Capital Punishment and Execution in the United States - Essay Example

ENG 1250 Prof. Isaac Palumbo December 8, Capital Punishment and Execution in the United s The issue of capital punishment inthe United States has elicited not only serious but also sometimes emotionally-packed debates. This kind of punishment is meant for people who have committed aggravated murder. It seldom applies to offenders of felony murder. Capital punishment has existed in The United states from since the time of the Common Law, when it was also applied to all American colonies before their independence. Even after the American Revolution, capital punishment was still maintained within the Anglo-American Common Law which emerged. The major methods of execution used in the past included the exposure of the defendant to a firing squad. There was also the use of gas chambers as well as hanging and electrocution (Weisenberg). Another method which was introduced later, and is mostly used today, is the use of lethal injection to poison the criminal. One of the most talked of execution is that of Pedro Medina in March 1997; one that most people have criticized and termed notorious (Gromer and Gromer). Initially adopted by 38 states, capital punishment has since been banned by law in 34 states. Some more states have put it on hold while a few still think that it should just be practiced extensively (CNN 1). Capital punishment has been an issue of social contention in the US, of late. Many Americans have maintained a support for it, particularly in murder cases. However, the support has been in the decline following strong criticism from some sectors of the American community. I concur with many that there is nothing good in taking someone’s life, and therefore, more humane ways need to be in place for carrying out the duty. I hereby beg to admit that, despite the cruelty in it, sometimes our emotions push us towards seeing the positive side of it. There has also been a widespread debate on whether or not the executions should be televised. My paper seeks to look at the pros and cons associated with both the idea of capital punishment and the television of the executions. It is a fact that many court TV and other television networks today attempt to cover proceedings on criminal cases. They also go as far as televising the cases to interested viewers from homes. Some media executives and lawyers have foreseen a possibility of a future broadcast of the executions too. They use the case of San Francisco’s KQED-TV as an indicator. This television station hit news headlines a few years ago when it asked for permission to record a murderer’s execution. The station intended to show the unedited tape of Robert Alton Harris’ execution, though late in the night when children had slept (Weisenberg). It is interesting to note that both proponents and opponents of capital punishment sometimes, ironically, find themselves as strange bedfellows whenever there is a debate on whether the executions should be broadcasted on TV or not. It is common to find a person who is against capital punishment yet they support the idea of televising the executions. Likewise, some proponents of the punishment also tend to strongly oppose the idea of televising the executions. For those who support capital punishment, televising executions will only serve to promote sympathy for the criminals. This sympathy may blind the general public to an extent that they may not realize the injury the criminal meted on their victim. The opponents of capital punishment, on the other hand, oppose the idea of television on grounds that it has the ability to reduce the death penalty to a few minutes’ affair. This is so false because the pain covers even the time a criminal spends several sleepless nights in anticipation of the fateful day. Some people also think that showing the executions on TV may give a haunting picture to the viewers, especially the emotionally and psychologically unstable ones, including young children (Bender 1). Televising the executions may also make the execution seem, to many people, as a form of vengeance against the offender. Those who oppose it propose that the limitations should remain so as to make the act look just like a normal form of administrational duty (CNN 1). There is also a fear that the public would give too much attention to this final step, yet the complexities of the legal process itself may get too little attention. Showing the process on TV also stands to interfere with the privacy rights of both witnesses and the prison guards present at the execution. Moreover, it may also affect the psychological functioning of the prisoners who may be awaiting execution, since most of them have TV sets in their cells (Bender 1). There is a belief that broadcasting executions may help to arouse opposition against capital punishment. However, most human rights activists think that any form of execution should not be condoned. Therefore, for them broadcasting of executions should not even be debated upon when what they fight for is a society free of executions (Zachary and Lat 1). Televising executions also pose a risk of inspiring more people, especially the American youth who feel attracted to high-risk activities due to heroism attached to them. These people may be attracted to crime simply because they need to be executed before the whole world. There is also the question of America’s credibility as a crusader of the fight against crime against humanity in the whole world. America has over and over condemned crime against humanity. However, most industrialized countries feel that America will only succeed in this campaign if she stops her own share of the crime, that is, capital punishment. Televising executions will, therefore, paint America dirty in the eyes of the whole world (Zachary and Lat 1). Many other Americans support executions being aired on national television channels. I have to admit that I am among them, though just like they have their different reasons to support it, I also have mine. Some of those who oppose capital punishment argue that televising the executions is a positive step in curbing the vice. They blame the survival of capital punishment on the absence of televised executions. They strongly believe that this absence is what has made the punishment stay this long (CNN). This sentiment is shared by Sister Prejean Helen, a lady who believes that capital punishment should be abolished. She requested that the execution of the terrorist, Mc Veigh be televised so as to make people see why the capital punishment should be discouraged (Zachary and Lat 1). Some other people support capital punishment on grounds that if people are allowed to watch the executions the death penalty will be more effective in discouraging criminal activities. This opinion is shared by various politicians who claim that it is only through capital punishment that people with criminal intentions can be controlled in an attempt to stop the loss of innocent lives in the hands of blood-thirsty criminals. In addition, the broadcast will help in healing the wounds of a victim or their close relatives and friends, since they will now feel satisfied that justice has been served at last. The Americans also seem to be so engrossed in debates and discussions on the capital punishment. Therefore, a number of activists feel that it is the right of all Americans to witness these executions so as to get exact information on the executions. Availability of adequate information on capital punishment is very crucial, especially when a person wants to rule on whether it is or it is not appropriate, and if it truly violates the condemned’s rights (Varney B3). According Richard Dietzer (executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center), “Execution is so much a judgment, an action by the community that this is what they want.” (qtd. in Zachary and Lat 1). In Sister Helen Prejean’s “Dead Man Walking” we meet a man who has been condemned. Interestingly, this man wishes his execution would be broadcasted on TV to at least make others with criminal intentions to change their minds. There is also the father of a victim who suggests that the offender be fried, and this be televised to discourage potential murderers (207).Some people have, however, argued that televising executions will act as a way of encouraging barbaric actions. But one clear fact is that even the so called civilized societies cannot remove the realities of cruel criminal activities which carry with them death sentence. It is every sane person’s desire to see that justice is served, especially in murder cases. This justice sounds better when served in the light. The purging of emotions brought about by capital punishment can only be realized fully if the executions are televised. In addition, if some capital offences, for instance terrorism, affect many people at the same time, then I do not find anything wrong with broadcasting the execution. The broadcast serves to makes the concerned close relations forget about the event as fast as possible. It also promotes a quick healing for the surviving victims. This is popularly known as therapeutic vengeance (Bessler 431). Televising the executions also purposes to correct offender’s false message that the victim’s life was worthless, especially compared to that of the offender. It serves to show everyone that the victim’s life was equally important, and the best way to do this is to televise the execution so as to prove a defeat not only against the offender but also against the offence (Minow 12). Those who oppose broadcasting of capital punishment see it as a way of promoting hopelessness and self-destruction among the offenders. It is viewed as a way to block the offenders’ right of appeal due to the fact that offenders tend to eagerly wait for the execution as a way of running away from their problems, especially those they face when in death row (Johnson). However, I strongly believe that in spite of the various human right violations cited by many who are against capital offence, capital offence works to effectively control crime in America. I also equally believe that the broadcasting of the various executions will doubtlessly serve as a warning to potential criminals. Works Cited “FindLaw Forum: why Timothy McVeigh’s execution should be televised.” CNN. 5 April. 2001. Bender, David L. The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints. Michigan: Greenhaven Press, 1991. Print. Shemtob, Zachary B. and David Lat. “Why executions should be televised.” The New York Times. 29 July 2011. Bessler, J.D. “Televised execution and Constitution: Recognizing a First Amendment right of access to state executions.” Federal Communications Law Journal, Vol. 45, no. 3, 355. Goodman, Walter. “Viewing an execution from the sofa.” New York: The New York Times. 13 June, 1994, C 15. Johnson, Robert. Death Work: A study of the modern execution process, 2nd Ed. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole. Minow, Martha. Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing history after Genocide and Mass Violence. Boston: Beacon Press, 1998. Print. Prejean, Sister H. Dead Man Walking. New York: Vintage/ Randon House, 1993. Print. Varney, James. “Officials urge TV executions after killer dies.” Times – Picayune (Louisiana) 17 May 1995, B3. Weinsberg, Jacob. “This is your death.”The New Republic. 1 July 1991. Gromer, Jonathan, and Cliff Gromer. “Machines of Death.” 1997 Read More