How capital punishment affects murder rates can be explained through general deterrence theory, which supposes that increasing the risk of apprehension and punishment for crime deters individuals from committing crime.

Question
would you say this passage is begging the question fallacies

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html#18

Read carefully -- then compare to what you posted. Let us know what you think.

as a sort of general criticism of arguments, to mean that an arguer hasn't given very good reasons for a conclusion, but that's not the meaning we're going to discuss here.

After reading: I think this is my conclusion to my answered (Begging the question)

Yes, I think you're correct.

No, the passage you provided does not appear to be an example of the "begging the question" fallacy. "Begging the question" is a logical fallacy that occurs when the premise of an argument assumes the truth of the conclusion it is trying to prove. It is a circular argument in which the conclusion is already assumed to be true in the premises.

In the passage you provided, there is no circularity or assumption of the conclusion. Instead, it presents an explanation of how capital punishment may potentially impact murder rates based on the concept of general deterrence theory. The passage suggests that by increasing the perceived risk of apprehension and punishment for crime, potential offenders may be deterred from committing murder. This is a hypothesis that can be investigated and tested through empirical research.

To determine whether this explanation is valid, one would need to look at studies, data, and research on the topic to evaluate the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent for murder. It is important to consider various factors, such as the specific context, cultural differences, social and economic conditions, and alternative explanations.