The Examination of Capital Punishment: Death Penalty

The Death Penalty
Joe Star
Professor Beshears
February 1, 2016
Preface
This paper delved into the examination of capital punishment and the raging debate over whether it should be abolished or not. It offers an argumentative platform, with points for and against the system, so as to give a more realistic outlook on the matters and issues associated with the death penalty. It deciphers capital punishment and how it is viewed through the lens of both its opponents as well as its proponents. Analysis and comparisons are made based on the premises such as ethics, value for humanity, the cost as well as its effectiveness. Additionally, the other points considered include its use as a deterrent, the need to remove the society of crime, and the essence of an eye for an eye, life for life, also known as retribution. This paper has been compiled as a result of detailed research work from numerous books, journals as well as credible articles, so as to come up with a solid piece of work that depicts the actual situation on the ground when it comes to the death penalty.
The aim of the law is to enforce justice, and justice can only be what is, through the law. Crime has been a routine part of human life, and there is no denying the fact that it will continue being even more prevalent as the age advances. Just like the increased sophistication of the current and the coming generation, crime has also continued evolving in various complex ways, so as to keep abreast with the with the changes. Criminals are born every day, and the establishment of institutions such as jails to keep them away has only made it even more of a cyclic pattern. At the end of it, what would initially have been something very natural, such as just keeping them away, becomes a tricky issue.
However, should this be a reason not to continue combating crime? Should the society be thrown to the dogs? Should the society drift back to the Dark Ages? Absolutely not. It is supposed to be everyone's duty to ensure that there is normalcy in the society. In the process of dealing with crime, it is important that the right form of justice is done to the real party. It goes without mention to note that there might be numerous reasons for criminals to commit crimes. Whereas others might have been pushed into committing a crime as a result of the circumstances or since they have no other option to survive, others do it for the sheer fun of it. For example, there might be that person who opts to steal food since he or she is hungry while there is the gangster who murders people or the serial killer who does it for fun. The bottom line for each of them is that they face more or less the same form of punishment.
When it comes to punishment, there is some them that are meted out depending on the type as well as the nature of the crime committed by the felon. Some of these punitive measures include jail terms, community service, life sentences, and capital punishment. Of all these, death, also known as the death penalty, is the most controversial. It usually encompasses all the methods through which an individual’s life can be cut short as a form of punishment, such as through the hangman’s noose, lethal injection, shooting squad, suffocation with poisonous gasses, or the electric chair.
Ever since its usage began, it has been a constant source of controversy from literally all quarters, be it from religious leaders, the society and the legal field itself. Capital punishment has been vouched for, as the perfect way to deal with criminals who commit gruesome acts, such as psychopaths and serial killers. The basic premise has been that for the society to be cleaner, it needs to eliminate a few of these ‘rotten’ elements, and the best way to do this is through capital punishment. In other terms, since not everyone who commits a crime stands in line for execution through the death sentence, there are those few individuals who to some extent deserve such a punishment.
The present society has turned into an eye-for-eye society, where everything done under the sun calls for an almost immediate gratification that is nearly identical to it. On the other hand is the argument against the death penalty. Proponents of this side of the argument highlight among other things, the irreversibility of such a form of punishment. This leaves the door open for debate. The death penalty is ineffective and should be eliminated entirely due to its unethical nature, it being not cost-effective and its inability to deter crime at a high percentage.
Discussion
The first point against the death penalty stems from its corrupt nature. Ethics, just like religion, observes the sanctity and value of life. Life is and should be held in high regard. It is gross misconduct for life to be cut short by human means. The other unethical part of it stems from the manner in which the punishment is done. It forms an utterly gruesome picture, for an individual to tie a fellow person in an electric chair, poisonous gas, or lethal injection, and just watch him die. According to the National Council of State Legislatures (N.C.S.L., 2015), it is even more inhuman for someone to take up the noose, or the gun, and do something that ensures the convict is dead. How does it feel to spray bullets on someone until he or she is no more? How does it feel or sound, to be the angel of death? Worse still, how does it feel to be the one who passed that sentence on a fellow human being?
The death penalty disregards all the facets of ethics and roughly distorts what we, as people, cherished and respected-life itself. Capital punishment pokes holes in the fabric of human culture, rewriting what people believed to be sacred. The ethical standards of every individual depend on how he or she was brought up to believe (Whitehead, 2011).If one grows up with the belief that capital punishment is unethical, and then it clearly is. It is very hypocritical for an individual to kill a fellow individual due to a crime he or she committed. Much of religion also does not allow killing. In Christianity, it is only God who has the authority to give and take away one’s life. There is no human being authorized to take away another person's life for their actions. The ethical implications raised by the death sentence are what resulted in the abolishment of the system by Nebraska, after repeated appeals to it by the citizens (Justice Policy Institute, 2015).
In support of the death penalty, however, it is believed and meant to be not only a punitive measure but also deterrence to others. It is very obvious that capital punishment is the harshest, most terrible form of punishment that can ever be meted on someone. With such a notion, therefore, the death penalty is meant to create mortal fear for anyone who is planning to commit a crime. To deter is to exact punishment on one person, in a way that would prevent any other person of sound mind. A person usually keeps away from any risky activities due to the assumed and presumed preconscious fear of the outcome. It is in everyone's mind to fear anything that might bring about an end to life. Mankind and even animals would do anything to stay alive; every living thing that has a sound mind fears death (Banner, 2002).Criminals, therefore, would always consider every move they make since they know that they are putting their lives on the line for each decision.
The best example can be in the case of an inmate who has been jailed for life, without any chance of parole. This is an individual who by all standards, has lost hope and didn't therefore understand the meaning of life. What can prevent him from committing another serious crime while still in jail, such as killing a fellow inmate? The only thing that can hold back such a person is the fear of death. Once he or she knows that there is an, even more, severe punishment than life imprisonment, then he or she will be contained. This is in agreement with statistics from the Criminal Justice Institute (2015), which has established that there has been an increase in the number of assault cases within the prisons, committed by the inmates either against each other or the staff, over the last 10 years.
The second point against the death penalty is that it is irreversible and hence unfair. In most other cases apart from the death sentence, there is always that chance of appeal and repeated appeal. Additionally, there is also bound to be that chance of mistaken identity. When an individual has been convicted unfairly or wrongly, it would even be more injustice if he or she is killed as punishment. There are various instances where people have been wrongly convicted, and there are even more cases where people have successfully appealed and released after long periods of investigations (Whitehead, 2011).When an individual is sentenced to death, he or she is denied the opportunity to have a second chance. Even if the case later turns out to be wrongly judged, there is nothing that can be done to return the dead back to life.
It should also be noted that the wheels and the cogs of justice usually turn very slowly. As a result, it might even take years for a certain case to be satisfactorily closed and justice done. The court, on the other hand, won't wait for that time to come; it would mete out judgments since that is what courts are made for. The speed of investigations would therefore not match that of the court rulings. Innocent lives would be lost, never to be returned. There is a reason more and more states are continuing to abolish the death sentence in the United States, and this should be a pointer to its demise (NCSL, 2015).
To counter this point. However, capital punishment is a sensitive thing and as a result, a lot of deliberations are taken before one can be sentenced to death. The court systems usually make exerted, satisfactory and conclusive investigations before landing on the decision to sentence one to death. The system also has some provisions so as to uphold the human rights that the convict is entitled to (Burkhead, 2009).For example, the death sentence is usually passed on someone, only when there is substantial evidence that the crime was committed by the said individual, and that there is no other explanation for it. Additionally, there is the provision that any person who has been sentenced to death is given the chance to appeal against the decision.
The cases at which life is at stake are usually more likely to be handled with more meticulousness than others. This is perhaps what makes the passing of the death sentence even more painstaking. There are numerous cases in the world, both from history and at present, where people have been wrongly imprisoned and then later on released. If such a basis is used to argue against the death sentence, then there is a very high likelihood that serial killers, robbers, and other dangerous criminals would walk and rule the streets (Stearman, 2007).
Thirdly, the death penalty should be abolished since it is not the most efficient way to deal with crime. By the mere act of keeping these criminals in jail, crime is already dealt with. It is often argued that crime can be effectively treated if there are functional courts and prisons. These crimes can be deterred through the imparting of that fear that the criminals will be arrested and punished. The fear factor brought about by the prisons is enough to frighten would-be criminals from doing their act (Whitehead, 2011). What were prisons made for, if it wasn’t to keep away criminals? There is no disregard for the fundamental rights of an individual worse than denial of freedom.
It is a harrowing experience to be kept in a room all day and night, being granted only a limited space in which to maneuver. Such an experience is torturous enough for anybody to wish for. This is a huge reason as to why imprisonment itself is a reason sufficient to deter crime, and hence oppose the death sentence. The ineffectiveness of the system is even why the Australian government chose to abolish it (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2015).Additionally, there are other correctional facilities which can help in the rehabilitation of criminals.They can be counseled and later become important people in the society. In the case of psychopaths, for example, they can be taken to a psychiatrist for specialized help, rather than being taken to the hangman's noose. If they fail to respond to therapy, they can then be kept away in containment centers, rather than being killed. This is just an example of how crime can be dealt with, without necessarily killing the criminals involved (American Civil Liberties Union, 2015).
Statistics have however rebuffed this notion that imprisonment deters crime; with the evidence being there that there is an ever-increasing population of the prisons, especially in the United States. Since 1990, there has been a gradual but steady annual increase in the population of inmates in American jails (Bureau of Justice Statistics, n.d).In some way; there are th...