f capital punishment as an obvious fact. The fear of death deters people from committing crimes. Still, abolitionists (people against capital punishment) believe that deterrence is little more than an assumption, and a naive assumption at that. Abolitionists claim that capital punishment does not deter murderers from killing. They base most of their argument against deterrence on statistics. States that use it extensively show a higher murder rate than those that have abolished the death penalty. Also, states that have abolished the death penalty and then reinstated it show no significant change in the murder rate. They say adjacent states with the death penalty and those without it show no long-term differences in the number of murders that occur in that state. And finally, there has been no record of change in the rate of homicides in a given city or state following a local execution. Any possibility of deterring a would-be murderer from killing has little effect. Most retentionists (people for capital punishment) argue that none of this statistical evidence proves that capital punishment does not deter potential criminals. There is absolutely no way to prove, with any certainty, how many would-be murderers were in fact deterred from killing (Carrington 82). They point out that the murder rate in any given state depends on many things besides whether or not that state has capital punishment. They cite such factors as the proportion of urban residents in the state, the level of economic prosperity, and the social and racial makeup of the population. But a small minority is ready to believe in these statistics and to abandon the deterrence argument. The death penalty is defended based on other arguments, relying primarily on the need to protect society from killers who are considered high risks for killing again. Incapacitation is another controversial aspect of the death penalty. Abolitionists say condemning a person to death removes a...
