ics from 1933 to 1969, each execution prevented about seven or eight people from committing murder. A little later, in 1985, Mr. Stephen K. Layson published a study claiming that, on average, every execution of a murderer deters 18 murderers who would have otherwise killed their victim. Also suggested by the study is that if the number of convictions for death row increase by only one percent, it would prevent 105 murders from occurring. Currently, only 38 percent of all murder cases in the United States result in a conviction. Of these convicted murders, only .1 percent are executed (Guernsey 67-68).Many critics do not see how the death penalty can have any effect on a potential murderer. However, in an article in the National Review, Steven Goldberg, a sociology professor, tried to sum up the logic in the following few sentences: “Potential murders simply act; the deterrent effect of the death penalty, if there is one, acts upon them. If it acts with sufficient strength, it prevents their becoming murderers.”Although he is not stating that in every case the death penalty stops people from committing murders, he is saying that if the death penalty means anything to the person, there’s a good chance it could stop him. It would not be hard to understand if Bush argued he was preventing many more deaths of innocent victims then he was putting criminals to death (Guernsey 69). With the extremely high possibility of getting handed the death penalty, one would have to think twice before committing a murder. Also, in Texas there is little possibility of getting a sentence commuted, so if one was sentenced to death in Texas, it is most unlikely one would be able avoid the chair. The next president of the United States will have a big impact on the legality of the death penalty. Under his term, the president will be more than likely be able to appoint at least two justices to the Supreme Court. If Governor Bush was to become...
