Capital punishment is immoral and has not been proven to be effective. It is immoral because it denies the basic principle it is meant to uphold (that human life is precious). In addition, the evidence referenced in this study shows that the death penalty does not deter individuals from committing crimes for which they night be sentenced to death. The death penalty is also unfairly applied, based on race and socioeconomics, among other factors. The only argument which can still be effectively pressed by pro-capital punishment forces is that it is an effective retributive action against those convicted of capital crimes.
With respect to the question of deterrence, Radelet and Akers report on their efforts "to determine if there is consensus among expert criminologists on whether the death penalty has been, is, or could be a general deterrent to criminal homicide." Their conclusions are based on surveys of "67 of the 70 current and former presidents of three professional criminology organizations: The American Society of Criminology, Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences, and Law and Society Association." They find that
Over 80 percent of these experts believe the existing research fails to support a deterrence justification for capital punishment. . . . In September 1984, all criminologists at the University of Florida released a statement saying that the empirical research on the death penalty did not support the deterrence hypothesis: " . . . As criminologists at [Florida's] leading university, we feel a professional and ethical responsibility to report that there is no credible scientific research that supports the contention that the threat or use of the death penalty is or has been a deterrent to homicide (Radelet and Akers).
Radelet and Akers note that while other arguments for or against the death penalty can continue to fairly be made and considered, this area is a closed issue as far as they are concerned:
...