not deter murderers from killing or killing again. They base mostof their argument against deterrence on statistics. States that use it extensively show ahigher murder rate than those that have abolished the death penalty. Also, states that haveabolished the death penalty and then reinstituted it show no significant change in themurder rate. They say adjacent states with the death penalty and those without show nolong term differences in the number of murders that occur in that state. And finally, therehas been no record of change in the rate of homicides in a given city or state following alocal execution. Any attempts at deterring a would-be murderer from killing has littleeffect. Most retentionists (people for capital punishment) argue that none of this statisticalevidence proves that capital punishment does not deter potential criminals. There isabsolutely no way to prove, with any certainty, how many would-be murderers were infact deterred from killing (Carrington 82). They point out that the murder rate in any givenstate 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 ofeconomic prosperity, and the social and racial makeup of the population. But a smallminority is ready to believe in these statistics and to abandon the deterrence argument. Butthey defend the death penalty base on other arguments, relying primarily on the need toprotect society from killers who are considered high risks for killing again. Incapacitationis another controversial aspect of the death penalty. Abolitionists say condemning a personto death removes any possibility of rehabilitation. They are confident in the life-sentencepresenting the possibility of rehabilitating the convict. But rehabilitation is a myth. Thestate does not know how to rehabilitate people because there are plenty of convictedmurderers who kill again. The life-sentence is a...
