texas TDP said,” As stated above, Texas carries out far more executions than any other American state (between 1982 and 2000 it executed 254 men and 2 women) and there is now clear evidence of a deterrent effect. My friend Rob Gallagher (author of Before the Needles website) has done an analysis of the situation using official FBI homicide figures.  Between 1980 and 2000, there were 41,783 murders in Texas.”29 TDP said, “In 1980 alone, 2,392 people died by homicide, giving it a murder rate of 16.88 for every 100,000 of the population. (The U.S. average murder rate in 1980 was 10.22, falling to 5.51 per 100,000 by the year 2000. Over the same period, Texas had a population increase of 32%, up 6,681,991 from 14,169,829 to 20,851,820. There were only 1,238 murders in 2000 giving it a rate of 5.94, just slightly higher than the national rate which had dropped to 5.51/100,000.  In the base year (1980), there was one murder for every 5,924 Texans.  By the year 2000, this had fallen to one murder for every 16,843 people or 35.2% of the 1980 value.  If the 1980 murder rate had been allowed to maintain, there would have been, by interpolation, a total of 61,751 murders. On this basis, 19,968 people are not dead today who would have potentially been homicide victims, representing 78 lives saved for each one of the 256 executions. The overall U.S. murder rate declined by 54% during the period.  Therefore, to achieve a reasonable estimate of actual lives saved, we must multiply 19,968 by 0.54 giving a more realistic figure of 10,783 lives saved or 42 lives per execution. Even if this estimate was off by a factor of 10 (which is highly unlikely), there would still be over 1,000 innocent lives saved or 4 lives per execution. One can see a drop in the number of murders in 1983, the year after Charlie Brooks became the first person to be executed by lethal injection in America.30” TPD said, “In 2000, Texas had 1,238 murders (an average of 23.8 murders per week), but in 2001 only 31 people were given the death sentence and 17 prisoners executed (down from 40 the previous year). This equates to a capital sentencing rate of 2.5% or one death sentence for every 40 murders.31” Singapore. TDP said, “Singapore always carries out death sentences where the appeal has been turned down, so its population knows precisely what will happen to them if they are convicted of murder or drug trafficking - is this concept deeply embedded into the subconsciousness of most of its people, acting as an effective deterrent?”32 It added that in 1995, Singapore hanged an unusually large number of 7 murderers with 4 in 1996, 3 in 1997 and only one in 1998 rising to 6 in 1999 (3 for the same murder). It also observed that Singapore takes an equally hard line on all other forms of crime with stiff on the spot fines for trivial offences such as dropping litter and chewing gum in the street, caning for males between 18 and 50 for a wide variety of offences, and rigorous imprisonment for all serious rimes.33 Arguments against the death penalty With or without necessarily assuming that capital punishment deters crime, how about the other possibilities. TDP said “There are a number of incontrovertible arguments against the death penalty. The most important one is the virtual certainty that genuinely innocent people will be executed and that there is no possible way of compensating them for this miscarriage of justice. There is also another significant danger here. The person convicted of the murder may have actually killed the victim and may even admit having done so but does not agree that the killing was murder. Often the only people who know what really happened are the accused and the deceased. It then comes down to the skill of the prosecution and defence lawyers as to whether there will be a conviction for murder or for manslaughter. It is thus highly probable that people are convicted of murder when they should really have only been convicted of manslaughter.” “thoughts on the death penalty” further aid, “A second reason, that is often overlooked, is the hell the innocent family and friends of criminals must also go through in the time leading up to and during the execution and which will often cause them serious trauma for years afterwards. It is often very difficult for people to come to terms with the fact that their loved one could be guilty of a serious crime and no doubt even more difficult to come to terms with their death in this form. However strongly you may support capital punishment, two wrongs do not make one right. One cannot and should not deny the suffering of the victims family in a murder case but the suffering of the murderers family is surely equally valid.34” TDP explained “There must always be the concern that the state can administer the death penalty justly, most countries have a very poor record on this.  In America, a prisoner can be on death row for many years (on average 11 years {2004 figure}) awaiting the outcome of numerous appeals and their chances of escaping execution are better if they are wealthy and/or white rather than poor and/or black irrespective of the actual crimes they have committed which may have been largely forgotten by the time the final decision is taken. Although racism is claimed in the administration of the death penalty in America, statistics show that white prisoners are more liable to be sentenced to death on conviction for first degree murder and are also less likely to have their sentences commuted than black defendants.35” In further explaining, TDP argued, “It must be remembered that criminals are real people too who have life and with it the capacity to feel pain, fear and the loss of their loved ones, and all the other emotions that the rest of us are capable of feeling.  It is easier to put this thought on one side when discussing the most awful multiple murderers but less so when discussing, say, an 18 year old girl convicted of drug trafficking.  (Singapore hanged two girls for this crime in 1995 who were both only 18 at the time of their offences and China shot an 18 year old girl for the same offence in 1998.)” We are human beings with the emotions and to feel love and pity. We categorize acts as cruel, more cruel or most cruel. When be become most cruel or just be cruel, we remove are being humane. TDP would agree with us by saying: “There is no such thing as a humane method of putting a person to death irrespective of what the State may claim (see later). Every form of execution causes the prisoner suffering, some methods perhaps cause less than others, but be in no doubt that being executed is a terrifying and gruesome ordeal for the criminal. What is also often overlooked is the extreme mental torture that the criminal suffers in the time leading up to the execution.  How would you feel knowing that you were going to die tomorrow morning at 8.00 a.m.?” What could be alternative if death penalty is not imposed? Instead of killing the convict, the state could impose life imprisonment at punishment. The only issue, would it not be fairer to do so than executing the person? I believe it is a fair thing if the there are factors to consider that could deter crime than death. One is the certainly of being caught and put the courts to face the bar of justice. A criminal fear first that he might get caught before he hears the consequence of being caught. So that if he feels he will get away with it, the penalty has become irrelevant. TDP agreed when it said, “Any punishment must be fair, just, adequate and most of all, enforceable. Society still views murder as a particularly heinous crime which should justify the most severe punishment. Whole life imprisonment could fit the bill for the worst murders with suitable gradations for less awful murders. It explained itself saying, “I am personally against the mandatory life sentence for murder as it fails, in my view, to distinguish between really dreadful crimes and those crimes which, whilst still homicide, are much more understandable to the rest of us. Therefore, it is clearly necessary to give juries the option of finding the prisoner guilty but in a lower degree of murder, and to give judges the ability to pass sensible, determinate sentences based upon the facts of the crime as presented to the court.” It added, “Imprisonment, whilst expensive and largely pointless, except as means of removing criminals from society for a given period, is at least enforceable upon anyone who commits murder (over the age of 10 years). However, it appears to many people to be a soft option and this perception needs to be corrected.36” Moreover, TDP said, “In modern times, we repeatedly see murderers being able to "get off" on the grounds of diminished responsibility and their alleged psychiatric disorders or by using devices such as plea bargaining. This tends to remove peoples faith in justice which is very dangerous.” It also asked, “Are there any other real, socially acceptable, options for dealing with murderers?” In responding to its own set of questions, it said, “One possible solution (that would enrage the civil liberties groups) would be to have everyones DNA profile database at birth (not beyond the wit of modern computer systems), thus making detection of many murders and sex crimes much easier. If this was done and generally accepted as the main plank of evidence against an accused person and a suitable, determinate sentence of imprisonment passed, involving a sensible regime combining both punishment and treatment, it would I am sure, considerably reduce the incidence of the most serious and most feared crimes. The reason for this is that for most people, being caught is a far greater deterrent than some possible, probably misunderstood punishment, e.g. "life imprisonment."  Surely this has to be better than the arbitrary taking of the lives of a tiny minority of offenders (as happens in most countries that retain the death penalty) with all the unwanted side effects that this has on their families and on the rest of society. It is clear that certainty of being caught is a very good deterrent - just look at how people observe speed limits when they see signs for speed cameras and yet break the speed limit as soon as the risk is passed.37” "Life without parole" versus the death penalty Most people who are against the death penalty are pro-life groups. They essentially value life to their simplest form. Hence they never run out for alternatives. TDP confirmed this in saying, “Many opponents of capital punishment put forward life in prison without parole as a viable alternative to execution for the worst offenders, and surveys in America have shown that life without parole (LWOP) enjoys considerable support amongst those who would otherwise favour the death penalty.” TDP however noted several drawbacks to this. It explained saying: “Death clearly permanently incapacitates the criminal and prevents them committing any other offence.  LWOP cannot prevent or deter offenders from killing prison staff or other inmates or taking hostages to further an escape bid - they have nothing further to lose by doing so.” It also said, “However good the security of a prison, someone will always try to escape and occasionally will be successful. If you have endless time to plan an escape and everything to gain from doing so, it is a very strong incentive.38” The Numbers Game "death versus deterrence" There are other pro-life alternatives to the death penalty. Thus TDP said, “If we are, however, really serious in our desire to reduce crime through harsher punishments alone, we must be prepared to execute every criminal who commits a capital crime irrespective of their sex, age (above the legal minimum) alleged mental state or background. Defences to capital charges must be limited by statute to those which are reasonable. Appeals must be similarly limited and there can be no reprieves. We must carry out executions without delay and with sufficient publicity to get the message across to other similarly minded people.” TDP explained that this is similar to the situation which obtains in China and would, that if applied in Britain, undoubtedly would lead to a large number of executions to begin with until the message got through. An estimate of at least 2,000 or so in the first year if it were applied for murder, aggravated rape and drug trafficking and that it would amount to more than 7 executions every day of the year Monday through Friday.39 Conclusion: Yes, there may be evidence that capital punishment deters crime but there are could other factors that could deter crime most, and one is the certainty of being caught and brought to justice. It would have been easier to agree that capital punishment is the best way had we value life in all its difficulties. Yet in all its difficulties it so precious that it is priceless that not even any government of the world can prevent the death of any one. By no resorting to killing the person via capital punishment may see his limitation. What could be wiser than man? There are just simply incontrovertible arguments against the death penalty the virtual certainty that genuinely innocent people will be executed and that there is no possible way of compensating them for this miscarriage of justice is the gravest crime of all. This has been proven in previous executions. Who could be more criminal than the one killing the killer? Could we bring back to life the person erroneously condemned to death? Why not just imprison the person and perhaps such person could just be productive. The arguments posited in favor of death are based on faulty assumptions about a human being since human being is free and he could change decision until the last breath of his life. A mentally culturally growing generation must admit of the different complex realties in life of which this life has been the subject of many studies since man discovered science and knowledge. To make similar man’s life in terms of just few dollars or that of being not capable of reform is too simplistic and absurd and could only be the result of an uneducated and unscientific mind. Killing him because he happens to be costly to society on the ground that it is the easiest way of preventing further harm because of possible repetitions of crime is simply not acceptable. The state should be consistent. It is against euthanasia because it values life. Why not value the life of the criminal. If medicine would do everything to save a man dying of cancer, why not look more favorably to a convicted felon that he might live a better life after an error of judgment and his remaining life could be as precious as the one dying of cancer in hospital? Why don’t we just allow the Divine Will to do the simple job of taking life? Work cited: "Executed" Afghan Is Alive, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 17, 1999, At A3, Available In 1999 WL 9867290. Presumably Neither This, Nor The Evidence Of Mass Graves In Kosovo Filled With Unarmed Civilians. “Thoughts On The Death Penalty,” {Www Document) URL Http://Www.Richard.Clark32.Btinternet.Co.Uk/Thoughts.Html#Anti. (N.D.), Accessed May 28, 2006. ‘Thoughts On The Death Penalty ‘ Is An Article Available On Line. The Article Discusses The Pros And Cons Of Capital Punishment. Bbc.Co.Uk, Criminal Law, {Www Document} URL Http://Www.Bbc.Co.Uk/Consumer/Legal_Glossary/C.Shtml, (2006), Accessed Dec 6, 2006. Bbc.Co.Uk Is Website Containing Consumer’s Legal Glossary. Being A Legal Glossary, It Defines Various Terms To Help Users In The Understanding Of Concepts, Be It In Their Professional, Academic Or Personal Life. Bienen , L, The Killing State: Capital Punishment In Law, Politics, And Culture (Austin Sarat Ed., Oxford University Press, 1999) 263 Pp Death Penalty Information Center At. James R. Acker Et Al., Introduction, Americas Experiment With Capital Punishment: Reflections On The Past, Present, And Future Of The Ultimate Penal Sanction, 5, 7 (James R. Acker Et Al., Eds. 1998). John D. Bessler, Death In The Dark: Midnight Executions In America 4 (1997). Mark Constanzo, Just Revenge: Costs And Consequences Of The Death Penalty 79-84 (1997). See Also Death Penalty Information Center, Supra Note 2. See Gregg V. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). See Mathew Spicer & Wolfgang Kruger, The Current Position Of Capital Punishment In Europe In 199Z 21 The Criminologist 197 (1997). Sunstein And Vermeule, Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? Acts, Omissions, And Life-Life Tradeoffs, Journal Article By; Stanford Law Review, Vol. 58, 2005 The Article Is Trying To Explain The Principle Of Retributive Justice Which Is Also Know As The ‘Law Of Retaliation”, DAlessio, S. Lisa Stoltenberg, L., Capital Punishment, Execution Publicity And Murder In Houston Texas, Journal Of Criminal Law And Criminology, Vol. 94, 2004 Wikipedia, An Eye For An Eye, {Www Document}, URL Http://En.Wikipedia.Org/Wiki/Eye_For_An_Eye, (2006), Accessed May 28, 2006. Wikipedia Is An Online Encyclopedia Featuring The Article “An Eye For An Eye.” Wikipedia, Capital Punishment Debate, {Www Document} URL Http://En.Wikipedia.Org/Wiki/Capital_Punishment_Debate, Accessed December 5,2006 Wikipedia, Direct Democracy, {Www Document} URL Http://En.Wikipedia.Org/Wiki/Direct_Democracy, Accessed December 5,2006 Wikipedia, Representative Democracy Read More