Critical Evaluation of Capital Punishment - Essay Example

Introduction Capital punishment should be upheld as a viable way of punishing capital crimes. Capital punishment, also referred to as death penalty,refers to the permanent incapacitation of criminals through legal killing. It is not a new phenomenon unique to the contemporary society as ancient civilizations such as Greece, 621 BC, utilized it to punish criminals for crimes such as homicide and murder among others of lesser magnitude (Hugo & Casey 22). In deed, Draco, the drafter of the Athenian penal code, though repealed later, is associated with modern utilization of the phrase, “Draconian laws,” to refer to laws that are highly absurd. The Romans and Babylonians are also some of the ancient societies, which embraced death penalty as an unforgiving way of administrating justice in the society, as early as 1760 BC (Horne 11). However, the growth of democracy and human rights in the contemporary society has led to the challenging of death penalty as a tool for administrating justice. This paper is a critical evaluation of capital punishment as an effective way of apprehending criminals in an effort to reduce occurrence and reoccurrence of capital offenses. Discussion Capital punishment is the most effective way of punishing capital offenses. To begin with, it is important to note that the aim of punishing crimes is to protect the society from perpetrators and also to ensure that victims are facilitated with consolation and retribution, necessary in assisting them to move on with their lives (Hugo & Casey 37). Murderers, for example, deserve an equal punishment owing to the fact that locking them in prison may not help to compensate the pain their victims go through, not withstanding the fact that there are possibilities of such criminals finding their way out, through parole, before their prison terms are over. This may be hurting for the victim’s family and friends, who would have to tolerate watching such a criminal walk in freedom whereas their own is already dead. In addition, this would subject witnesses in the case to unnecessary fear that the criminal may attack them as a way of avenging himself for the time he has spent in prison as a result of their testimony. Imprisonment of convicted criminals does not always guarantee successful rehabilitation and therefore, there is always a high possibility of reoffending. As opposed to incarceration of criminals, capital punishment ensures that criminals are removed permanently from the society, thus making it difficult for them to engage in crime. Numerous cases of murder have been reported in the US whereby perpetrators are persons, who ought to have already been executed but are however released on parole. For example, Joe Atkins is an infamous murder, who received life imprisonment in 1970 as a punishment for killing his brother in cold blood. However, through his father’s efforts, he was released on parole but ended up murdering his own father and a young girl, who happened to be his neighbor (Banner 45). These innocent lives could have been protected if Joe had been served with a death sentence after committing the first murder. Similarly, incarceration of drug cartels and gang members in the US has done little to solve these problems. These people are usually well networked, from prison to the outside and vice versa such that they are capable of even controlling businesses out of the prison. The Mexican mafia, for example, is a prison gang, which has a lot of influence on numerous street gangs and drug traffickers in the country owing to their powerful influence in the prisons, which are a rich destination for gang members and drug traffickers. Gang members are known for their involvement in heinous crimes such as street shootings, rape, car jacking, murder among others, which happen on day to day basis. The Mexican mafia, for example, is credited with more than 100 deaths on yearly basis in Los Angeles area alone (Rafael 29). Despite the fact that convicted criminals are entitled to parole or a second chance, it is always important to consider the opinions of the minorities, who are the victims of capital crimes. A person who has never underwent a rape ordeal or lost a close friend or family member to violent crime may not understand what the importance of capital punishment is and therefore, he or she can afford to be lenient on capital offenders. Death penalty is cheap for the government and the taxpayer as opposed to life imprisonment. Life imprisonment exerts pressure on financial resources based on the fact that the government must facilitate the prisoners with basic necessities such as food, accommodation, healthcare among others, which are paid for using taxpayers’ money (Banner 53). Prisoners do not pay taxes and therefore, they are a burden to the society and if there is a legal means, such as capital punishment, through which overpopulation in state prisons can be minimized, then the government should not hesitate to utilize it. One cannot expect a murder to kill an innocent taxpayer, leave his family suffering in abject poverty due to lack of care and on the other hand expect the same victims to support the upkeep of the murder once he is convicted. Sadly, the US government has continued to subject its citizens to this kind of situation due to its reluctance to execute capital offenders. According to Death Penalty Information center (2012), there were more than 3199 prisoners on death row in the US as at October 2011. All these people stay idle contemplating on how to convince the state to overturn the court rulings and as long as they are alive, they will definitely continue to repeal their cases thus consuming more of the court’s time and finances involved in dispensing cases. To avoid this, the government should consider executing them immediately they are found guilty of the offenses they are charged with. Critics of death penalty are always inclined towards protecting the criminals, claiming that the punishment is harsh and an infringement on the right to life (Hugo & Casey 63). Not many people stop to think of the level of damage that these criminals cause in the society and the families of the victims. One murder may seem non consequential to these critics but if examined, it may come out clearly that the opposite is actually true. A father, for example, may be the foundation of a family, especially if he is the sole breadwinner. Killing such a person would not only affect the welfare of his wife and children negatively, but also numerous other individuals in the society, with whom they are socially or economically dependent. It is a great height of irony for a person or organization to choose to protect the rights of a criminal whereas victims remain only as statistics for facilitating research. This is a highly biased approach towards assigning significance to human life. All humans are equal and as such, their lives have an equal value, which must be respected and whenever a life is lost through deliberate actions of another human, the highest level of punishment should be served to complement the loss. Opponents of death penalty also argue that such a punishment is subject to errors and therefore, there is a possibility of executing innocent civilians. This concern is justifiable based on the fact that between 1992 and 2004, approximately 15 prisoners on death row were found to have been wrongfully convicted after DNA results cleared them from any wrongdoing (Banner 78). However, these occurrences are minimal in addition to the fact that judges make their rulings on the basis of the arguments presented in court by the defense and the prosecution. Evidence presented in court is also highly important in informing the court’s decision and therefore, it is the burden of the prosecution and defense to produce enough of it to remove or to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the judges. Irrespective of this, the justice system must perform its functions in accordance with the law and one of those functions is to incapacitate criminals and there is no better way of doing so than administrating capital punishment for capital crimes. Marzilli (77) also observes that death penalty is an unfair practice in the contemporary society, due to the fact that poor people and racial minorities are the major losers in these cases. This is due to the assertion that poor people, for example, have no financial capacity to hire qualified and experienced legal representatives and this compels them to utilize the services of state lawyers, who lack motivation and expertise necessary to win cases that attract death penalty. These lawyers are overworked and their remuneration is too low to act as a motivation factor while arguing cases in the courts. Indeed, some of them end up losing concentration during the court session, for example by sleeping, which is counterproductive and a disadvantage to the defendant (Marzilli 77). However, the government cannot embark on a mission to strike down punishments due to inefficacy of its employees. If the government gives in to such demands by critics, there is no telling what the next demands would be. They could end up compelling the government further to withdraw life imprisonment without parole from the penal code on the same grounds of poverty and discrimination. Conclusion Death penalty should be upheld as a way of punishing capital crimes. This is due to the fact that it offers retribution to the victims of crime thus enabling them to move on with life. In addition, capital punishment reduces the chances of unreformed murderers and rapists among others returning to the society to commit more crimes. Furthermore, prisoners are able to contact people on the outside and in that way, they can still commit more crimes through their associates. Death penalty is cheap, if it is hastened, as it removes the necessity for the taxpayer to spend money on criminals, who have no compassion towards their fellow humans. On the other hand, this form of punishment is an infringement on the right to life. However, a person who takes away another person’s life or rapes an unwilling person, among other violent crimes, does not deserve the right to life. His or her continued survival is a constant reminder and a threat to the safety of other citizens. Human decisions are prone to error but these should not be utilized as excuses to hamper the utilization of death penalty to control crime. Works Cited Banner, Stuat. The Death Penalty: An American History. Harvard University Press, 2006. Print Death Penalty Information center. 2012 Death Row Inmates by State and Size of Death Row by Year. 2012. Death Penalty Information Center. 9 April 2012 Horne, Charles. The Code of Hammurabi. Forgotten Books, 2007. Print Hugo, Bedau and Cassel, Paul. Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case. Oxford University Press, 2005. Print Marzilli, Alan. Death Penalty. InfoBase Publishing, 2008. Print Rafael, Tony. The Mexican Mafia. Encounter Books, 2007. Print Read More