Death Penalty in the USA - Assignment Example

Running Head: DEATH PENALTY Death Penalty [The [The of the Death Penalty Death penalty has been a topic of hot debate since the beginning of time as has the controversy surrounding it. There have always been pros and cons to the death penalty as have the arguments that go with it. The crimes that were deserving of the death penalty have changed over the years but some have stayed the same throughout the centuries. Some people have said that by allowing the killing of a criminal, it will only teach others that revenge is what capital punishment is all about, instead of seeing it as a means to removing a danger permanently from society. In analyzing capital punishment, a person must look at it from all angles. People need to be aware that it is not used as a means of "revenge", but as a permanent removal of a dangerous criminal from society. It has been noted that for the victims family, knowing that the killer of their daughter/son has proven to a form of closure for them. It doesn't make their grief any less, but there seems to be a sense of relief knowing that the killer can never hurt anyone again. There have been accusatory remarks towards those that believe in capital punishment, implying that it is used as revenge. This is clearly not true; it is used as a means of justification for the crime committed. It has been said that the use of capital punishment has been racially biased, again, that is not true, and capital punishment is used on all races, all ethnicity and all genders. There have been clearly more males put to death then females but that is understandable because men have proven that they are more likely to kill then women. Statistics have shown that in a murder, it is usually against the same ethnicity as the killer. For a white who killed another white, "51.7 percent" while a white killing a black the percentage was much lower, "1.5 percent." (Rein 2002) This seems to prove that these are not killings based on ethnicity and the sentence is not racially biased. According to the Egalitarian view on capital punishment, if one is guilty of killing then he should be killed. This seems to follow the old adage "an eye for an eye." (Zimring, 2003) This may sound like revenge, but it isn't. Does the one accused of murder deserve to live after he/she has taken the life of someone The answer should be no. If they have deprived a person of their life, deprived a family of a loved one then by all means, that person should pay for their crime. There have been conflicting thoughts on the egalitarian thought of punishment. If the victim is raped and then murdered, the legal system can not have the criminal raped and then murdered that would be violating the eighth amendment. So really there needs to be a medium where the punishment fits the crime and the criminal. In more cases then naught, the criminal is not sorry for what he did. He was just sorry that he got caught instead of remaining out in society where he was free to commit the crime again. Is the criminal afraid of capital punishment Probably so, no one wants to die but he may be to "tough" to admit being scared. He would rather sit on death row saying how he doesn't care, he isn't scared etc...But at the last moment, right before he dies a single tear winds its way down his cheek. This is human emotion that only an extremely hardened criminal could deny. It is not natural for the human spirit to give up and die, it always wants to fight, fight to live. That is why, in some instances, it has taken longer for the criminal to die because his spirit won't give up that last breath. If capital punishment was removed from society, everyone would suffer. The reasons being; it is justifiable and it is seen as a deterrent to other or more crimes. Justice is served when a killer is punished for the crimes he committed. Knowing that the killer won't get away for the crimes he has committed and knowing that our justice system will hand down a fair judgment punishment reassures society that they can believe in and trust the legal system. By acting as a deterrent, the thought of being killed for a crime will hopefully scare would-be criminals from acting on their intentions. If the criminal knows that he is just going to get life in prison that may look rather appealing, no work, free food, free lodging etc... Instead, if the criminal knows that by committing a heinous enough crime then he will be punished by the removal of his existence. People claim that capital punishment is a deterrent for future criminals, a proportionate punishment for those who have killed, and it is also said to be less harsh than life imprisonment because it is quick and instantaneous. Ernest Van den Haag contended that human beings are morally responsible for their actions and should therefore be punished accordingly for their crimes. (Williams 2002) The definition for justice is "fair treatment." (Stewart 1998) In the case of premeditated murder, capital punishment is the only just punishment. Nothing less of the death penalty would be proportionate to murder. Immanuel Kant argues that "even guilty-ridden killers should die in order to gain release from their anguish." (Williams 2002) The fact that a convicted murderer has the chance to live while their victim is dead is unfair. Why is that they are able to take an innocent life and then live to tell about it Execution is even more humane than sentencing someone to life in prison. Making the prisoner suffer by rotting in jail for the rest of their life is more torturous and inhumane than execution. The people who favor execution also claim that it is the most effective means of crime deterrence. Most people think about the consequences to their actions before they actually follow through with what they are thinking. Capital punishment not only punishes those who commit the crimes, but also prevents future crimes by scaring the would-be murderer with the consequence he would pay for his action. (Zimring 2003).) In the end, the main support for capital punishment comes from one Greek phrase, "lex talionis," meaning, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an arm for an arm, and a life for a life." When it comes to capital punishment, most people find themselves wondering if it is a fair and effective punishment. Arguments for both sides are very strong. Those who oppose the death penalty fight against it because they think it is unfair and unjust. They also believe that no one should have their lives taken away as a punishment. They also believe that the argument that capital punishment is an effective deterrent to crime is invalid. Because only fractions of people on death row are actually executed, most criminals would take the chance. They also believe that life imprisonment is as much of a deterrent as the death penalty. People on the other end of the argument believe in criminals receiving equal punishment for the crime that they commit. The only punishment in proportion to murder is execution. No matter what side a person chooses to take, the argument over the fairness of the death penalty will continue for many more years to come. The United States government has many regulations regarding the death penalty. All of those rules oppose using the death penalty in an unfair manner, but do not prohibit the death penalty completely. Therefore it is up to the individual states to decide what they feel is the best way to handle things in their own states. They must always keep in mind what they risk by keeping it or getting rid of it. If those states that use capital punishment got rid of it there is a good chance that they will see their crime rates increase and more and more people would fear for their lives. On the other hand, if the states that use capital punishment keep it they face the possibility of executing an innocent person. Many studies show that the death penalty has little effect as a deterrent. The deterrence argument states that capital punishment: "has the effect of minimizing the actual commission of murders, either because the threat of violence deters potential murders, or because the existence of such a policy instills a sense of abhorrence" (Zimring, 2003) First of all, the statement is fallacious because many psychological studies report that for people in the state of shock it is impossible to perform a so called "moral calculus" (Hanks 1997). Consequently, they don't think about the punishment when they are killing. Neither psychological nor statistical factors tend to support capital punishment. Results from cross-sectional and time-series studies suggest that not only does capital punishment fail as a deterrent but also has a brutalizing effect on the society (Lifton 2000). For instance, time-series studies made by William J. Bowers and Glenn Pierce indicate: "that there were higher than expected increases in homicide rates immediately following well-publicized executions or death sentences" (Hanks 1997). Another source incorporating US post moratorium data show similar results:" the regression equations for the national homicide rate show a negative effect of the estimated national execution rate" (Banner 2002). To sum it up, the deterrence argument is a relative one because different studies suggest opposite results; therefore, it should not be used as an official state's position. Finally, there are some contradictions in the Constitution which allow interpreting capital punishment's validity accordingly. The Fifth Amendment to the USA Constitution clearly states:" No person shall be deprived of life without the process of law" (Garland 2000). Consequently, those, who are in favor of capital punishment, claim that person can be deprived of life with the process of law. On contrast, the Eight Amendment prohibits the use of: "cruel and unusual punishment" (Zimring, 2003) However, there is no description of what is "cruel and unusual punishment" and the opponents of capital punishment suggest that there is no such cruel and unusual punishment as the death penalty is. This constitutional interpretation may last forever, if the USA government won't take any action and state whether the death penalty is allowed or unconstitutional. All in all, capital punishment should not stay in effect because if it became clear that it was unconstitutional, many people would have been deprived of life illegally by that time. (Drehle 1995) The film "Dead Man Walking" is a film of great social significance as it addresses an issue very relevant to modern society. The film explores why the death penalty should be outlawed in society by giving one of the men on death row, Matthew Poncelet a human face. The director Tim Robbins has employed the use of dialogue, montage soundtrack, camera angles and specific casting to try to make the viewer accept his view on the death penalty. Robbins has used the silence before playing his music as a way of heightening the effect on the viewer of the ritualistic music he has used. The music is blatantly an attempt by the director to depict the death penalty as an offering to the gods, the gods in this case being the voters. The death penalty is a means of channeling our bloodlust through the law although Tim Robbins, due to his inexperience as a director has presented a movie which is so blatant bias that the affect is almost to create a resistance in the viewers' minds. Just like in the movie, the murdered never had anyone that really cared about him, he was always lonely. In my eyes you destroyed and killed the one who was innocent. What if the man has a family, and in killing him, you vitally injure all his family. In the movie, the killer's mother was asked to plead for his life to allow the media and the parents of the victims to see him as someone's child much like their own, and to explain that he was a good boy and not a monster. The killer was trying to protect his mother and not let her see him on trial for what he did. He wanted to keep his pride by not seeing his mother crying for him. He wanted her to be happy and not to worry about him even though the mother and the rest of the family was suffering. It can be said that the neutral position on death penalty is covered in the movie 'Dead Man Walking.' The director helps you to visualize both sides of the argument without telling you which one to choose. The movie fairly and accurately depicts both the emotions of the victim's family members who are for the death penalty and also the feeling of the criminal and his family. This is good because it leaves the observer still in question of what the right choice is if they didn't have an already formed opinion. In today's society no one can tell you how you feel. This is a touchy subject and people will try to influence others, but it all comes back to the person making the decision for themselves. The government should respect this not go against are right and put an end to our life. The long appeal process seams to insure a fair trial but in reality the prisoner's success depends on how good of a lawyer he can afford. Rayfay and Burns only 18 years old and Washington already consider that if they find them guilty they will put them on death row. The only thing that stopped Washington was on the basis of extradition. A death sentence goes against section 7 of the Charter of rights and freedom stating that, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of the fundamental justice." When sentencing some to death row you're taking away his right of life liberty and security. You might think well they deserve it because they committed the crime they have to do the time. But you have to look at it as were human we makes mistakes some of us make small ones others make bigger ones but were also entitled to a second chance. Youth live life by taking risk sometimes but you got to understand at the age of 18 you're still immature I know I am. This is the age were you think your invincible, these mistake are big for sure they can not go unpunished but they shouldn't be dealt with by death sentence. It all so violates constitutional prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" and other provisions of the Bill of Rights. The parents of the slain teenage girl, whose daughter was not murdered by Poncelet but was raped by him, were justifiably upset when they learned that someone was taking the time to apparently try to save the murderer. They asked Sister Helen at one point 'How can you sit with that scum', and asked her to leave their home when they realized that she had not become as bloodthirsty as they were. It was understandable that they felt hurt by a Catholic nun's decision to attempt to help someone who had no value for human life. However, their attacks on Sister Helen, no matter how passive aggressive were reprehensible. The family, unlike Mr. Delacroix, showed no interest in being helped to understand her situation. They simply wanted her, and everyone else, to call for blood. The family did not want to see any equal justice for Matthew Poncelet and his accomplice; they simply wanted either or both dead. Furthermore, it appeared that they needed Matthew's death for themselves rather than for the sake of justice, or for their daughter. At the end of the film, during Matthew's last words to Earl Delacroix, they griped, 'what about us!' One would wonder what would happen to their relationship after the death of Poncelet. Or, what would happen between them and their other daughter. The movie left such questions unanswered, but one is forced to question whether or not the capital punishment of Matthew Poncelet truly served as a healing for that family, or whether it was only the beginning of trouble for them. People tend to hold on to a problem or severe, urgent situation as a driving force. Sometimes, without proper channeling of their feelings and anger, the closure of such a situation leaves a void too large to be overcome. While the answer may not be known in this particular case, their actions and statements cause viewers to question it. The film shows that capital punishment affects more people and lives than one would perceive. It also shows there is value in every human life, and with proper guidance, anyone can change. Matthew Poncelet was not a danger to society at the end of the film. He had been humbled and had made a conscious decision to attempt, in any way he could, to ease the pain he had caused. He provides hope that anyone in his situation could become a better person, and could possibly affect lives in a positive way. While it might be stretching such an observation to say that a convicted murderer should be let free, it would be fair to say that a life sentence is not merely wasting tax-dollars. A life sentence allows a person to reflect upon his or her past and change the person that he or she is. It allows for the possibility of helping others to not make the same mistakes. Sister Helen stated 'I'm just trying to follow the example of Jesus who said every person is worth more than her/her worse act.' This statement is relevant to her situation because indeed she was trying to show Matthew that he was a human being, not an animal or worse. She also was trying to help his family deal with Matthew's actions, and move on knowing that he was a person who made a mistake. In many ways, that statement could very well have been the thesis statement of the movie. References Banner, Stuart. The Death Penalty: An American History. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2002. Drehle, Von David. Among the Lowest of the Dead the Culture of Death Row. Random House. 1995 Garland, David. Criminology and Social Theory (Clarendon Studies in Criminology). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Hanks, Gardner. Against the Death Penalty. Scotdalle: Herald Press, 1997. Lifton, Robert, Mitchell, Greg. Who Owns Death Capital Punishment, The American Conscience, and the End of Executions. New York: HarperCollins Publisher, Inc. 2000. Rein, Ling Mei. Capital Punishment Cruel and Unusual Michigan: Gale Group, Inc. 2002.U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics. Capital Punishment Statistics. Stewart, G. (1998). The death penalty. San Diego: Greenhaven Press Inc. Williams, M. (2002). The death penalty. San Diego: Greenhaven Press Inc. Zimring, F. (2003). The contradictions of American capital punishment. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Read More