The abolition of capital punishment

The abolition of capital punishment in England in November 1965 was welcomed by most people with
humane and progressive ideas. To them it seemed a departure from feudalism, from the cruel pre-Christian spirit of
revenge: an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Many of these people think differently now. Since the abolition
of capital punishment crime – and especially murder – has been on increase throughout Britain. Today, therefore,
public opinion in Britain has changed. People who before, also in Parliament, stated that capital punishment was not
a deterrent to murder – for there have always been murders in all countries with or without the law of execution –
now feel that killing the assassin is the lesser of two evils. Capital punishment, they think, may not be the ideal
answer, but it is better than nothing, especially when, as in England, a sentence of life imprisonment only lasts eight
or nine years.
(2) The fundamental questions raised by the death penalty are whether it is an effective deterrent to violent
crime, and whether it is more effective than the alternative of long-term imprisonment.
DEFENDERS of the death penalty insist that because taking an offender's life is a more severe
punishment than any prison term, it must be the better deterrent. SUPPORTERS also argue that no adequate
deterrent in life imprisonment is effective for those already serving a life term who commit murder while being
in prison, and for revolutionaries, terrorists, traitors, and spies.
In the U.S. those who argue against the death penalty as a deterrent to crime cite the following: (1)
Adjacent states, in which one has the death penalty and the other does not, show no significant differences in the
murder rate; (2) states that use the death penalty seem to have a higher number of homicides than states that do
not use it; (3) states that abolish and then reintroduce the death penalty do not seem to show any significant
change in the murder rate; (4) no change in the rate of homicides in a given city or state seems to occur following
an expository execution.
In the early 1970s, some published reports showed that each execution in the U.S. deterred eight or more
homicides, but subsequent research has discredited this finding. The current prevailing view among
criminologists is that no conclusive evidence exists to show that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent to
violent crime than long-term imprisonment

Результаты (русский) 1:

Отмена смертной казни в Англии в ноябре 1965 года приветствовали большинство людей сгуманные и прогрессивных идей. Им это казалось отход от феодализма, от жестоких дохристианских духаМесть: око за око и зуб за зуб. Многие из этих людей думают по-другому сейчас. После упраздненияо смертной казни преступления – и особенно убийство – был на рост по всей Великобритании. Сегодня, таким образом,изменилось общественное мнение в Великобритании. Люди, которые раньше, также в парламенте, заявил, что смертная казнь несдерживающим фактором для убийства – всегда были убийства во всех странах с или без права исполнения –теперь чувствую, что убийство убийцы является меньшее из двух зол. Смертная казнь, они думают, не может быть идеальнымответ, но это лучше, чем ничего, особенно когда, как и в Англии, приговор пожизненное заключение длится всего восемьили 9 лет.(2) основные вопросы смертной казни являются, является ли эффективным средством предупреждения насилияпреступность, и является ли более эффективным, чем альтернатива длительного тюремного заключения.ЗАЩИТНИКИ смертной казни утверждают, что, поскольку жизнь преступника является более тяжелойнаказание, чем любой тюрьме срок, он должен быть лучше сдерживающим фактором. СТОРОННИКИ неэффективности также капитализма утверждают что нет адекватныхсдерживающим фактором в пожизненное заключение является эффективным для тех, кто уже отбывает пожизненный срок, который совершает убийство во времяin prison, and for revolutionaries, terrorists, traitors, and spies.In the U.S. those who argue against the death penalty as a deterrent to crime cite the following: (1)Adjacent states, in which one has the death penalty and the other does not, show no significant differences in themurder rate; (2) states that use the death penalty seem to have a higher number of homicides than states that donot use it; (3) states that abolish and then reintroduce the death penalty do not seem to show any significantchange in the murder rate; (4) no change in the rate of homicides in a given city or state seems to occur followingan expository execution.In the early 1970s, some published reports showed that each execution in the U.S. deterred eight or morehomicides, but subsequent research has discredited this finding. The current prevailing view amongcriminologists is that no conclusive evidence exists to show that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent toviolent crime than long-term imprisonment