n does not deter crime. "Uniformed crime reports state that since the death penalty was reinstated there is an increase in the number of executions but no change in the national murder rate" (DPIC Homicidal Studies Vol 1, No.2). Repeatedly, reports show that there is no evidence of the death penalty deterring crime. On contrary, it appears that in some cases it actually has an opposite impact.Of course when you put someone to death there is specific deterrence because the perpetrator is dead but is there general deterrence to society as a whole? Studies have shown that ".....capital punishment is no more effective then life imprisonment" (Siegal 117). If it is not a effective deterrence as these studies conclude, then some say the justification is in the closure the victims family must come to by making sure the murderer is likewise killed. The fallacy that you can come to a closure on a murder is absurd. There can be no complete closure because the forgiveness element is omitted. The Japanese culture uses a "shame" measure to provide personal retribution to the victim's family so the healing process can begin. In the United States we have twisted this theory into a labeling process that degrades, and demoralizes the whole concept. The whole retribution concept is strictly in the hands of the State and that is the last place it needs to be. Going back to Lex Talionis type of law is impossible since we have thus evolved and are more educated in humaneness (or so we claim to be). But this is a personal crime and a regression back to some form of personal retribution could perhaps help us move forward with the State only acting as a mediator to resolve the conflict between the two parties, taken that the mediator is a true advocate of divine source and not some human schooled in secular laws.Looking at Cesare Beccaria's Classical theory, we see that in order for punishment to be a deterrent, it must be severe, certain, and s...
