Imagine a man who commits murder, and is given a fifteen year jail sentence and is returned to the streets where he kills again. He is imprisoned again only to be released. This could happen since almost one in ten death row inmates has been convicted of murder at least once. That means that some death row inmates have had more than one opportunity to rehabilitate, yet continue to commit crimes. Should the U.S. justice system continue to let violent criminals back on the streets where they are likely to commit murder again? Capital punishment is one of the oldest forms of punishment. Most societies have thought it to be fair punishment for severe crimes. American colonists used capital punishment before the U.S. was a country, and most states still use it today. Currently, however, there has been a controversy surrounding the death penalty. Capital cases are long and expensive, and there are arguments in support and against capital punishment as a deterrent. If the laws concerning capital punishment were modified so that it would become consistent, perhaps then it would be effective. But if that took place, would capital punishment be morally permissible? From a utilitarian standpoint, some crimes are so outrageous, such as murder, that it is by enacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that society affirms the highest value of human life. Thus, if capital punishment is the most beneficial option to society, then the ends justify the means.One argument states that the death penalty doesn't deter crime. Dismissing capital punishment on that basis requires one to eliminate all prisons as well because they don't seem to be any more effective in the deterrence of crime. During the suspension of capital punishment from 1972-1976 research shows that "in 1960, there were 56 executions in the U.S. and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were 15 executions, murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no execu...
