Death Penalty Subject of Debate in United States - Case Study Example

Death penalty or capital punishment has been a major issue of controversy for several years. While thirty countries have abolished it since 1990, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the United States, and Iran remain major executioners in the world (Derechos, n.d). China has performed more than 3400 executions in 2004 which amounts to more than 90% of worldwide executions (Wikipedia). US performed 60 executions in 2005. Some consider it an inhuman punishment, while others feel a murder warrants nothing less than death for the murderer. People argue their point on various grounds, like the moral, philosophical, religious and the human rights. Debate continues whether it is an appropriate form of punishment and this paper will argue that death penalty is justified. The proponents, who support abolishing death penalty, desire that mercy be granted to murderers. By definition, mercy is punishing the criminal less than he deserves (Budziszewski, 2004). When the question of mercy arises, it is for someone who has committed a heinous crime like murder and who deserves capital punishment. If the criminal has committed such a crime, where is the justification to grant him mercy? The argument to abolish death penalty is to extend mercy to those who have taken innocent lives. Death deserves death at least. People who take up the religious issue should be reminded of (Genesis 9: 5-6) which states, ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image’. Going by the scriptures, what right does any public authority have to grant mercy to murderers? The criminal has unjustly taken away goods, property, and lives of others and a just punishment has to be meted out to him. Death penalty is considered a violation of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) clearly states that no one shall be subjected to cruel or degrading punishment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 6 of the Covenant states "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life" (Amnesty, 2006). Has the criminal not subject the innocent victim to cruel punishment in taking his life? How do the supporters of human rights justify the crime? They fight against the punishment of the criminal. Have the advocates of human rights ever considered the cruel punishment that the victim and his family have been subjected to and for no fault of theirs? It is crueler to take innocent lives than to penalize the criminal. Death penalty is decided and granted with a purpose. It creates a greater balance of happiness vs. unhappiness. It prevents the criminal from repeating the crime; it deters others from even thinking of such crimes (Fieser, 2001). These ultimately reduce the incidence of such criminal acts. People can argue that if these ends can be achieved by less severe punishment, why should death penalty be considered. The purpose is to reduce as much unhappiness as possible and this can be achieved only through death penalty. The strongest punishment to keep others away in future from murder is to grant death penalty. Statistics have proved that for every criminal that was executed, seven lives were spared (Deterrence, n.d.). Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule claim that the death penalty was "morally obligatory". Each execution according to them saves eighteen lives and hence "a refusal to impose the death penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death" (cited by Smith, 2005). Whatever be the numbers, even if it saves one innocent life, death penalty is amply justified. John Locke argued that even a small crime forfeits a person’s rights (Fieser). Once the rights are forfeited, punishment is justified for two reasons – criminals deserve punishment and death penalty protects the society because others would be sacred to take such steps in the future. Deterrence is one of the main reasons why death penalty is justified. This would restrict criminal activities to some extent at least. Hence, the society has a right to punish the criminal in anyway to set an example to others. Every individual has a right to self-defense. Society is considered a large body or a large individual which has a right to self-defense. As such, society has a right to protect itself by using death penalty as a force. The society or an individual for that matter has a moral right to self-preservation. The advocates against death penalty feel that punishment of a lesser degree, like life imprisonment could perhaps give the criminals an opportunity for repentance and recovery. Death penalty implies that criminals do not return to society at all. Such advocates overlook the fact that even in life imprisonment, the criminals do not return to the society. They spend their life in the prison. What is important is not his return to the society but whether the criminal realizes and understands the gravity of the crime, whether he has any repentance and whether there is any transformation in him. If he is allowed to return to the society without any change of heart, chances are he may again commit similar crimes and even instigate others. Others would be encouraged as they would feel one can get away with murder. A death penalty on the other hand awakens the consciousness of an individual as happened in the case of Michael Ross. Ross murdered eight young women in 1987. He would rape them before strangling them to death. Murderers often plead guilty and ask for death. A Cornell graduate, Ross became a writer when he was under death row. His articles and letters revealed the agitated soul. He wanted an immediate death sentence announced. Thornburgh (2005) says murderers can be sensitive to criticism and prefer death sentence rather than face the society. The humiliation and rejection by family and friends is a worse form of punishment than death sentence said Ross. He called it a living hell. The death row, waiting for death sentence to be pronounced brought about realization in Ross, which life imprisonment perhaps would not have. The people who support abolishing of death penalty call themselves ‘abolitionists’. They feel innocent people are also subject to death penalty and hence ten guilty should be allowed to walk freely in the society to save one innocent. The abolitionists have not been able to cite a single case where an innocent person has received death penalty. In fact, the lengthy appeals and review process is to allow the inmates to prove themselves not guilty, to give them enough time and space to defend themselves and to ensure that justice makes no mistake in sentencing an innocent to death. On the other hand, when the death penalty laws were withdrawn, Kenneth McDuff, sentenced for child murder in Texas, was released. His release immediately resulted in nine more innocent deaths (Marquis, 2005). Another convict released on parole, murdered the man who gave him a job as soon as he was out of the prison. Sentenced to life for abducting and dismembering women, Richard Marquette repeated his activities of abducting, killing, and dismembering women again when released. Such criminals endanger the society when released and endanger other inmates and the prison staff if confined with life imprisonment. This only reinforces the opinion that death penalty is the only justice, the ultimate punishment that should be given to the criminals. Those against death penalty prefer to name justice as ‘vengeance’. ‘Retribution’ is considered more appropriate as it amounts to repaying for one’s doings. US applies measurement of Intelligence Quotient to determine if the convict is mentally stable. It is believed that execution of a mentally deranged person does not help the society either by way of deterrence or retribution. UN resolution 2001/68 urges countries not to impose the death penalty upon those "suffering from any form of mental disorder" (Lancet, 2002). What the opposition fails to realize is that a mentally retarded person is a greater threat to the society since he is not even aware of his actions. Death penalty violates the eighth amendment to the US Constitutions injunctions against ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ argue those against death penalty (Amlie & Mitschow, 2004). What exactly is ‘cruel’ and ‘unusual’ punishment? The definitions of cruel and unusual can change to suit one’s convenience. Is cruelty connected to physical or mental pain? Is confining someone to the prison cell, without proper facilities not a mental cruelty inflicted on him? Depriving someone of life is not a cruelty but granting him mercy would be cruelty and injustice to the family of the innocent victims as in the case of the 911. Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person convicted in connection with September 11, smiled when prosecutors played videotapes of the Twin Towers destruction. He told the federal courts that he had no regrets and he hoped there would be more pain (The Independent, 2006). He even went to the extent of saying, "We wanted you to have pain in your country’ when the witnesses testified through sobs and tears. If such a person were granted mercy, would it be just to the families of the victims who have lost their son, daughter, or sister? Death penalty gives a feeling of ‘closure’ to the victims’ family and friends. Death penalty is served with a purpose and to fulfill this purpose, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, says that death penalty should be “administered fairly and swiftly and surely and that helps it serve as a deterrent.” (Walker, 2006). President Bush is also agreeable to the use of DNA evidence to prevent wrongful convictions. A survey by Gallup Poll in October 2005 revealed that 64 percent Americans support death penalty. The very fact that 64 percent Americans support death penalty emphasizes that society feels its necessity. Those opposing death penalty express concern over justice and inhumanity of the inmate but never spare a thought of the injustice and humane feelings for the innocent victim or the family. They ruthlessly destroy lives, shatter families and crush hopes. They deserve little sympathy. The criminals are not always mentally unstable. The heinous act stems from personal vengeance. Allowing such criminals to serve life imprisonment, which varies for a period of seven to fourteen years, is not sufficient. They are threat to the society if allowed to roam freely; they are threat to other inmates and the prison staff if allowed to serve life imprisonment. One life can endanger many more lives and in the interest of the society and nation, death sentence is the right solution. Those against death penalty argue that civilized nations should not hurl barbaric form of punishment. Can we call a nation or a society civilized where such criminals exist? References: Amlie T T & Mitschow M C (2004), Arthur Andersen and the capital punishment debate, Managerial Auditing Journal Volume 19 Number 9 2004 pp. 1160-1172 Amnesty International (2006), Abolish the Death Penalty, 19 April 2006 Budziszewski J (2004), First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life. Issue: 145. Publication Date: August-September 2004. Page Number: 39+. Derechos (n.d.), Death Penalty, 19 April 2006 Deterrence (n.d.), In Support of Death Penalty, 19 April 2006 Fieser J (2001), Capital Punishment, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 19 April 2006 The Lancet 359.9310 (March 16, 2002): 903. British Council Journals Database. Thomson Gale. 19 April 2006 Marquis J (2005), "The myth of innocence." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 95.2 (Wntr 2005): 501(21). British Council Journals Database. Thomson Gale. 19 April 2006 Smith C S (2005), "Forget the statistics, killing is wrong, New Scientist 187.2513 (August 20, 2005): 20(2). British Council Journals Database. Thomson Gale. 19 April 2006 The Independent (London, England) (April 14, 2006): "No regrets - I wish there was pain for US every day, says Moussaoui.(News)." 25. British Council Newspapers Database. Thomson Gale. 19 April 2006 Thornburgh N (2005), "When a Killer Wants to Die: Death-row "volunteers" press for their own speedy executions. Should states oblige them?(LAW)." Time 165.17 (April 25, 2005): 43. British Council Journals Database. 19 April 2006 Walker C (2006), Death Penalty Subject of Debate in United States, USINFO, 20 April 2006 Read More