In modern society there is no consensus on the death penalty. Moreover, there was never a single opinion on this subject anywhere. Disputes about the death penalty with a new force flare up in those moments when there are resonant crimes, whether it's a bloodbath in Rwanda or the mass shooting Nov. 5 at a church in Sutherland Springs. By reviewing variety of sources, I will argue that death penalty does not deter crime ( Steiker and Jordan 2017) . In such periods, the voices of all hungry blood and the callers to violence are amplified. In short periods of calm (well, if within two or three minutes, the world does not learn of any villainous crime), "peace-loving" citizens submit their votes.
The opponents of the death penalty in the US are encouraged by two recent decisions of the Supreme Court. One of these decisions abolished the death penalty of mentally retarded criminals, and the second decreed that death sentences can be imposed only by juries.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Although the opponents of the death penalty welcomed the latest decisions, they do not expect further steps in this direction from the conservative members of the Supreme Court, which make up the majority ( Steiker and Jordan 2017) . "It is important to note that the Supreme Court is not going to abolish the death penalty at all," said David Eliot, representative of the National Coalition for the Abolition of the Death Penalty. - If we can achieve this, it is only the result of the efforts of ordinary people. This will happen gradually, in the state legislatures. Through the judicial system of abolishing the death penalty, we will not achieve it. "
Supporters of the death penalty were outraged by the decision of the Supreme Court regarding mentally retarded criminals. The court ruled that the use of the death penalty for such persons is a violation of the Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. According to Dadley Sharp, who represents Justice for all, advocating for victims of crime, public opinion polls show that the people do not want to abolish the death penalty and that this opinion has especially strengthened after the September 11 attacks. In 1988, the Supreme Court banned the sentencing of teenagers under the age of 16 to the death penalty. Now the age limit is trying to raise to 18 years, around which the next battle is expected around the problem of the death penalty ( Steiker and Jordan 2017) .
I will argue that the idea of death penalty does not solve the underlying motivations behind crime. If particular youth have opted to crime as means of earning a livelihood, then they will continue committing crime even if the offense is punishable by death penalty. I will base my arguments on the theory of needs proposed by Abraham Maslow and I will supplement with statistical evidences.
The theory of needs proposed by Maslow says that the directions and orientations of a person depend not only on the genetic predisposition, but also on other factors, primarily on the dissatisfaction of basic needs. The nature of human existence is a constant satisfaction of various needs. Satisfaction of basic needs is a condition of a normal and healthy life. Unmet needs can lead to deviant behavior of the individual, cause aggression, malice and cruelty. At the basis of criminal behavior, thus, there are unmet needs, and the individual will always strive for their satisfaction by any means, including criminal ones. American gang youth are often faced with different economical and social challenges. The rate of unemployment in the United States is very high and the chances of youth getting jobs are very minimal. Such youth, since they aspire decent life, will be compelled to engage in crime. Death penalty may not be a factor because they are dissatisfied. Most of them would prefer risking than stay without vital needs. It should be noted that vital needs are the needs inherent in a person genetically, without satisfaction of which its existence becomes practically impossible. Vital needs include the needs of physical existence, the need for self-preservation, sexual needs, the need for freedom and independence, the need for movement, the need for excitement and thrill, hedonistic needs. Consequently, I strongly believe that death penalty is not effective means of curbing crime because it does not solve the needs of the criminals. There are several studies that have been done supporting this position. One of the earliest such studies was carried out by Carl Schuessler, who, after studying the dynamics of murders from 1928 to 1949, came to the conclusion that in states that did not use the death penalty, the murder rate (per 100,000 population) was in 2 - 3 times below ( Scheussler 1952) .
Later, the prominent American researcher of the death penalty, Hugo Bedau, described Schuessler's approach as "simplistic", since the choice of states in this study was arbitrary and did not take into account the significant socio-cultural differences in various states ( Bedau 1964) .
The costs of Sheuessler's methodology were taken into account by his numerous followers. In the mid-1950s, a similar study was carried out by the well-known American criminologist Thorsten Sellin, and his selection of the respective pairs of states took maximum account of their socio-cultural, demographic and other differences ( Sellin 1980) . Comparing the statistical indicators of murders and practices of the use of the death penalty for the period from 1920 to 1958, Sellin came to conclusions, the essence of which is that the use of the death penalty does not have a deterrent effect on the level of murders. His conclusions did not change even after the observation period was continued until 1963 ( Sellin 1980) .
Almost the same results were obtained after 20 years by American scientists Walker (1980) as well as a number of scientists in other countries such as Kilman (1978) came to the same conclusion . Investigating the long-term trends in the dynamics of violent crimes in various countries and in different states of the United States, they came to the general conclusions that, firstly, the level of these crimes was always higher precisely where the death penalty was applied, and, secondly, that neither abolition of the death penalty, nor its restoration where it was previously abolished, do not influence the dynamics of murders. However, having conducted a regressive analysis of statistics on the murders and executions carried out in the United States since 1930, Isaac Ehrlich came to the conclusion that each death penalty keeps eight more potential killers from crime. In other words, one killer's execution saves eight other lives. However, these findings were refuted by the concept of theory of brutality. Existing sources shows that in the second half of the 1980s, the so-called "theory of brutality" (Brutalization) was formulated in opposition to the ideas of I. Ehrlich. Its authors, American scientists Guyburt Pierce and William Bowers, based on the results of their studies, argued that every execution of the murderer sharply hardens social mores and entails 2 to 3 new murders, and therefore, the preventive effect of execution cannot be a speech ( Bowers & Pierce, 1975).
Another hint that shows that death penalty may not deter crime is that dynamics of murders are complex. This is evidenced by the original study of the dynamics of the murders was conducted by Kamala Harris and Hood Roger . They selected 293 pairs of US districts, where one group consisted of counties where the death penalty was applied and whose prisons were held, while in another group of districts, the death penalty was not executed and there were no convicted prisoners who were awaiting execution ( Hood 2002) . As a result, Hood (2002) revealed the absence of any statistical signs indicating the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
Based on these statistics, it is evident that death penalty may not be a deterrent to crime. The most likely theory, according to my arguments, is the theory of needs proposed by Abraham Maslow. I must admit that my perspective has changed after the course. I have learned from different sources that crime is motivated by different factors and that the best method that can be used to deter crime is to address such factors. American gang crime, based on theory of needs, can be best solved through addressing unemployment and other social inequalities rather than intimidating the needy youth through heinous threats such as death penalty.
References
Bedau H. (1964). The Death Penalty in America . Doubleday (Anchor Books), New York.
Bowers, W. J., & Pierce, G. L. (1975). The illusion of deterrence in Isaac Ehrlich's research on capital punishment. Yale Law Journal , 85, 187—208.
Ehrlich, I. (1975). The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death, American Economic Review 65 pp. 397 – 417.
Hood, R. (2002). The death penalty: A worldwide perspective . Oxford: Clarendon.
Kilman, S. (1978). Death Penalty and Crime: Empirical Studies . Center for Economic Analysis, George. Mason University, Fairfax, Va.
Scheussler K. (1952). The Deterrent Influence on the Death Penalty. The Annals. 284. November P. 56-58.
Sellin T. (1980). The Death Penalty. Philadelphia, 1959. P. 34. The penalty of death. Sage Library of Social Research . Vol. 102. London, P. 110-118.
Steiker C. S. and Jordan, S. M. (2017). Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment . Belknap Press/Harvard University Press
Steven S. (2004). Public Opinion on the Death Penalty: Analysis of Individual-Level Data From 17 Nations. Int’l Crim. Just. Rev . 69, 78.
Walker N. (1980). Punishment, danger and stigma. The morality of criminal justice. Oxford: B. Blackwell
