It has always been a belief for some that if another person wrongs them, they should have the right to take revenge against that person. In the present day, this view still remains, but has been toned down by laws that state the rights of the accused and have developed punishments for offenders. Many, myself included, still believe that those punishments are not harsh enough and allow criminals to take advantage of them, knowing that if caught, the punishment is not near enough to make it wise to simply avoid the risk.
I believe that capital punishment is an effective way of dealing with people who have committed heinous crimes. For example, there is a middle-aged man. This man rapes and kills a little girl and is given life in prison. Unfortunately, after a mere 30 years in prison he is up for parole and receives it. After being back on the streets he commits and is convicted of another murder. Did that second person really need to die? Could it have been prevented? Absolutely. That second victim would still be enjoying holidays with their family and vacations with their friends.
Thats why we have the death penalty. According to Mark Costanza, The theory [of deterrence] is simple and self-evident: Fear of the execution chamber will restrain potential murderers. Knowing that they could face the executioner, those who would otherwise kill will stop short of killing and innocent lives will be saved. (95) Others say that the evidence shows that it does not work as a deterrent. But, if for each execution we follow through with, one criminal thinks twice and decides not to commit his or her crime, then that execution has been ustified.
It could also be argued that deterrence to crime is only partly caused by the knowledge of possible punishments. For the most part it is inside the person who commits it. It is shaped and changed by family, friends, and the persons surroundings or way of life. If a child is not disciplined when young and is permitted to do whatever they want, they will not be as likely to follow the rules when they are older. They are not as aware of the repercussions of their actions. On the contrary, a child who is strictly watched and taught the difference between right and wrong when young, will be more aware of the law, and at a younger age.
Murder will never be able to be halted completely, but if it can be slowed or minimized at all, then it should be. Although capital punishment is a fair punishment for those who commit murder, it also should be given consistently. If two people are involved in the same homicide, its not right for one of them to receive the death penalty and one to get life. It should be one or the other. A great example of this is in Tim Robbins 1995 drama Dead Man Walking. In the movie the inmate tells a nun about the crime.
He describes it as he holding someone while his partner shot them. In the movie he got death and his partner did not. (Robbins) Instances such as this are not morally right and need to be regulated in some way. According to Stephen Nathanson, the argument over capital punishment is interesting in its double sidedness, or ability to be justified from either side. One of the most interesting examples of this is the fact that both sides argue their point based on a espect for life (1). Those against, say that they are arguing because they respect the killers right to life.
Those for it say that the murderers deserve to die because they respect the life of the victim and they find it hard to believe that they would get any other penalty. Arguing to either direction is justifiable but if that detained person is executed, the state is in a way respecting not only the life of the victim, but also the victims friends, family and acquaintances because often the death of the murderer brings closure to the issue for those affected. The issue of the morality of capital punishment has been argued for years. By morality I mean whether the practice is morally right or wrong.
Those against it point to people who have been wrongly accused. Those for it point to people such as Dahmer, Gacy, and others like them who committed multiple, horrific acts of murder and still would be, if not in jail or dead. In his work titled Capital Punishment: A Personal Statement, Charles W. Colson asks What about mercy? (61) He then proceeds to answer the response is simple. There can be no mercy where justice is not satisfied. 61) Society as a whole has a right to be protected from people who repeatedly perform barbaric acts against others.
The only way to be absolutely sure that they will not act again is to take their life. At the same time however, there needs to be a fail safe way of not punishing, or perhaps even killing, innocent people wrongly convicted of a crime that they did not commit. One of the largest arguments opposers have against the death penalty is the issue of how humane it really is. Is it humane to kill an individual who has committed an act against another so barbaric that many of us cannot go so far as to fathom it?
There is not a set answer to this question. But answer this. Is it humane to give these convicted criminals food, shelter, clothing, heat, bathrooms and running water while there are homeless people on the streets, many of whom have done nothing, and they have none? Those against will say not as inhumane as taking ones life. Then should the homeless become criminals in order to receive these perks? Everyone has his or her own opinion on this issue and everyone thinks that theirs is the right answer.
Imposition of the death penalty is extraordinarily rare. Since 1967, there has been one execution for every 1600 murders, or 0. 06%. (Sharp internet) Those who oppose the death penalty need to realize that the justice system is judging the crimes and criminals to the best of their abilities. They are not sentencing anyone and everyone who commits a violent crime to death. Those criminals who they feel are a serious threat, or have committed an especially heinous crime, are punished accordingly by receiving a sentence of equal proportions.
The issue of cost has been brought up in many arguments with each one ending with different costs. It is difficult to say which is cheaper because there is no way to decide. Everything depends on how long the person lives. Generally speaking, the per year prices include a number of things including, but not limited to the construction, maintenance and operating costs of a maximum-security prison cell, food, clothes, heat, water, etc. According to Sharp, adding up the basic costs of all these would amount to roughly $34,200 a year.
If the prisoner lived for 50 years at a 2% annual cost increase, it would cost the United States a total of $3. 01 million for that prisoner, plus $75,000 for appeals and trials. The cost for an inmate sentenced to death includes housing and the actual execution. It is estimated at around $60,000 per year for an average of 6 years with a 2% annual cost increase plus nearly $1. 5 million for appeals and trials. According to this estimation, the upfront costs are more expensive for death, but with rising costs, estimated, to move up to 3 or 4%, and expenses, would be cheaper in the long run.
Costanzo 60-61) The issue of racism remains an ongoing battle in todays society. Just as it has invaded all other aspects of our lives, it too has become a sub-issue in the big picture of capital punishment. It is thought that blacks are executed more than whites. When it really gets right down to it, it is not even much of an issue. A murderer is a murderer, no matter what he or she looks or acts like. “If and when discrimination occurs it should be corrected.
Not, however, by letting the guilty blacks escape the death penalty because guilty whites do, but by making sure that the guilty white offenders suffer it as the guilty blacks do. Discrimination must be abolished by abolishing discrimination – not by abolishing penalties. However, even if… this cannot be done, I do not see any good reason to let any guilty murderer escape his penalty. It does happen in the administration of criminal justice that one person gets away with murder and another is executed. Yet the fact that one gets away with it is no reason to let another one escape. Lowe internet).
Stanley Rothman and Stephen Powers say that studies have surprisingly shown that white murderers receive the death penalty more often than black murderers by 5%. While the murderers of whites do receive the death penalty more then the murderers of blacks, it has also been shown that there is far more intra-racial killing then interracial. In fact, Most analysts agree that between 92 and 97 percent of homicides are intra-racial. In that much smaller number of cases in which blacks kill whites, the circumstances seem to be substantially different.