Capital Punishment: A Necessary Part of Justice in the United States
The premise of using the death penalty to deter crime implies that it is reasonable to assume a rational individual, who understands the consequence of committing murder is the forfeiture of his own life, will not commit murder. "Murder rates, which had trended downward since 1935, took off almost vertically after 1963, the year the Supreme Court started overturning state death penalty convictions on a routine basis" (Tucker, 2001, p. 2). One problem with studies stating capital punishment is ineffective in deterring crime is the statistics are divided into two categories: states that use the death penalty and states that do not (Tucker, 2001). Tucker (2001) states, "Homicide rates have...fallen steadily in states that...performed executions...States with capital punishment but no executions have lowered their homicide rate...States with no capital punishment saw a slight decline that was almost completely wiped out by an upswing in 1999" (p. 11). Since numerous persons fear dying, it is preposterous to suggest that capital punishment does not deter crime.
Racism is not as prevalent today, as in years past. Prior to 1976, claiming that capital punishment was meted out more to African Americans would be correct; however, from 1976 to 2005, the numbers of prisoners on death row have been white, without exception (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006). Another aspect of this argument is that the impoverished are more apt to be dealt the death penalty. There may be substance to the argument that the poor and minorities may not receive the best representation, than the rich and powerful; however, this is a separate issue. While this bias is wrong, it is an argument against the court system that does not ensure fair representation, regardless of economic circumstances. Claiming race is a factor in deciding if a case qualifies for the death penalty, sets the racial equality movement back decades.
Some may say that morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder; however, morality is conforming to the conduct of right and wrong. Murder is indisputably wrong, thus the argument that murdering a murderer is immoral; it could just as easily be argued that not murdering a murderer is immoral. Berns (1979) argues that retribution is moral: "Punishment arises out of the demand for justice, and justice is demanded by angry, morally indignant men; its purpose is to satisfy that moral indignation and thereby promote the law-abidingness that...accompanies it" (p. 16). The fact is punishment for crimes are proportionate to the crimes committed; a shoplifter would not be sentenced to life in prison, nor would a rapist be sentenced to community service; the death penalty is the only punishment comparable to pre-meditated murder (Bidinotto, 1997). To condemn all murder on the basis that it is immoral means that one would not be able to defend oneself against an intruder who intends to commit vile acts upon one's person; a policeman would not be able to justify shooting a perpetrator who has aimed a gun at his chest.
There will always be individuals who will not be persuaded from criminal activity, regardless of the penalty, for example: those who steal due to economic necessity, the criminally insane, terrorists, and spies. These people kill because they believe, however erroneously, that they have no choice. We feel frustration and horror at the senseless and brutal crimes that too frequently disrupt an otherwise peaceful society. We feel sympathy for the victim and the victim's families, while thanking God that it did not happen to us. Capital punishment is one measure employed to safeguard our families and communities; criminals found guilty of vile crimes should pay the ultimate price for their actions.
References
Berns, W. (1979). Retribution is a moral reason for capital punishment. The Ethics of Capital Punishment, Ed. Nick Fisanick, At Issue Series, San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005.
Bidinotto, R. J. (1997). Capital punishment is moral. Capital Punishment, Ed. Mary E. Williams, Current Controversies Series, San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Key Facts at a Glance: Prisoners on death row by race. Click here.
Tucker, W. (2001). Capital punishment reduces murder rates. Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? Ed. Roman Espejo, At Issue Series, San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003.
Published by Angel Tate
Angel is an artist of various mediums and an avid reader who also enjoys writing. Angel loves learning and has an interest in a wide variety of subjects. Check out Angel's fan page on Facebook!! Link provide... View profile
- An Overview of the Non Profit Sector in the United StatesFind out why the United States has a non profit sector and how its role relates to the roles of government and business.
- Female Circumcision in the United StatesFemale circumcision is currently performed in the United States to enhanse sexuals sesation and for cosmetic reasons. In the past extreme forms of female circumcision were practiced in the United States.
Great Inventions Courtesy of the United States GovernmentRelatively speaking, the United States has not been around for a long period of time. When you take a look at what we have invented and brought to the world it is incredible. - An Evolving Democracy: The United StatesAt no other time in the 200-year history of the United States has there been a greater opportunity for people to be involved in the evolution of democracy.
- An Analysis of the United States Oil Policy and OPECThe article gives analysis of United States policy towards OPEC and how this policy has hurt the country. It lists alternatives to the current policy along with the pro's and cons to the policy and arrives at the aut...
- Capital Punishment: Die Scum Die!
- Should Capital Punishment Be Justified?
- Why Capital Punishment Doesn't Deter Crime
- Capital Punishment: An Act of Mercy
- Ethical Justification for Capital Punishment
- Ohio's Capital Punishment: Why it Took 2 Hours for a Man to Die
- Mistakes and Debates in Criminal Law: The Downside of Justice:
5 Comments
Post a CommentConsider how you would feel if your under-age child were raped, mutilated, and brutally killed...granted capital punishment should not be considered in every case, and it isn't, but there are cases that capital punishment should be the only punishment considered.
Capital punishment should never have been instituted as a sentence to deter crime. Mistakes have been made in the past, and innocent people have lost their lives. Justice demands another type of punishment for capital murder.
To finish the part of the previous comment that was cut out: If you disagree, consider how you'd feel if the innocent who was wrongfully executed was your child.
An interesting judicial concept to consider is one of Jewish law on the topic of capital punishment. In ancient times, the highest court in Judaism was called a Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was the only court that was allowed to mete out capital punishment. Tradition held, however, that a Sanhedrin that actually meted out that punishment more frequently than once every 70 years was a "deadly Sanhedrin." The lesson here is that execution should be used very rarely, and that not every court should be allowed to mete it out. The dozens of convicted death-row inmates in the US who were later exonerated by DNA evidence supports the argument that capital punishment should rarely be used. It is not sufficient that the crime be heinous, but also that the conviction is not just "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "beyond any doubt." It is better to imprison for life without parole a thousand people convicted of murder rather than executing them, to avoid executing one innocent person. If you di
Capital punishment does NOT deter crime, IS racist, more costly, etc. DA's use shoddy tactics to convict, some which Are innocent, mentally retarded. The Supreme court is deciding if lethal injection is indeed cruel an unusual. Capital punishment is not necessary. Sorry, I have to disagree with all you have said.