The Death Penalty: Is It Ever Justified - Essay Example

The Death Penalty

Introduction

Capital punishment is the deprivation of a person's life as a punishment, legalized by the state and implemented by an effective sentence of a court or a (historically) by the decision of other government or military authorities. In modern civilized society, the death penalty in many jurisdictions is illegal, while in others is a legitimate criminal penalty only for extremely serious crimes. However, in China, it is used widely and for smaller offenses, such as bribery, pimping, forgery of banknotes, hiding of incomes from taxation, poaching and other. The most common type of the death penalty in the world today is shooting. Hanging, lethal injection, electrocution, beheading, and stoning are also widespread. The problem of the effectiveness and necessity of the death penalty has a long history. The question of the death penalty was relevant in varying degrees, throughout the existence of different states. Historically, the death penalty has been evolved from the ancient custom of the blood feud that existed in pre-state societies and is expressed in the formula of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. (A Current Issue Topic) Then not to punish criminals, not to revenge, and not to justice was considered a disgrace, a disgrace to the victim or his relatives (in the case of death). With the advent of the state, punitive functions were gradually transferred to a special state apparatus. The murder of a criminal (the death penalty) becomes public and takes on the status of criminal punishment, executed on behalf of the government. However, the list of crimes covered by this penalty were more and more expanded (public, religious and other crimes). However, the tendency of the 19th century has resulted in the reduction of crimes, which are punishable by death. Public executions massively occurred in Europe during the Nazi regime. (Blum Steven A., 1992, p.423) Opponents of the death penalty point out that judicial errors will inevitably lead to the executions of the innocent. It also provides statistics showing that abolition or introduction of the death penalty in the country by themselves do not change the number of serious crimes. Execution does not punish an offender, but only satisfies society that requires sacrifice. In favor of the death penalty, in particular in the United States, one can argue that it is a means of deterrence and punishment. The death penalty is a very controversial topic among the citizens of not only the US but the entire world, however, it can be argued that those, who commit terrible crimes, deserve to feel pain and fear of death as their victims felt.

Body

The death penalty as capital punishment caused and causes fierce debate. Argumentation for and against the death penalty can be found in religious texts ("an eye for an eye", "Thou shalt not kill"). (A Current Issue Topic) In the U.S., thirty-five states have the death penalty today. (Capital Punishment: To Kill or Not to Kill?) As for the cancellation or for the use of the death penalty various politicians and public figures express their opinion. Among the main arguments are the following:

Arguments for death penalty:

- the protection of the society;

- the deterrent effect;

- the economic injustice of life imprisonment;

- the revenge;

- the death penalty as an act of humanism.

The arguments against the death penalty:

- the possibility of judicial error;

- the lack of deterrent effect;

- the lack of fight against cause;

- the contradictions to international standards;

- the existence of the executioner's profession;

- the immorality of the economic argument.

Among the arguments for the death penalty can distinguish argument about the need to prevent future crimes of the given criminal. The death penalty is justified, if the offender is extremely perverse and dangerous to others, if he is capable to rape and kill repeatedly. In such cases, imprisonment does not guarantee the public safety of its citizens. Concerns arise from the fact that, firstly, sooner or later the term of imprisonment will end, and an offender will again be at liberty, where he can turn into a beast, released from the cell. Second, for any convicted person there is always a possibility of escape. Third, even in prison, an offender will be able to encroach upon human dignity and life of inmates, staff, guards or visitors. If to consider all these probable dangers, it turns out that the penalty is the only way to keep many people from threatening them with violence. From this point of view, the death penalty is justified. With the help of it the state protects the most important values, developed by the civilization, and first of all a natural right to life of any innocent civilians. Thus, I agree with Edward I. Koch’s idea " killing killer affirm life". (Koch E.I., 1985) Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm this fact.

The following argument is about the need to the frightening example, retaining others from committing similar crimes. There are many people, who are sometimes tempted to commit an immoral or illegal act. However, developed moral and legal consciousness, fear of a possible public condemnation and, ultimately, the fear of punishment keep normal, civilized individual from such deeds. However, the temptation of some people may be so strong that the state can keep them from crime only with the threat to the inevitability of the most severe punishment. For them, the executions of convicts are persuasive caution, since people are mostly afraid of death. Fear of violent and premature death from the hand of the executioner keeps potential criminals from the fatal steps. It is no accident that in ancient times public executions were common.

Another argument for the death penalty states the need of retribution for evil. The death penalty acts as a legitimate response reaction of the state to the crime committed. The ancient law of retaliation required rendering evil for evil, death for death. If an offender encroached on someone else's life, he should not complain that the logic of the principle of equivalent retribution will lead to committed murder a similar reaction to the state. This is the traditional understanding of justice. In accordance with it, the death penalty is justified.

On the other hand, death penalty opponents argue that nowhere it has not yet managed to create a justice system that works without errors. Thus, with the presence of the death penalty, it means that innocent people can be executed inevitably. (Callins v. Collins, 1994) However, an error may exist in any system and if the result of the main benefits to society, such a system has the right to exist even if there is a possibility of error. For example, the conclusion of a dangerous criminal in jail cannot guarantee that he will not run away and do not reoffend.

They also believe that the approval of the deterrent effect of the risk of being subjected to the penalty on a criminal is based on the idea of a rational criminal. Only a small percentage of murders are premeditated, and even if they are prepared in advance, they are committed by mentally ill people or people, who are under the influence of some external factors that are not related to thoughts of retribution. The rest of the murders committed in the heat of passion or pseudo-affect, i.e. an offender is aware of the consequences only after the commission of the crime, so "deterrent effect " is not covered. In addition, some psychologists believe that the possibility of a sentence in a form of the death penalty is not a sense-factor for a criminal and especially for a maniac, terrorist and so on and consequently he cannot be stopped from committing the crime, the more geek, terrorist, etc. However, one could argue that the fear of death at least can have an impact on those who intend to commit a crime in advance. Criminals who are prone to commit serious crimes will not succumb to any intimidation while on the other the desire to save his life can have a significant impact and prevent crime.

There is an opinion that the death penalty does not guarantee the reduction of crime. The execution of the offender creates the illusion that society cleansed and life of its members has become more secure. The execution is not conducive to the fight against the social causes of the most serious crimes. On the contrary, the atmosphere of cruelty and murderous ruthlessness in society, which is legitimized by the state using the death penalty only creates new prerequisites and conditions for even more terrible and violent crime. However, relatives of the victims are not always put up with sentences of courts, which keep the murderer’s life. Thus, such people can go to avenge the killers of their loved ones, committing murders themselves. Many of these cases become resonant. On the other hand, law-abiding citizens are not able to take revenge on the murderer of their close people or relatives, and in the case of the death penalty helps them in this state, and they get the legal right to revenge. It is possible to say that the instinct for retribution is a part of the nature of man, and channeling that instinct in the administration of criminal justice serves an important purpose in promoting the stability of a society governed by law.

In addition, opponents say that all the major religions of the world are focused on such moral qualities as humanism, compassion, kindness, and good nature. Such moral qualities most clearly distinguish people from animals. The death penalty, as an institution, contradicts these moral qualities and has a dehumanizing effect on people. According to opponents of the capital punishment, counter-productiveness is not limited to its dehumanizing effects on society. It also diverts the attention of officials and citizens from the measures, which are necessary to achieve real results in the fight against crime. Thus, in his essay, Bruck criticizes Koch’s statement that the death penalty affirms life. Bruck described the penalty with the gleeful crowd and claimed that this immoral act only shows the ruthless side of the people who were blinded by their unquenchable desire for justice. (Bruck D., 1985) However, their opponents argue in turn that awareness of the seriousness of the penalties for certain offenses will have a deterrent effect on some criminals. The exception was the murder committed spontaneously, but it is known that all major economic crimes are planned in advance and are made consciously. Also, the life sentence is a life without prospects and hopes, it looks like a slow death, and it can be much more painful than instant death.

Those, who oppose the death penalty, do not agree with the opinion that the criminal should be put to death, because society will be forced to spend money on its content in the case of life imprisonment. Economic feasibility should not influence the decision on someone's life and death. Otherwise, why not kill the unemployed and the disabled, the contents of which costs society dearly. Moral issues should not be decided on the basis of mercantile or material considerations. However, in many countries introduced life imprisonment as the highest punishment and alternative to the death penalty. (A Current Issue Topic) The offender held in prison 10, 20 or more years at the expense of law-abiding taxpayers. The main problem of this situation lies in the fact that among those taxpayers there can be relatives or friends of victims of the offender. Thus, instead of legal retribution, they have to pay their own money for the maintenance of their loved one killer. Funds spent on life-long criminals content can be directed to a good aim, it may even be the payments to the victims of his actions. In addition, criminals do not work for the state at the time of life imprisonment. The existence of the expense of others can be even a stimulus for the crimes. However, many states have abolished the death penalty, replacing it with life imprisonment. (Capital Punishment: To Kill or Not to Kill?)

The basic concepts of human dignity at the core of the amendment, we need an attentive way. The opinions of citizens diverge. However, considering the question of the death penalty from the point of view of the Constitution, it can be concluded that capital punishment is not itself a violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution. (Gregg v. Georgia, 1976, p.6) The emergence of the death penalty for the crimes and murders has a long history of taking it in both the United States and in England. (Anderson E. Bynam, 1988, p. 1086) Thus, the general law entered obligatory death sentence to all convicted murderers.

In the US An acute question of the death penalty was implemented in a fashion "boom" of the film industry of the 90s. The basis of the film "Dead Man Walking" (1995) directed by Tim Robbins is the experiences Catholic nun Helen Prejean about the cruelty of the death penalty system, described in her book after the sad experience of exploring the bomber. From the first and till last film frames the movie subtly adjusts the viewer to compassion for the "unfortunate" the prisoner, not deprived of masculine charm, witty, confident, and in addition the father of a little daughter. The nun Helen is naively amenable to the psychological manipulation of the prisoner, and in addition to the dialogues, begins his defense in court. To accuse the director in the promotion of tender feelings to the killer is quite difficult, as Tim Robbins tried on a maximum to take a neutral position and to provide the viewer to make their own choice of which side to take: a criminal or justice. For a clearer picture in addition to the prisoner and nun in the film almost all the characters: the court, the parents of murdered children, the mother of the murderer, his brothers speak out. However, the ending of this story is girdled usual consequence of the crime - punishment, where the main character hates himself because of the offense and allegedly sincerely regrets that unfortunately creates doubt - whether he sincerely repents, or is it just the only way of salvation before death and after it? Politically correct idea of the director tries to bring to the screen the bitterness of realization of what happened, but common sense sees in the eyes of Matthew only a panic before death. A man, who kill and make mistake always want forgiveness and once they really face dead at the end, they do realized how bad they are and how serious mistake they had made. Thus, I still believe killing killers affirm lives. 

Conclusion

Human society is made up of single individuals, and the murder of at least one of them can be regarded as an attack on the whole society as a totality. The death penalty is a means of protecting the integrity of the society. It acts as an effective manner by which society seeks to protect itself and to protect its citizens from violence. The development of civilization has forced most states to abandon these terrible performances of public executions, but the death penalty is still able to carry out a preventive function of deterrence. Both opponents and supporters of the death penalty in the discussion of its expediency considered only a personality of the condemned and very rarely mentioned the rights of victims. Supporters of the death penalty consider it in the first place as the fulfillment of the right to revenge. I do not think the death penalty is barbaric. According to its opponents, it is immoral and inhumanely but for those who kill people without any reasonable reason, no longer deserve human rights. If a person does not appreciate other's life, why should his or her life be precious? Today dysfunction of the death penalty makes the execution took longer and cost extremely high, so, instead of abolishing death penalty we should reform it. This will allow making the commission of the death penalty in more simple and quick way. The execution should be put in paper view to warning more people because Chinese sentence states "kill one to warning the other 100". People cannot make sure the killer will not kill again. Thus, it is needed kill the killer without a doubt.