Death Penalty Should Continue - Essay Example

Death Penalty Should Continue Introduction We are a just society and the death penalty is a just punishment for the most heinous of crimes. Punishment for offenses which are considered cruel and unusual is prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. This amendment of the U.S. Constitution is regularly invoked when debating the legal qualities of capital punishment. Societies utilization of the death penalty is thought of by a minority faction of Americans to be the most obvious and atrocious example of cruel and unusual punishment. Those who are against the use of capital punishment do not think that the government should be given the authority to subject any of its people to death. They also say that this practice is overtly costly, racially partial and does not realize the intended result. The vast majority of Americans consider the death penalty to be neither cruel nor unusual, quite the opposite; they think it’s a fair and just punishment. They not only accept but stridently insist that the “ultimate punishment” be sustained for several reasons which will be thoroughly covered in this paper. It will also take into account the opponents’ logic concerning why it should be ended in an effort to show an inclusive summary of the contentious death penalty debate. History of Punishment Historically speaking, the justification for punishing offenders has been to “avenge the crime, to protect society by imprisoning the criminal, to deter that person and other potential offenders from the commission of crimes and to obtain reparations from the offender” (Wolfgang, 1998). All through the history of civilization, this rational has not altered appreciably. The four fundamental reasons humanity punishes criminals can be classified by two basic motivations. One is to obtain the desired outcome which includes protecting society, deterrence and seeking compensation. The other, retribution or vengeance involves reprimanding those who have committed a crime on society. For thousands of years people have subscribed to retribution as validation for using the death penalty which can be found in the Biblical reference ‘an eye for an eye.’ In other words, aggressive actions against society must be confronted with an aggressive punishment (Olen & Barry, 1996: 268). This use of any type of punishment is humanity’s method of striking back at a person or persons who have disturbed the ethical and emotional sensibilities of a society. The ‘eye for an eye’ justification continues to be used by many people and nations today. Those who embrace this viewpoint are undoubtedly correct when they state that capital punishment assures that the offender will not be able to commit another transgression against society. The death penalty is the definitive preventative measure (Olen & Barry, 1996). Opponent Position Persons who oppose use of the death penalty think that all life no matter how despicable should be considered of value and that putting a person in prison for life without the opportunity for parole is sufficient punishment. Opponents also believe that revenge as justification is wrong and in the end more harmful to the values of society than is the crime of murder itself. Additionally, opponents think that banning the death penalty will “allow opportunities for confronting those who had been hurt most and possibly encourage remorse or reconciliation (and) suggest those that have killed be made to service the community as a way of partially making amends” (Olen & Barry, 1967: 272). According to opponents the death penalty is morally and ethically objectionable in modern society. Some are against it based on religious reasons referring to morality as the primary issue; however, differing religions and the faithful within those religions have conflicting opinions. For example, Christians who live in America overwhelmingly support it while Christians in Europe tend to oppose it. Legal Interpretations The U.S. Supreme Court has maintained that use of the death penalty does not fit in the category of ‘cruel’ but has decided that it would violate the spirit of the Eighth Amendment if it were deemed ‘unusual.’ In the 1972 Furman v. Georgia case, the Supreme Court judged that the death penalty was being applied subjectively due to a disproportionate number of minorities had been executed which made the procedure ‘unusual’ (“Furman v. Georgia”, 1972). As an outcome of this ruling, roughly 600 people sitting on death row at that time had their sentences changed to a life sentence. The most notable example of the mass commutations was members of the infamous ‘Mason Family.’ Additionally, no executions were allowed in America until 1976 when it was again resumed. However, despite the Supreme Court’s reversal of opinion most opponents of the death penalty consider the practice to be intrinsically biased against minorities and the poor. (Olen & Barry, 1996: 272). The Death Penalty is Just What is actually unjust is the premeditated act taking the life of another person, murder. Furthermore, an injustice humanity should not ignore is permitting killers to keep their life after inflicting the death penalty themselves on another person and by doing that, also sentencing the murder victim’s family and friends to a life-sentence of torment. If a thief steals a car, as an example, and was permitted to keep and use it as they wished without worrying about retribution, no one would consider that just. Neither is it just to permit anyone that steals another’s life to keep their own life. By permitting criminals who have been convicted by a court of law and jury of their peers of being an executioner to retain their own life cheapens society’s overall view of human life. Opponents of the death penalty completely disregard rational logic by saying that the killing a murderer somehow devalues human life. Apparently, opponents never had their car stolen and can’t or won’t understand this simple example or they think that the killer’s life is more precious than their victim. Taking away a lawbreakers’ freedom is the only method of demonstrated how much society values freedom. Catholic and Protestant philosophy have long-established a fair government’s entitlement to end the life of person convicted of murderer. In original Hebrew, the Sixth Commandment does not say ‘thou shall not kill’ but ‘thou shall not murder.’ Judaism’s principal source of moral reference, the Torah, is very specific in its endorsement of the death penalty. Condemning murderers to death is the only law repeated in all books within the Torah. (BBC, 2003). Real Life Examples In 1962, habitual criminal James Moore raped then strangled Pamela Moss, a 14-year-old who was from the state of New York. Because her parents were against the use of the death penalty on moral grounds they asked that the judge impose only a life sentence without the opportunity for parole. However, due to a change in sentencing laws in New York, Moore is eligible for parole and has gone before the parole board every two years since 1982. Kenneth McDuff was convicted by a Texas jury in 1966 of fatally shooting two teenage boys in the face then brutally raping and strangling their 16-year-old female friend after she watched the horrific murder. McDuff was sentenced to death via the electric chair but following the U.S. Furman v. Georgia Supreme Court ruling in 1972 his sentence was changed to life in prison. McDuff was released in 1989. Soon afterward he committed at least six additional murders. A pregnant mother of two was among that number. In 1998 McDuff was finally executed. (Lowe, 2006). Sending a murderer to prison where they enjoy three meals a day, free health care, recreation facilities and a shelter for life plainly does not fully deal with the issue. Death penalty laws have changed in the past and likely will again in the future. Additionally, people have a tendency to forget the events years in the past and parole boards continually change its personnel so there is always remains a prospect, no matter how minute, that the killer will strike again, such as in the McDuff example, if they are allowed to keep their life. No Institution is Perfect Even though the American court system is by far among the most impartial in the world, no justice system can presume to provide faultless results in every case. Mistakes are going to occur in all systems that depend on the human component for evidence and for judgment. The justice system properly requires that a stricter standard be used for the determination of guilt in capital cases. With the exceptional level of due-process that is demanded in all death penalty cases, the possibility of making a mistake is small. Since the restoration of the death penalty in 1976, no plausible evidence has been provided which verifies an innocent person has been put to death. It is a popular assertion that more than 130 ‘innocent’ inmates have been exonerated but this is untrue. The actual number of death row inmates later found innocent is closer to 40 which should be measured in context with the 8,000-plus inmates added to the death rows across the nation since 1973. Errors occur within the justice system, though relatively few and unavoidable, should not provide justification to do away with the death penalty. Society should never ignore the perils of allowing killers to kill again. The death penalty is the option of last resort for those persons who cannot be rehabilitated. Every executed murderer is another death row inmate that the taxpayers are not housing and feeding. An execution is ultimately less costly to society interms of carnage and cash than the alternative, a long-term imprisonment. “The cost of supporting criminals in maximum security prisons until they die is very high and the innocent tax payer should not have to foot the bill for the care of depraved criminals who’ve demonstrated that they have no respect for society’s laws or human life” (Olen & Barry, 1996: 273-274). Opponent Rebuttal Capital punishment opponents contend that it does nothing to deter future murders due to the nature of the motives of people who commit murders, which statistics confirm. Much research has been conducted to determine if capital punishment is indeed deterrence. They are performed by “comparing homicide rates in contiguous jurisdictions, some of which had abolished capital punishment; examining time series data on homicide rates within a jurisdiction during the years before and after the abolished capital punishment; and comparing homicide rates in a jurisdiction before and after the imposition of the death sentence or execution” (Hagan, 1985). All the studies on the subject have unanimously confirmed that the death penalty does not deter crime. People cannot visualize their own death consequently cannot contemplate or be fully aware the consequences. Additionally, this type of crime is typically committed as a result of spontaneous actions and is not well thought-out beforehand. Conclusion The death penalty is supported by a vast majority of Americans and regardless of controversial executions such as the one recently in Georgia its use will likely continue to be widely supported for the foreseeable future. There is a good reason for this. Americans innocent value life and will not tolerate the senseless murder of one of its citizens. A person who would take another’s one precious life does not deserve to keep theirs. If the perpetrator holds no value for human life then they hold no value for their own so why should society? That makes no sense. All one has to do is imagine their loved one being brutally murdered to understand why we insist on removing animals from humanity. Just killing someone does not warrant the death penalty. It must be a particularly brutal murder with a particular set of circumstances. That is the line we as a society have drawn in the sand. This is a more than reasonable line as any reasonable person would tell you. In this country the death penalty is here to stay. Opponents should spend their time opposing unjust laws instead of rational ones. Works Cited “Capital Punishment” BBC Religions (August 3, 2003) October 23, 2011< http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/capitalpunishment_1.shtml> “Furman v. Georgia.” UMKC School of Law (June 29, 1972). October 23, 2011< http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/furman.html> Hagan, J. “Modern Criminology: Crime, Criminal Behavior, and it’s Control.” New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. (1985). Lowe, Wesley. “Capital Punishment vs. Life Without Parole.” ProDeath Penalty (April 13, 2006). October 23, 2011< http://wesleylowe.com/cp.html> Olen, Jeffrey & Barry, Vincent. “Applying Ethics.” Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. (1996). Wolfgang, M.E. “We Do Not Deserve to Kill.” Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 44, pp. 19-32. (1998). Read More