Gulliotin's Arguments Against The Death Penalty

Capital punishment has been around in many different forms for hundreds of years. In the time through middle ages and renaissance some of would be put to death by a crowd of people throwing stones, burning on a stake, or being broken on a wheel. During the French Revolution the decide being executed by slow torturous methods seemed more humane than ideas from the earlier times. Towards the end the Physician Joeseph Gulliotin proposed that people be beheaded by device invented by him for a more humane way of death. As time moved on the people came up with some ways that seemed a little more humane, such as the gas chamber and lethal injection.

Many believe that for each person that is executed, a number of people are saved. The Supreme Court decided the death penalty needed to be imposed for retribution and deterrence. The opponents argued that retribution is unjustified and deterrence’s efficacy is not supported by fact but by belief and opinion. Some abolitionists believe that the death penalty encourages crime. Even some of the studies by abolitionist have concluded that murder rates tend to increase after an execution. …show more content…
Most trials and appeals can be long and pointless and some cases can take many days, months or years to be carried out in some states. The criminologist Thorsten Sellin conducted a study on the changes in homicide rates in the states that adopted the death penalty and the states that didn’t. This study found that the death penalty had no significant change of the homicide rate in all states. Studies show that the death penalty actually increased crime rates. Some studies conducted in London, Philadelphia, Oklahoma, and California showed a significant rise in homicides in the state after an execution was