During the Second World War, the world looked at Adolph Hitler as a monster because he murdered Jews by means of gas. However, in the United States of America as recent as the 1990's we have used the same method to punish capitol offenders. What makes the use of the death penalty by proper authorities any better than the murders committed by those being sentenced? This is the argument used by those who are against the death penalty. Also among the arguments used by such individuals is that of the death penalty being an ineffective crime deterrent and the possible misuse of the death penalty over the course of history.
             The death penalty as a deterrent is something that is very questionable amongst those who are both for and against capital punishment. During the 1970's and 1980's, the effect of the death penalty as a deterrent was pushed under the microscope to be more carefully examined. It was found that there was no rise in homicide amongst states that has eliminated the death penalty. Similarly, it was also found that in states that had retained the death penalty that there was no lesser of a homicide rate than in the states that has abolished it (Schmalleger 397). If it is thought about logically, the death penalty as a deterrent is almost ridiculous. If someone is driven enough to commit a murder, and to viscously premeditate an attack upon someone else, there is no reason to believe that in that last moment before the crime is committed that the punishment would flash into the person's mind. Those driven to commit capital offenses are highly unlikely to look toward the consequences of their actions. IN all likely hood, these individual have committed smaller scale crimes and were not afraid of the repercussions of their actions, so why would they being to have fear when committing a capital offense? I feel that in common people, people with something to lose, the death penalty is an effective deterrent aga...