Universidad Iberoamericana de Chile

Death Penalty helps prevent crime

By

Magdalena Araya villalobos

Death Penalty helps prevent crime

 The death penalty is a theme that always have been in the middle of the
controversy. However, it is abolished in most countries of the world. for example,

United States still have the death penalty in its criminal regulations for dangerous
condemned.

What is the death penalty? It is a sign that is applied since the beginning of time
to prevent crimes, according to it defenders.

The death penalty or capital punishment is framed within the corporal

punishment, because the punishment has a direct effect of the body of the sanctioned.
As the name implies the death penalty consists of taking the life of the person who,
according to the judge, is considered guilty of a serious offense. We could say that the
beginning of the death penalty is related with the Tailon law (eye by eye, tooth by tooth)
that is embodied in Hammurabi code.

Regarding the death penalty, there are two different positions. First one is in
favor, another one is opposite. In the next essay both points of view will be discussed
with the objective of discern if it really helps to prevent crimes.

Is death penalty a fair punishment?

Death penalty has been, and continues to be, one of the most controversial
punishments throughout the history of law. Its origins go back to the most primitive
stages of the temporal development of the human being. Since then, many arguments
have been formulated for and against its application in various fields, with the most
varied foundations.

But the question of the legitimacy of a sanction consisting of depriving a human

being of life does not exhaust all the problems of capital punishment, which may be the
object of interest of various disciplines, assuming different perspectives and pursuing
different objectives.

Those who defend the application of this penalty, argue that the punishment must
be equal to the damage produced. That is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Any
criminal who carries out a crime, especially homicide, deserves a penalty equal to the
damage it has caused. Therefore, if he kills, that individual deserves death analyzing
from that point of view, it could be affirmed then that the death penalty, in theory, is a
just sanction. Or at least that seeks justice for the victim. However, it should be
remembered that the function of a penal system, of any country, must always ensure
that criminals have an opportunity to reintegrate into society. That is the argument
against the death penalty, which is endorsed by countries where such punishment is
prohibited. Orlando Caceres (2015; 31).

A system of sanctions does not necessarily have to be governed by the principle

of reciprocity. What is sought with the death penalty is to reduce crime and crime is why
the death penalty, in the countries where it is applied, so far has not proven to be
effective enough to persuade potential criminals.

The death penalty reduces the possibility of future crimes. We are not referring to
the original lack that led to the incarceration, but to the crimes that are planned within
the Chilean prison.

In our country, the precarious penitential system fosters hatred and evil. The
inmates have the facilities within the prison to plan new crimes, since they maintain
contacts inside and outside the prison. Therefore, it is necessary to eradicate these evil
minds more radically, so that society is truly free of these dangers, and do not feel fear
of future recidivism or reprisals by criminals.

Although today, life imprisonment is an alternative that is presented as an

effective solution, because the does not completely eradicate the crime, you can
continue to practice crime within the prison.

It is possible that this penalty responds to a logical principle of equity, of balance

between harm and punishment. What we now need to ask ourselves is whether this
extreme sanction measure is useful and beneficial for the whole society, understood as
one more component that should have participation in the way in which its criminals are
judged.
 Chilean prisons are overpopulated, at a level estimated at between 60 and 70%.
This creates conditions that prevent the system from being administered in an orderly
and efficient manner, that the rights of the inmates are respected and that the
rehabilitation mission of those serving sentences is carried out. While this is a problem,
on the other hand there is the question of whether high-level criminals can rehabilitate
themselves. It is common that the type of personality that is behind people who commit
crimes corresponds to beings lacking in guilt, which corresponds in psychology to a
psychopathic personality type, pathology very difficult or practically impossible to
correct. With this background, the position of accepting the death penalty as a legal
solution becomes a legitimate defense of a society that defends the interest of the
majority and safeguards the welfare of its people.

It is for them that the following questions come to my mind: the people of Chile
deserve security. Is it safe for Chilean society that highly dangerous criminals remain
alive after committing atrocious crimes? That the death penalty no longer exists in Chile
diminishes the security of its people?

It is normal the human being to want to avoid everything that causes us pain, the
death penalty to be a radical and perpetual punishment, generates greater fear in
criminals. Although what is used is a politics of fear, it is of little discussion that fear has
led to maintaining order, especially in Chile (Military Regime), considering that the death
penalty has as its purpose the protection of the security of All society. Although it is true
that there are no studies that prove a direct relationship between the fear of the death
penalty and the reduction of crimes, since it is not possible to know with truth the
conscience of criminals. But it is possible to stop having in society an individual who
commits atrocities.

To the common people it seems obvious to think twice if a crime is going to be

carried out when the consequence may be death. But there are people who do not have
that capacity to assess the consequences of the situation and do not mind doing a lot of
bad things to get away with it. Therefore, due to the lack of awareness of these people
and the intrinsic evil that exists in their being, there is no other choice but to eliminate
the delinquents who do not have rehabilitation and are an extreme danger to society.

That is why based on some research made to think about whether really: Does
the death penalty serve to reduce crime rates? Does the lethal injection deter other
possible killers? A report by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States,
after analyzing all the studies on the subject that have been made to date, concludes
that there is no evidence that this punishment reduces the crimes. Not otherwise.

According to some studies, they cannot answer the question of whether the
death penalty is effective in preventing other crimes, "said Daniel S. Nagin, Teresa and
H. John Heinz III, professor of politics and statistics at the Carnegie Mellon University of
Pittsburgh (USA) and head of the team that has made this revision. "We know that this
conclusion may be controversial, but the truth is that until now it is not known if the
death penalty reduces homicides and, even if perhaps increases them."

In "time to kill, the death penalty is a way to punish those who take justice into
their own hands. The death penalty seeks a final measure, because it does not consider
a social rehabilitation, only seeks a radical security. Thus, it should be considered that
when a law to impose a punishment, such as murder, applies it to criminals, it only
generates a vicious circle of this crime, and does not allow a moral sense to develop in
society, and on the contrary, generates fear among the settlers, and finally more
violence. Duque (2012; 31)

There are several investigations on the death penalty which are in favor and
against as I mention some related investigations of the essay that are theses to obtain
the title of lawyer of the National University of San Marcos, Lima-Peru since in Chile
there is very few authors who have done any research.

The research presented by Cervantes Blanco, Carmen Elba; with title of “The
death penalty and its validity in our legislation”; presented in the year 1974 whose
conclusions are: the death penalty is the product of the limited knowledge of human
nature. It is better to prevent crime, by society and the State, by investing more in
criminology. The State has the primary duty to protect human life and not remove it.

Another investigation presented by Chumbile Reyna, Edilberto Julio; with the title
of “The death penalty in Peruvian criminal legislation”; presented in the year 1974
whose conclusions we mentioned: the right to life is a universal right, for which reason
the death penalty cannot be applied for any reason. The death penalty has no basis to
justify its raison d'être and its existence.

Also, the investigation of Caceres Seminario, Guillermo Bladimiro; with title of

“The problem of the death penalty and its application in Peru”; presented in 1975 whose
conclusions are: the main cause of the existence of criminals is the existence of social
classes. So, to avoid the death penalty, social equity must be sought, because that way
there would no longer be criminals. It considers human life a precious and inviolable
good.

In partial opposition to the previous work, we find the work of Wilfredo Humberto
Gomez Mendivil, with the title of society, death penalty, state; presented in the year
1976. From which I extracted the following:

1) the death penalty results from a revenge for a crime committed, only that
lawful (by the State), cannot serve as an example or punishment for the offender since it
would be exterminated.

2) the State cannot choose a criminal position, equating with the offender.

3) the criminals should be treated, cured and seek an appropriate remedy. Help
him react and make him useful, take advantage of his work.

Finally, the one of Ferrel Huamani, Celestino; whose title is “The death penalty in
the general field of Peruvian criminal law”; presented in 1976 with the following
conclusions: the death penalty is not accidental because it implies considerations of a
social, educational, religious, political, moral, psychological and ideological nature. This
breaks the harmony between the individual and social ends, it is illegitimate, it is not
indispensable since it can be replaced.

In conclusion, the death penalty should be exercised in Chile in extreme cases

for the common good of the nation, for its safety. Due mainly to the fact that
psychopathic personalities have very few possibilities for rehabilitation. Not to mention
that in Chilean prisons there are no adequate conditions for a safe recruitment, and it is
possible that space for the planning of new crimes, but according to the research
carried out by various authors, it is still not possible to observe whether this penalty is
really manages to reduce crime and crime. Torres (2009;28)

There is no solid evidence that the death penalty reduces the crime rate. In
several countries where the death penalty is applied, murder rates are higher than in
those that do not adhere to the method, "David Fathi, director of the death penalty
program led by Washington, told.

According to some legal experts, they say that the death penalty does not lower
crime rates. For example:

Roberto Valent, resident representative of the United Nations Development

Program (UNDP), said that applying the death penalty to a person who has been
convicted of a homicide is to be lowered to the level of the criminal, in addition to being
considered an action of "exaggeration" and of weakness ", he also stressed" The death
penalty does not reduce crimes, homicides and crimes in general and does not allow a
recovery of the accused. A serious penitentiary system that is attached to the rule of law
and the right to life " Velásquez (2014;10)..

It is with this that I conclude that there are still no scientific or investigative bases
that ensure that crime and the crime of perverse minds pay their crimes with the
maximum penalty that is death, for which they do not assure that there is any decrease
in the high figures of crime and crime worldwide.
 References:

Caceres (2015;01) Essay on the death penalty, A personal reflection on the death
penalty.

https://www.aboutespanol.com/

caceres (2015;31) regumentative excerpt on the death penalty, A personal

reflection on the death penalty

https://www.aboutespanol.com/texto-argumentativo-sobre-la-pena-de-muerte-2879461

Porto (2009;01) DEFINITION OF DEATH PENALTY

https://www.google.cl/search?q=traductor&oq=tr&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j35i39j0l3.3
048j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Duque (2012;03) Death penalty essay

https://es.scribd.com/doc/95450257/Ensayo-Pena-de-Muerte

Velazquez (2014;10). Experts: death penalty does not lower crime rates, They indicate
that countries that do have this sentence have not reduced rates of violence

http://www.elsalvador.com/noticias/nacional/138630/expertos-pena-de-muerte-no-baja-
indices-de-criminalidad/

Torres (2009;28) Chapter 4:Background on the investigation on the death penalty

https://www.google.cl/search?q=traductor&oq=tr&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j35i39j0l3.3
048j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8}