And since this essay is done, I felt it was a waste to just let it be between me and my lecturer, so here's my term paper.
WARNING: Plagiarism will not be tolerated!
See Reuben can write long essays ^^"
The Death Penalty: The Damage Has Been Done
When the death penalty is brought up as a topic, it is very hard to avoid taking a stand. Though the arguments against the death penalty are strong, they can be seen as fraud after thorough researching. The death penalty is seen by many as a just and effective punishment. In a recent poll conducted by ABC news, one out of every six Americans support the death penalty (Merkle, 2010). Maclean (1987) states that the main reason why so many people favor the death penalty is because of their fear and also of the rising death rates. The current problem with the death penalty is that many a times the criminal will wait on death row until his crime is forgotten. It is much better to carry out the sentencing as soon as it should be. Prisoners on death row, when proven guilty without a reasonable doubt, should be executed as soon as possible. Not only because it is fair to the victims, but also because the rest of the world needs to remember the reason as to why these criminals deserve to be executed in the first place. Criminals should also be executed as soon as possible to stop unnecessary fear among the public. The death penalty is not an inhumane judgment because history has proven that the death penalty—or the fear of it—has kept the status quo. The death penalty has been in effect as far back as eighteenth century B.C. in Babylonia, proving that even in ancient times it was seen to be just (Randa 1997). The term death penalty means ‘death as punishment for a crime’ (Miriam-Websters Dictionary of Law, 2010). The death penalty will save lives and create a more secure society.
Before stating the points to support the death penalty, the perimeters of this paper will be set and a brief history will be given. This paper will be set in the United States of America which is one of the few first-world countries that still maintains the death penalty and also has the largest collection of data on this particular issue. The United States legalized the death penalty from its very beginning until 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty went against the Eighth Amendment in the controversial Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238) case, but the death penalty was reinstated at 1977 with stricter restrictions and a tighter perimeter. Randa reported that the first ever execution in America was held in Jamestown on 1608, only two years after the Europeans settled there in 1606.
Before we move into the reasons as to why the death penalty is a fair punishment, we first must know who will be those receiving the death penalty. Those who may receive the death penalty are those who commit unforgivable crimes such as murder. In fact only murderers can be sentenced with the death penalty because of the Eighth Amendment. Rape was once punishable with the death penalty but ever since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977, the Supreme Court has prohibited non-murderers to be sentenced the death penalty (Bohm, 1999). Under Governor Pataki, New York’s death penalty law was reinstated and more clearly defined. Those who qualify to receive the death penalty in New York are those who commit crimes like murdering a police, parole, court, probation, or corrections officer. Other crimes that qualify a felon for the death penalty are murdering while already serving life in prison or escaping from prison. Being a contract killer, serial killer, or those who torture their victims may also result with the death penalty being imposed in the state of New York (Pataki, 1995). Even history can prove the need for the death penalty. Ever since the beginning of civilization, the death penalty had been there to keep the order, but the crimes that were punishable with the death penalty were a little absurd. In 1612, Virginia adopted the Divine, Moral, and Martial Laws which approved the death penalty for very minor offences. These crimes included offences such as killing a chicken, stealing grapes, and even trading with the natives (Randa, 1997). It is a good thing that the authorities ‘came to their senses’ and reformed the crimes punishable by the death penalty, or else most of the population would be on death row at this present time.
The main cry of those against the death penalty is that if the defendant is wrongly sentenced, there will be no turning back time. That is why before a death penalty can be enacted, the country’s judicial system has to be stricter and more thorough. According to O’Neil Patry, and Penrod (2004), the current issue with the judicial system is that the jurors’ attitude and viewpoints may influence their decision on a case; therefore, the accused may be falsely convicted. To avoid any mistakes with the sentencing, a long and thorough trial will be held. The accused can only be sentenced the death penalty if—and only if—he is proven guilty without a reasonable doubt. A recent study conducted by the Death Penalty Information Centre (2010) showed that the United States’ judicial system has exonerated nearly a hundred and thirty prisoners out of 1213 prisoners on death row from 1976 to 2007 meaning that the present system is not a hundred percent effective. George E. Pataki (1997) explained, in his article in the USA Today, the most efficient way the death penalty can be in effect. In New York, like in the rest of the United States, the jury has complete sentencing discretion. Therefore, when deciding the defendant’s sentence, Pataki states that each jury member must consider the defendant’s ‘prior criminal history, mental capacity, character, background, state of mind, and the extent of his or her participation in the crime’ before considering the death penalty, and when the death penalty is considered, the jury must reach the verdict unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt before the defendant can be sentenced. The selected jurors also cannot have any emotional attachment in any way to the case at hand so that their judgment will not be clouded.
With the implementation of the death penalty, it is logical to conclude that crime will be controlled. Dudley Sharp has clearly listed down some ways how crime will be controlled through the death penalty. Sharp (2003) gave examples such as the negative consequences factor, survival factor, and other deterrent effects. The negative consequences factor—the fear of any negative effect from an action—are the reason why many would-be criminals never came to be. The negative consequences factor can be best explained with the psychological theory of operant conditioning. The survival factor is the will to live and is a logical deterrent effect to the death penalty. It is clear that with the death penalty in place, anyone will have second opinions with committing a crime deserving the death penalty for fear of the consequence. Pataki (1997), the fifty-third governor of New York, wrote in the USA Today about how the death penalty has helped his state’s crime rates to decrease. Pataki wrote that only a year after the death penalty was reinstated the crime rates in the state dropped by eleven percent compared to the prior twenty-two years when the death penalty was on a hiatus.
Opponents of the Death Penalty argue that the death penalty is inhumane and that life behind bars is a more humane and just punishment for murderers. They also believe that the death penalty will give convicts time to recover from their crimes—giving the prisoner a chance for rehabilitation (Murdock, 2001). However, Murdock reports that giving convicts life in prison when their crime undeniably deserve the death penalty only gives them a challenge to escape, terrify the public again, and commit more unforgivable crimes. Murdock also states in the same article that, while the ideal prison was meant to cause the prisoner to reflect upon his mistakes, some prisoners will ‘stop pondering their misdeeds and seek greener pastures beyond the penitentiary walls.’ Another argument against the life imprisonment of criminals that deserve the death penalty is the incapacitation effect (Sharp, 2003). The incapacitation effect plainly means: executed murderers cannot harm or murder again. It is simple logic to understand that living murderers have an infinitely higher chance of murdering again as compared to murderers who have been executed. Giving the life-time imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty is wrong. It is unfair to the victims, unjust to the criminal, and uncaring to the public. Crimes have dropped dramatically when the death penalty was reinstated in 1977. Houston, Texas, which is the most active death penalty sentencing and execution jurisdiction in the United States, has seen a staggering seventy-three percent drop in the number of murders since it reinstated its death penalty law in 1982 (Sharp, 2003). When New York reinstated its death penalty laws in 1995, it saw crime rates drop by eleven percent (Pataki, 1997). These examples prove that the death penalty does cause would-be criminals to think twice before they commit any felony.
Instead of looking for ways to prevent crime from happening, many opponents of the death penalty focus on sustaining and rehabilitating the criminals. They argue that the death penalty costs more than their alternative—life without parole. Logically thinking, a simple injection or even hanging cannot cost more than a lifetime in jail, but because of the long and complex judicial process for sentences that require capital punishment, the cost of execution in the United States is very high (Death Penalty Focus, n.d.). The opponents’ claim that the death penalty is more expensive is correct, but not when the long term considerations are checked (Sharp, 1997). Over time life without parole outweighs the cost of the death penalty. The money that is used to keep prisoners in their safe and comfortable prison cells can be directed to crime prevention agencies such as the police force and other emergency response organizations. Taxpayers need to see their money funded into more productive things than giving hospitality to convicts or the current government may find themselves out of office after the next elections.
Opponents of the death penalty argue that mistakes can happen, but mistakes can happen anywhere and not just in the case of the death penalty. No matter how thorough a court case is mistakes are bound to happen, but we should not let those mistakes stop the course of justice. In the theory of utilitarianism, as long as one action leads to greater happiness to the greater number of people, it is considered moral. If the execution of a murderer would prevent him from ever harming a human being again, then in the case of utilitarianism, the execution of the murderer is morally right. This paper has given examples from real-life places when the death penalty was established or reestablished. From the examples of Houston and New York, one can conclude that the death penalty will indeed decline crime rates. By getting rid of life without parole, would-be criminals will realize that committing any felonies would be just not worth the possibility of receiving the death penalty—in other words, criminals will be scared. Criminals would not be able to harm again if the death penalty is in effect and, therefore, creating a better and safer environment. The cost of the death penalty against life without parole is debatable, but in the long run, the death penalty will be considered the better choice. Though the death penalty can be considered inhumane or unnecessary by the opponents, the results and research can show the need for the death penalty in modern society. Maybe the day will come when society becomes mature enough curb crime in a more efficient way, but until that day, the death penalty is our best solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment