Citation

Lehtinen MW. Crime Delinq. 1977; 23(3): 237-252.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1977, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/001112877702300301

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Criminologists have generally attacked capital punishment and have argued for its abolition. They contend (1) that there is no evidence showing the superior general deterrent effectiveness of the death penalty, (2) that the death penalty has been applied discriminatorily in the past, (3) that innocent persons may be executed, (4) that the public does not want a constitutionally acceptable form of the death penalty, (5) that the death penalty does not allow rehabilitation, and (6) that the application of the death penalty is too costly. A careful examination of these arguments reveals their inherent limitations and weaknesses. This paper outlines the benefits to be gained from systematic employ ment of the death penalty--greater general deterrence and conformity to law, strengthening of taboos generally, and emphasis on the value of life--and argues for systematic use of the death penalty as a part of rational state policy for the greater protection of society and a net saving of innocent lives.