The death
penalty has been around since before the eighteenth century. However, methods of execution have changed
over the years. As humans have become
more advanced, we have adopted more humane methods of execution. In the eighteenth century, common methods of
execution were crucifixion,
drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement. Currently, lethal injection is the method
that is used to carry out capital punishment.
Although execution methods have been altered, there are some people that
believe that capital punishment “divides the community by distinguishing
between “worthy” and “unworthy” victims, with the difference often falling
along racial and economic lines” (Jost and Dieter). Many people also
dislike the death penalty because death is and irreversible punishment. If a person is killed by lethal injection and
is later proven not guilty of the crime, an innocent life was lost based on a
faulty conviction. People that were
executed and later proven innocent is a very rare occurrence (Editorial:
Voters decided to keep death penalty; now it's leaders' responsibility to make
it less costly and straightforward). However, how many innocent lives have to be
lost due to wrongful capital punishment in order for this to be reason enough
to abolish the death penalty?
Although there are many who oppose the death
penalty, American’s remain solidly in support of capital punishment. According to CQ Researcher, three quarters of
America believe that capital punishment should be imposed at least as often as
it is at present (Jost and Dieter). Many believe that the death penalty has a
preventive effect and saves innocent lives when it is actually enforced. Whether this is true or not remains to be
seen. Other people argue that life in
prison without parole is equally as effective when it comes to deterring future
crimes. Along with criminals given the
death penalty based on racism and the possibility of innocent people being
executed, another strike against the death penalty is that many believe it is
more expensive than life in prison without parole (Kuebler). According to Richard C. Dieter, in Death Penalty Debates, states that spend
millions of dollars on a single capital case, the average police budget had to
be cut by 7 percent this year (Jost and Dieter). The purpose of the police is to protect the
justice and safety of people, perhaps money spent on the death penalty would be
better spent hiring more police officers and possibly improving training for
incoming police officers? It is believed by some that programs that are in
place to benefit the safety of society is being cut because of budget crisis,
but death penalty expenses continue to rise.
When I
think about the death penalty, the first question that comes to mind is, “Is
the death penalty even ethical?” Capital executions used to be very public,
gory, bloody and drawn out for days. In
the eighteenth century, executions began to become more of a private
event. It is said that the privatization
of executions allowed people to distance themselves psychologically from the
act of killing (Gerber and Johnson 107). Execution methods started with chopping off
the person’s head with a heavy sword, electric chair, gas chambers and finally
lethal injection. Although lethal
injection obviously appears to be much more humane than chopping a criminals
head off, these new adoptions were rigorously studied to see exactly how humane
they are (Gerber and Johnson 108). Lethal injection is a process that mimics the
induction of anesthesia. It is made by a
mix of three drugs. Problems with lethal
injections arise if the drugs are not mixed correctly (Nagin and
Pepper 52). The Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction
of unnecessary risk of pain in the execution of a sentence of death and
punishment is particularly offensive if it involves the infliction of
suffering. Arizona Lethal Injection
protocol said, “Death by lethal injection is not painful and the inmate goes to
sleep prior to the fatal effects of drugs.”
Although majority of Americans are
in favor of the death penalty, several states in the United States abolished
the death penalty. Alaska, Connecticut,
Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Michigan are a few of the 17
states that have abolished capital punishment.
Research has showed that Michigan, a state that abolished the death
penalty in 1846, ranks among the top 10 states for the highest murder rates
(TIME).
The death penalty is an intense
punishment that is not used on a daily basis, although in extreme cases, the
death penalty is the only punishment measurable to the awful acts that other
human beings commit. I think the issue
with the death penalty is, how does one decide if a certain crime or situation
is ruthless enough to deserve the death penalty? Every single person has a different opinion
about the death penalty, therefore judges and juries could give the death
penalty to a criminal, while perhaps another judge wouldn’t have given that
offender the death penalty. The Eighth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment are part of the United States Bill of Rights
prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive
fines or cruel and unusual punishments (Jost, Death Penalty
Controversies). Many believe that death is a cruel and
unusual punishment. While others believe
in an eye for an eye, or in other words, some believe that if a person murders
another human being, their life should be taken away due to the fact that they
took away another person’s life, regardless of what the United States Bill of
Rights states. According to the Supreme
Court, the Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and outlaws some
other punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime, or compared to
the competence of the perpetrator. Basically,
if the criminal has mental disabilities, depending on the severity of their
disability, they shouldn’t be given the death penalty due to the fact that they
are psychologically impaired. Instead of
the death penalty, they may be ordered to stay in a mental ward for the extent
of their life or they may be sentenced to life in prison without parole. However, if a person pleads insanity, a
psychiatrist would have to interview them in order to decide how severe their
condition is. Once again, each
psychiatrist may have opposing opinions on whether or not someone is mentally
insane, so what is the standard? What is the solution to the grey area that is
formed in particular cases like these?
Throughout my research, I have found
that the main reason people dislike the death penalty is because it’s an
irreversible punishment. If a criminal
swears up and down that he is innocent, but is yet proven guilty, what is the
chance that the perpetrator was telling the truth? I searched for a statistic or percentage of
people who were tried and sentenced to death row, and later proven innocent, unfortunately
I couldn’t find one. However, every
article I read said that there have been very few cases when someone was killed
by lethal injection that was actually innocent.
Apparently, this doesn’t happen very often due to the fact that if a
criminal is sentenced to the death penalty, their lawyers typically fight for
life in prison without parole. Dozens of
trials and months or even years of research go into the investigations;
therefore the process to capital punishment is very daunting and
expensive. Also, due to DNA testing and
the long appeals process, mistakes are very unlikely (Provo). Due to the fact
that the appeals process can be very costly and take up a lot time, state
procedural rules were created. State
procedural rules simply made it more difficult for inmates to have federal
courts rule on factual issues unless they raised a claim of actual innocence (Editorial:
Voters decided to keep death penalty; now it's leaders' responsibility to make
it less costly and straightforward). Some believe that it’s time to examine the
death penalty in terms of costs and returns, similar to any other government
program (Jost, Rethinking the Death
Penalty). Abolishing the death penalty seems very
extreme to me. Experts argue that life
in prison without parole is equally as crime preventative as the death penalty,
but costs much less. Although I don’t
think I have enough knowledge to question an expert that thought process makes
no sense to me. It cannot possibly be
more expensive to lawfully kill someone, than to have to provide millions of
criminals with food, shelter, water and proper facilities for the duration of
their life behind bars. It is said that
United States prisons are nicer than majority of under developed countries housing
developments. If that’s true, something
is wrong with that picture. Why should
people who rape, molest, murder, steal and are just in general bad for society
be given the benefits of living in nice facilities, while they have managed to
ruin innocent people’s lives.
While capital punishment may result
in many expenses, many American’s believe that it deters future criminals from
committing horrendous crimes better than the consequence of life in prison
without parole does. As I said in
previous paragraphs, death is a pretty severe punishment. Who
would not at least pause before committing murder when the potential
consequence may be forfeiting one’s own life? Some argue that there is no
deterrent effect because the death penalty is rarely imposed. Both views may have some truth, due to the
fact that the deterrent effect of the death penalty may vary across people and
circumstances. Deterrence is typically defined as operating
within theory of choice in which would-be offenders balance the benefits (Nagin and Pepper 28). Another
contributing factor as to how much the death penalty deters murder, is how much
publicity each case receives. Publicity
given to executions can increase the effectiveness of capital punishment. If the media broadcasts and promotes stories
about executions and details about how difficult the process is to overturn a
death sentence, more people might think twice before committing crimes. Even if the death penalty doesn’t deter
murder, it alleviates the chance that the person will commit the same or a more
severe crime. If the court decided to
not give the death penalty to someone convicted of murder, the person served
their time and were let back out into society, and the person committed murder
on another person, that life could have been saved had the criminal been
executed the first time.
One of the most emotional arguments
for capital punishment is that it provides closure for families who have
wrongfully lost loved ones. Imagine
having a close friend or family member murdered by another human being. I cannot even begin to describe how I would
feel if I lost my mom, one of my sisters or any other family member or friend
because someone murdered them in cold blood.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I would want that person to
be given the death penalty, in fact, lethal injection is too humane for some of
the monsters in this world. Many people
would argue that killing the person who killed someone else will not bring that
person back. Although this is true,
capital punishment can bring a sense of closure to people who were close to the
victim. Also, some believe that giving
the government the power to kill people
under any circumstance is wrong. They
think that if the government has that much control, it could turn into a
dictatorship. However, how would you
feel if the person who murdered your daughter was allowed to live, while your
daughter lost her life because of that person?
I realize that issues with the death penalty cannot be solved based on
emotions, however it is extremely hard to separate emotions and logic on such a
touchy issue.
While many believe that death as a
punishment is an effective incentive to deter people from committing crimes,
others disagree. Some people believe that
the existence of a life sentence can either completely or partially eliminate
the necessity for the death penalty. In
some states, a life without parole sentence is used as an option when the death
penalty isn’t chosen. In other states,
like Michigan and Massachusetts, it occurs as a replacement to capital
punishment (Dieter 122). Another benefit to life in prison sentence is
that criminals who are serving a life sentence tend to be better behaved than
those serving short sentences. Criminals
who are sentenced to life in prison have the opportunity to make a contribution
to society. Craig Datesman coordinates a
project to help young adults who have collided with the law straighten
out. “We have taken a life and so we
feel it’s our responsibility to save a life now,” said Datesman. Executions cut off the possibility of any
restoration to society or the family of the victim (Dieter 123).
I 100% believe that the death
penalty should not be abolished in any state throughout the United States. However, I can see that there are some
problems that occur with capital punishment.
The amount of money that it costs for a person to be killed by lethal
injection is definitely something to think about. People argue that the money that’s spent on
capital punishment cases would be better spent hiring more police officers and
improving their weaponry. Yes, this may
be true, but is money really the issue? Money is a terrible argument to make on
such an emotionally charged issue. How
important is money? In my opinion, money should never be an issue when it comes
to doing what is right and what is wrong.
I believe that allowing a serial killer to live a life behind bars,
after he stolen people’s future is completely wrong. If an adult knowingly commits a crime such as
murder, they should be given the maximum punishment. Perhaps my views are too harsh, but after
recent happenings, such as the Connecticut school massacre, my sympathy for
murderers leaves little to be desired.
In my opinion, the man who selfishly took twenty children’s lives, had
he not killed himself after shooting twenty seven people to death, is a prime
example of the type of person who deserves an even harsher punishment than the
death penalty. Whether that’s unconstitutional, costly or any other excuse that
people come up with, he deserved to die a painful death. He not only affected the lives of the children
and adults who had to watch their friends and students be ruthlessly murdered,
but he also ruined the lives of the parents, spouses and children of the fallen
victims. Such a person should be treated
the exact same way he treated all of his victims. Yes, I make my argument based
on emotions, but in a situation like that, how can you not?
Works Cited
Bedau, Hugo Adam. The Death Penalty in America.
New York: Oxford UP, 1982. Print.
“Editorial: Voters decided to keep death
penalty; now it’s leaders’ responsibility to make it less costly and
straightforward” Daily News (2012). Web. 15 Dec. 2012
Kuebler, Jeanne. "Punishment by
Death." Editorial Research Reports 1963. Vol. II. Washington: CQ Press,
1963. 525-44. CQ Researcher. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.
Jost, Kenneth. "Death Penalty
Controversies." CQ Researcher 23 Sept. 2005: 785-808. Print. 27 Nov. 2012.
Jost, Kenneth. "Rethinking the Death
Penalty." CQ Researcher 16 Nov. 2001: 945-68. Print. 27 Nov. 2012.
Nagin, Daniel, and John Pepper. Deterrence and
the Death Penalty. Washington, D.C.: National Academies, 2012. Print
Provo, Michael S. “Society Benefits from Death
Penalty.” Daily Herald. N.p., 23 Apr. 2012. Web. 17 Dec. 2012.
"TIME ON DEATH ROW." Death Penalty
Information Center. Death Penalty Information Center, 2012. Web. 17 Dec. 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment