Menu

Death Penalty

165). On page 166 Bannister points out that outside of China, the numbers show a decrease in individuals being put to death through capital punishment. In 2006, the number of reported executions dropped to 1591 from 2148 in 2005; also, since 1996 more than 30 nations have “put an end to this cruel and inhuman practice” (Bannister, 170).

Conclusion

The Chief Editor of Criminal Law Review, Chen Xingliang, writes that there is a consensus among the scholars that contribute to his publication; and those scholars “are in favor of strict limitations on the death penalty in order to eventually abolish it” (p. 41). However, Xingliang admits that the “public understanding of the death penalty is quite different fro that of these scholars” (p. 42). That is because the “public support for the death penalty is formed with an irrational understanding and thus should not be a justified factor considered for legislation,” the editor says.

He believes, and this paper agrees, that “Blind faith in the restrictive nature of the death penalty and human beings natural incentive to retaliate against crime” are two of the most important forces driving the continuing use of capital punishment. Blind faith is irrational, and believing that executing a person stops others from killing is also irrational.

Works Cited

Center for Individual Freedom. (2007). Death Penalty Deters Future Murders, According to Remarkable New Empirical Study. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2010, from http://www.cfif.org.

Bannister, Piers. (2008). The death penalty: UN victory puts total abolition within our grasp.

International Review of Law Computers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *