Death Penalty and Effective Punishment for Certain Crimes - Essay Example

Jane Doe Introduction Death penalty is when a government takes the life of an individual as punishment for wrong doing.This form of punishment is the most extreme punishment that a government can use on its citizens. It has been used at different times in many societies in all parts of the world, though mainly as a last resort in a small number of cases. At the beginning of the 20th century, nearly all countries practiced some form of capital punishment, but it is no longer used in most countries (Stearman, 2007). The benefits and drawbacks of the death penalty are debated widely. Can it ever be justified? And if it can, under what circumstances should it be used? Does the punishment acts as a deterrent? What are the alternatives? Does it contribute to a safe and secure environment? This debate is unlikely to end soon (Stearman, 2007). This debate is clearly one that is bound to go on for a long time with passionate debaters and defenders of stands on both sides of the argument. In this essay I take a stand on this debate by supporting the death penalty. I offer several reasons for this stand and provide references on the same. Some advocates of the death penalty offer support to the practice arguing that the death penalty justifies itself because it saves taxpayers the greater costs of supporting an inmate for a lifetime, or many decades, in prison. This economic assumption rests in part on the belief that executions happen more quickly and efficiently than serving a life sentence (Gerber & Johnson, 2007). Another related belief among supporters of capital punishment lies in the notion that the system of justice, like the legal system generally, is nearly infallible. While the system may commit an occasional mistake, such mistakes readily appear and can be made to disappear in the magic of the appellate process. This view normally also maintains that our capital machinery accurately separates the guilty from the innocent and punishes accordingly, without regard to race or social status or finances. Some people nursing this cluster of beliefs like to say that the wheels of justice move slowly but “exceedingly fine.” The legal process always succeeds, eventually, in separating the wheat from the chaff and does so impartially. Given their career investment in this system, judges have been known to entertain this belief (Gerber & Johnson, 2007). Some supporters of the death penalty also take a moralistic approach. To these kinds of people the main justification for the death penalty lies in giving every offender his “due.” In this philosophical position capital punishment finds its support in the notion of moral “desert”, where desert implies a punishment required to be proportionate in kind, severity, or amount of pain matching the original crime. Advocates of this view maintain that the most convincing justification for the death penalty lies in the assertion that punishment should mirror the gravity of the initial crime, as in the phrase, “an eye for an eye, and a life for a life” (Gerber & Johnson, 2007). A particularly recent justification for the death penalty considers the plight of suffering victims. Some victim advocates maintain that the death penalty finds its primary justification in its ability to nurture victims in either or both of two ways – by providing a kind of “closure” to their painful victimization and/or by providing an outlet for their emotional need for vengeance. The ascendancy of these victim rationales for punishment plays a major role today in support for capital punishment. Some segments of the victim rights movement assert that the wishes of hurting victims alone require capital punishment of those who had caused their unfortunate plight (Gerber & Johnson, 2007). Another more legalistic belief, espoused by some constitutional scholars, including some Supreme Court justices, asserts that fidelity to the constitution requires adherence to the beliefs and practices of our Founders. When a constitutional text about capital punishment is being interpreted today, nearly three centuries after our founding, persons in this camp assert that the original words of the Founders must be read to mean today exactly what they meant at the time of their adoption. Only in this manner can the leaders of the nation recognize and perpetuate the values defining our nation at its origin. Anyone interested in the present-day constitutionality of the death penalty issue needs to explore the question whether fidelity to the constitution requires this kind of historical textual in order to be true to our constitution (Gerber & Johnson, 2007) Supporters of the death penalty argue that the ultimate crime requires the ultimate penalty and it is the duty of the society to punish the most serious crime with the most severe punishment. Pro death penalty crusaders also argue that the death penalty has additional positive consequences that justify or demand its use, such as deterrence and incapacitation. Supporters argue that the death penalty is so severe that it deters or frightens individuals who might be contemplating committing a murder out of committing one (Braswell, McCarthy, & McCarthy, 2011) Capital punishment proponents normally argue from personal experience or common sense. They argue that most of us can recall experiences in which we were tempted to do something wrong, such as shoplifting or speeding down the highway, but saw a police officer or thought of being caught and decided not to steal or speed. Another reason for support of the death penalty by some crusaders is incapacitation. The death penalty is perfect incapacitation as executing an offender prevents him or her from killing ever again (Braswell, McCarthy, & McCarthy, 2011) Proponents of capital punishment also argue that the Bible describes methods of executing criminals. Many moral philosophers and religious leaders such as Thomas More, John Locke, and Immanuel Kant did not oppose the death penalty and neither did the framers of the constitution that legalized the practice. Furthermore, executions have always been used, and capital punishment is inherent in human nature. It is fair to punish the wicked, and consequently the death penalty is favored by most people and used around the world in many nations (Siegel, 2011). The death penalty also seems to be in keeping with the current mode of dispensing punishment. Criminal law exacts proportionately harsher penalties for crimes based on their seriousness; this practice is testimony to a retributionist philosophy. Therefore, the harshest penalty for the most severe crime represents a logical step in the process. For example, it would be unfair to give a serial killer the same sentence as a burglar (Siegel, 2011). Another argument made in favor of the death penalty is that the feelings of the friends and families of the victims as well as survivors need to be considered. The death penalty brings them some form of closure, which a prison sentence cannot. After all, the argument is that it is not fair for the killer to continue living while a loved one is dead (Siegel, 2011). Conclusion Generally, the argument for those in favor of the death sentence is that the practice is the only appropriate and effective punishment for certain crimes. Supporters argue that it stops future crimes by executing offenders and also deters other criminals or would-be criminals from engaging in murder. Further arguments state that executions bring relief to victims or their loved ones and make the society safer for everyone (Stearman, 2007). However, opponents argue that death penalties are State sponsored killings and that they have no room in the modern society. Furthermore, they argue that it is a cruel and painful punishment used in unfair or discriminatory ways; it is also subject to error and can never be reversed. They argue that it has no value as a deterrent, does not help the families of victims and, in general, leads to a more violent and less humane society (Stearman, 2007). But despite these cons, the death penalty is still an effective form of punishment and means for justice for the victims. The punishment leads to a safer society either through instillation of fear into would-be murderers or by clearing murderers from the society through executions. However, the debate over the legitimacy of the death penalty is likely to continue for a long time to come. Right in the middle of the debate are conflicting beliefs about morality of the practice, and attitudes based on what people view as moral imperatives are not easily changed (Bergman, & Berman, 2011). References Gerber, R.J., & Johnson, J.M. (2007). The top ten death penalty myths: The politics of crime control. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group. Braswell, M.C, McCarthy, B.R., & McCarthy, B.J. (2011). Justice, crime, and ethics. Oxford: Elsevier. Siegel, L.J. (2011). Criminology. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Stearman, K. (2007). The debate about the death penalty. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. White, W.S. (1991). The death penalty in the nineties: An examination of the modern system of capital punishment. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Bohm, R.M. (2011). DeathQuest: An introduction to the theory and practice of capital punishment in the United States. Waltham: Elsevier. Bergman, P., & Berman, S. (2011). The criminal law handbook: Know your rights, survive the system. California: Nolo. Banner, S. (2003). The death penalty: An American sistory. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Read More