Whenit comes to this second point. There are some objections to inevitably, theywould think the murderer and the law is not the same, not the same analogy, andfeel the existence of the death penalty can have a deterrent effect on its makeit not to hurt people or danger to society. “As Ed and I show in our book,there are good reasons to believe that the death penalty deters murder incontemporary America.
One reason is specific evidence of lives saved by an offender’sfear of death. In one case, an armed robber in California told her parole boardthat the reason she never used a loaded gun in her robberies was “So I wouldnot panic, kill somebody, and get the death penalty.” (Joseph M. Bessette,2018,P10 line1) 4 could suppose this point. However, we have differentpoint about murderer and death penalty or law.
“In the USA, asevidence accumulates for racial disparities, miscarriages of justice, and thesentencing of several people who had mental illness, four states have stoppedthe death penalty since 2008, most recently Maryland in 2013” (The Lancet,2014, Page 1184) 5. It means that because of human, the murdererwas sentenced to death would be affected by emotion, this is unfair to themurderer, which also a human. Law through a series of procedures to determinewhether a person should be found guilty, it is logical, also accord withethics.
But the law does not pass then judge whether a person should die, thisis obviously not ethical. Everyone is alive, life should not be a lifelessprogram to judge the life and death. Although the laws are made, according tothe will of man but it is only “the majority of people will. “Through thedeath sentence, it is an indirect in accordance with the “most”intend to “kill” violation of one of their different side. Law is the”most” law, death sentence, just a “majority” into”killer”. Every person shall have the right to life. If not, thekiller unwittingly achieves a final and perverse moral victory by making thestate a killer too, thus reducing social abhorrence at the conscious extinctionof human beings (S v Makwanyane, 357 ZA. (1995)) 6.
If we use thelaw to “kill” someone, it would make the law become “killer”.The third point is that thedeath penalty is not only violates the moral, humanitarian, and its actualeffect is meaningless, are more likely to lead to social retrogression. Wecould say that the existence of the death penalty will aggravate the violenceof the people.
When it comes to this point may be someone will protest.According to the view: “We are all in this together. No one in our societyescapes the impact of crime and violence which has affected our community in somany ways; crime interferes with our daily life, our personal sense of safety,and our ability to trust. It challenges the fabric of our society, our way oflife.
” (Elma Whittaker,2013, P3 line1) 7. They do not feel what isexecuted, cannot to those who want to crime deterrent, which may induce theoccurrence of crime, causes society to become dangerous, make the person becomeviolent. But we think it is, as a result of the existence of the death penaltyand the execution, make the person’s inner more violence, they will slowly from”justice will prevail” into “force to solve problems”.
This isthe previous the opposite point of view. This can be seen from some policeshave killed people on some tiny clue. “In particular, some military servicemembers experience the violence of wartime as hyper stimulating andexhilarating, and find it difficult to leave this aggressive mindset behindwhen they return to the civilian world and either begin or resume their careersas law enforcement officers.
” (Laurence Miller,2015, P34line3) 8. Death sentence would be opened to public, peopleoften pay attention to some serious damage to the society. Once you know whodid it, they often hope to complete “sanctions” law. But it is notrational, extreme, people just want this person to death, even his family, heshall be sentenced to death, especially the role of public opinion canaggravate anger.
So, if not executed, public opinion will be unusually strong,which makes society becomes violent and the law lost its function. The deathpenalty is the product of the law, not a product of the public opinion. Thedeath penalty is not advanced product behind people’s thought, before it isused to settle and not make the society become violent, the perfection of lawmakes the death penalty has a better way to replace. We humans are fragilelife, in a violent environment will only make us more panic, once a day aperson because of theft was sentenced to death, this is not a legal society,but the most primitive, dark forest law of the jungle.
At the same time, thedeath penalty will cost a lot of money. According to the paper “An averagecapital-eligible case with a death notice costs the taxpayers of Maryland about$1.8 million. In other words, each case with a death notice filing costs$670,000 more than a no-death-notice case. Current and forecasted prison costsare about the same ($950,000 per case), but adjudication costs are more thanthree times greater ($850,000 per case) than in no-death-notice cases.
“(JohnRoman, Aaron Chalfin, etc,2008,p.7 line23)9 Since the deathpenalty would spend so much money, that the abolition of the death penalty, isequivalent to we left so much money to do some construction, such as universallaws, improve the legal consciousness of the masses, or more community centerconstruction to guide those who might be on a path to crime, that is moremeaningful than the death penalty and transform function. From anotherperspective, money from taxpayers, and are more likely to come from people whowill be executed to obtain and use the money to make a man die, such as buy thekiller behavior of life, we should not do this, taxpayers’ money is used tomake society better, rather than a “crime” to the society. So, we canthink that the death penalty will aggravate the violence of the masses in thesociety