Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
The death penalty, otherwise known as capital punishment is one of the most controversial issues in our society. Although it is not a recent topic and has been disputed over for centuries, our society has still not come in accord to make a firm implementation of the rule. The following is a representation of pro-death penalty arguments researched and analyzed, with the anti-death penalty arguments refuted as well. Following one of the most prominent philosophers, Jonathan Locke, it is possible to say that when a man enters into a society, he enters into a social contract. In exchange for some of his freedom, the governing body of society offers security for its constituents (Specter 1998). As laws are broken, punishments are enforced to vindicate the social order. Capital punishment, the penalty of death for the most heinous of crimes, has been implemented by societies for thousands of years. In recent years, capital punishment has come under fire in the United States. The arguments surrounding the capital punishment issue concern its apparent constitutionality, risk of executing the innocent, discrimination, effectiveness as a deterrent, and its stance as just or unjust punishment. Good reasoning and recent evidence show much support for the death penalty. Thesis Death penalty should not be abashed as it plays the role of a deterrent for many repeat murderers and criminals.
Arguments For Death Penalty
The constitutionality of the death penalty is of high importance. The death penalty is constitutionally sound. Many advocates against the death penalty interpret the 8th Amendment, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments , like a provision that would not allow the death penalty. The focus on this aspect of the debate on the constitutionality of capital punishment is on its cruelty. While a literal interpretation of the text would not make capital punishment unconstitutional (it must be both cruel and unusual ), one must rebut the argument that it is a cruel punishment. It is argued that a convicted murderer on death row suffers excess suffering and, therefore, his treatment is considered cruel, according to the rule of retaliation. In turn, what defines an unusual punishment? (Robertson March 2002). If the system were true an eye for an eye, would it not be fair punishment to execute the murderer in the same fashion they committed their crime? In The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense, an essay confronting the death penalty issue written by Ernest van den Haag, he writes ,,Others insist that a person sentenced to death suffers more than his victim has suffered, that is this (excess) suffering is undue according to the lex talionis (rule of retaliation). We cannot know whether the murderer on death row suffers more than his victim suffered; however, unlike the murderer, the victim deserved none of the sufferings inflicted. Further, the limitation of the lex talionis was meant to restrain private vengeance, not the social retribution that has taken its place (Haag 1994, p. 255).
By Van den Haags reasoning, the an eye for an eye principle does not really seem to apply nor does the inmates suffering seem equal or relevant in relation to his victims. Surely the suffering of the murder and his victim can never be equal if the victims innocence is weighed in. Clearly, the death penalty is not unconstitutional on the grounds of the 8th Amendments cruel and unusual punishments clause. There must be some other provision within the Constitution that applies to capital punishment? The 5th Amendment has been used in reference to the issue, stating that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property and that no person shall be compelled to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime without due process of the law (Bigel 1997). Any interpretation of this amendment could not possibly make capital punishment unconstitutional, but rather, the process by which it is sentenced may be unconstitutional. It is the same as if a person is arrested without his or her rights being read to them; according to the Miranda v Arizona ruling, the arrest (the process) is unconstitutional but, the grounds by which the arrest was made is not (Bigel 1997). The constitutionality of the punishment itself is not affected, only the process through which the penalty was carried out. Anti-death penalty advocates continue on to say that uneven distribution of the death penalty is unconstitutional according to the 14th Amendments equal protection clause. Misdistribution of the death penalty among the guilty and the innocent is unjust, but this injustice does not lie in the nature of the punishment. Abolitionists continue on to say that the racial distribution of capital punishment makes it unjust and unconstitutional, but Ernest van den Haag reasons that misdistribution among the guilty is irrelevant to the issue (Haag 1994). If an uneven distribution occurs among those who do not deserve the death penalty because of race, sexual orientation, or gender it is the process that is at fault and not the punishment. Although it has been proven, that 85% of executions were inmates convicted of killing a white man, and only 13% were those convicted of killing a black man, it does not change the crime they committed, nor the severity of the resulting consequence (Sharp 2002). The fact that a murderer who gets the death penalty could point to a murderer who didnt doesnt make him any less guilty, (Haag 1994, p. 259). If the guilty are being served their punishment, any distribution among the guilty cannot possibly affect the constitutionality of the punishment itself.
Arguments Against Death Penalty
Some critics admit that the death penalty is a cruel and barbaric method of punishment that ruins the life of people and their families. Innocent lives may have been lost to erroneous convictions leading to the death penalty but, as Stephen Markman said in his essay, Innocent People Have Not Been Executed, through a combination of deterrence, incapacitation, and the imposition of just punishment, the death penalty serves to protect a vastly greater number of innocent lives (Markman 1997, p. 84).
If capital punishment is constitutional, it should be considered an effective deterrent. Still, some critics question that if it is ineffective, is it really necessary? The effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent is still under debate. The truth of the matter is that there has not been any conclusive evidence submitted that proves or disproves its effectiveness as a deterrent. However, the possibility that even one murder could have been prevented because of the threat of the death penalty is well worth all the trouble and supposed ineffectiveness. The possibility that one more life could have been saved from the execution of a serial killer is enough validation. Arlen Specter in his essay A Swifter Death Penalty Would Be a Better Deterrent writes about one specific case where the death penalty did deter murder. Three young men were conspiring to rob Philadelphia pharmacy when two of the conspirators, Cater, 19, and Rivers, 18, noticed that their co-conspirator, Williams, 20, was carrying a revolver (Robertson, 2002). They, then, refused to carry out their plan if their accomplice was carrying a gun. Williams put the revolver in a drawer and Cater and Rivers proceeded out the door of their apartment. Williams however, snuck the revolver back into his pocket and, later, shot and killed pharmacist Jacob Viner during the robbery. Williams was sentenced to death while Cater and Rivers were sentenced to life imprisonment due to the extenuating circumstances (Specter 1998). Regardless of Jacob Viners death, capital punishment did deter Cater and Rivers from committing murder.
Opponents of the death penalty argue that the multitudes of injustices related to capital punishment are extremely harmful to human individuals, as well as to society as a whole. The idea of the death penalty creates chaos and confusion, as well as opening more wounds within society, rather than creating a sense of closure, as many believe it does. When relating capital punishment to the just society values, one finds that it violates each and every standard of life listed. The first, respect for human dignity, is the most obvious violation of these just society values. This value calls for respect for life from conception to death; the taking of anothers life, no matter if that person has murdered or destroyed another life, is not justified. God has the sole right to give and take life, and the idea of capital punishment completely undermines the power of God, allowing humans to choose who shall live and who shall die. The second just society value, shared power vs. power over, is also violated by the death penalty: lawmakers and juries across the United States choose the fate of a convicted man or woman, giving them obvious power over the convicted (Guernsey, 1993).
Discussion Section
Proponents of capital punishment offer their arguments against the point of view of abolitionists who declare that capital punishment is unjust because it takes away the dignity of the convicted. From a Biblical view, Charles W. Colson, author of the essay The Death Penalty is Morally Just, notes that to be punished is to be treated with dignity as human beings created in the Image of God (Colson 1997, p. 62). The death penalty, as a punishment for murder, reaffirms a criminals humanity by taking on responsibility for their actions. It is contrary to the idea that execution degrades a convict sentenced to death. According to van den Haag, Philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant and G.F.W. Hegel have insisted that, when deserved, execution, far from degrading the executed convict, affirms his humanity by affirming his rationality and his responsibility for his actions (Haag 1994, p. 257).
Murderers had previously agreed to submit to the rule of civil authority and partake of its privileges and its responsibilities by engaging with society. Those who violate the laws have broken trust with the population, which, by exacting a penalty, seeks compensation for an act considered an affront to the purpose for which submission to civil authority was commenced (Bigel 1997, p. 46). Many abolitionists turn to Biblical references to justify or turn down capital punishment, citing the New Testament ethic of mercy versus the Old Testament ethic of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth . The Catholic Church is adamantly against the idea of capital punishment, under any circumstance. Catholic Church is completely pro-life in all aspects of the term, and strongly so in the case of capital punishment. This belief arises from the idea that, Every human being is created in the image of God and redeemed by Jesus Christ, and therefore is invaluable and worthy of respect as a member of the human family. (Sharp 2002, p. 83). The Catholic Church holds these views and opinions concerning the death penalty because of a strong sense of faith and morals, extracted from the high value of human life proclaimed by God. Nevertheless, Colson says that, While the thief on the cross found pardon in the sight of God ( Today you will be with me in Paradise ), that pardon did not extend to eliminating the consequences of his crime ( We are being justly punished for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds ) (Colson 1997, p. 61). Colson strikes down the notion that the Old Testament ethic no longer applies. Rather, the New Testament reaffirms the Old Testament ethic, thereby justifying capital punishment in the sight of God. Capital punishment is supported both Biblically and secularly as it reaffirms the humanity of an individual by making the individual responsible for his or her reactions as a member of society (Pojman and Reiman 1998). This change lengthened sentences, particularly for serious and repeat offenders. In many states, third-time convicted felons automatically receive a life sentence, and second-time felons receive automatic prison sentences with no chance for probation. As the strict punishment measure, the death penalty prevents society from repeat criminals and murderers (Markman, 1997).
Conclusion
In spite of its limitations and weaknesses, the death penalty should not be abolished because it plays the role of a deterrent for many individuals involved in criminal activity. As preventive detention, the death penalty has been debated for many years. Its proponents argue that it would prevent crime by incapacitating those likely to re-offend. Its opponents claim that it is fundamentally unfair because it allows a judge to make a decision about a persons future behavior. The other problem is that most of the nations jails are already overcrowded and in disrepair, so the death penalty as a deterrent is pragmatically an unworkable solution. This punishment will prevent many young people from repeat crimes and incarceration. No one, other than police authorities, cared for this system. Recent legislation in many American states replaced the indeterminate sentence with more severe forms of punishment. Still, the death penalty has been taken away from correctional personnel and assumed by legislators and judges. New laws should specify and set lengths of sentences for particular offenses to allow modifications of the time served based on the specific circumstances associated with a given incident. Judges then sentence according to the prescribed scheme and set a specific time for a person to remain incarcerated, which correctional officials can do little to modify. The death penalty should not be abolished because it is one of the main methods which keep many individuals away
References
Banner, Stuart. (2002). The Death Penalty: An American History. Harvard University Press.
Bedau, Hugo Adam. (1998). The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. Oxford University Press: Reprint edition.
Bigel, Alan J. (1997). William J. Breannan, Jr. and Thurgood Marshall on Capital Punishment. New York: University Press of America, Inc.
Colson, Charles W. (1997). The Death Penalty is Morally Just . The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. David Bender & Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press..
Guernsey, Joann Brenn. (1993). Should We Have Capital Punishment? Minnesota: Lerner Publications Company.
Markman, S. (1997). Innocent People Have Not Been Executed . The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. David Bender & Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
Pojman, Louis P. and Reiman, Jeffrey. (1998). The Death Penalty. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing.
Robertson, Diane P. (2002). Tears from Heaven Voices from Hell: The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty As Seen Through the Eyes of the Victims of Violent Crime and Death Row inmates. Writers Club Press.
Sharp, D. (2002). Do We Need the Death Penalty?: It is Just and Right . The World & I., p. 2.
Specter, A. (1998). A Swifter Death Penalty Would Be an Effective Deterrent . Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? Ed. Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
Van den Haag, E. (1994). The Ultimate Punishment: A Defence . Understanding Argument: A Text with Readings. Ed. Dorothy U. Seyler. New York: McGraw Hill, 1994. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.