Radelet and Marian J. Borg, various reasons for the support for the death penalty are listed. Among some of the arguments are deterrence and retribution. By implementing the death penalty, supporters contend that this would “[..] send a message to potential offenders” (Radelet, Borg 44). Deterrence has proven to not be an effective reason as the death penalty has always been a form of punishment in American history, but has not shown any reduction in capital offenses due to the fear a death sentence. Retribution has been a reason used for the families of the victims in order to receive satisfaction or the sense of justice being carried forward. However, to base a form of punishment on a non-empirical justification, questions arise on which types of murders deserve death and which do not. Above all, according to Powell in “Capital Punishment,” “both the retributive and deterrent purposes of capital punishment are imperiled by the current practice of repetitive review” (Powell, Jr. 1041). Because of unlimited appeals available to the inmates on death row, or repetitive review, offenders are usually on death row for years, even decades at times. Powell goes on state that “the retributive value of the penalty is diminished as imposition of sentence becomes ever farther removed from the time of the offense” (Powell 1041). Though repetitive review is a problem, it cannot be easily solved. The complete elimination of this system could lead to higher chances of executing a possibly innocent criminal or even one who deserved a lesser punishment. However, its existence limits the purpose for the death penalty because it delays the whole process. Because of the repetitive review, the death penalty becomes a counter acting existence to itself, proving its inefficiency as a tool for
Radelet and Marian J. Borg, various reasons for the support for the death penalty are listed. Among some of the arguments are deterrence and retribution. By implementing the death penalty, supporters contend that this would “[..] send a message to potential offenders” (Radelet, Borg 44). Deterrence has proven to not be an effective reason as the death penalty has always been a form of punishment in American history, but has not shown any reduction in capital offenses due to the fear a death sentence. Retribution has been a reason used for the families of the victims in order to receive satisfaction or the sense of justice being carried forward. However, to base a form of punishment on a non-empirical justification, questions arise on which types of murders deserve death and which do not. Above all, according to Powell in “Capital Punishment,” “both the retributive and deterrent purposes of capital punishment are imperiled by the current practice of repetitive review” (Powell, Jr. 1041). Because of unlimited appeals available to the inmates on death row, or repetitive review, offenders are usually on death row for years, even decades at times. Powell goes on state that “the retributive value of the penalty is diminished as imposition of sentence becomes ever farther removed from the time of the offense” (Powell 1041). Though repetitive review is a problem, it cannot be easily solved. The complete elimination of this system could lead to higher chances of executing a possibly innocent criminal or even one who deserved a lesser punishment. However, its existence limits the purpose for the death penalty because it delays the whole process. Because of the repetitive review, the death penalty becomes a counter acting existence to itself, proving its inefficiency as a tool for