The Death Penalty
The Death Penalty
Capital Punishment is a very controversial issue that is sweeping the nation. While some feel that the death penalty serves as a rightful and just punishment to the crime that was committed, others feel that we as humans have the right to decide whether they die for the crimes they commit. The question at hand is does the death penalty serve a deterrent to crime? The death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to crime. “Capital punishment has always attracted controversy. Simply, the arguments for and against can be divided into four categories with a moral and a pragmatic argument on each side. The purpose of the death penalty is central to the debate. Punishment can be seen as serving three purposes: retribution, deterrence and reformation. The death penalty can have no reformative purpose in terms of re-establishing 'a good citizen '. Therefore, the case for it must rely on retribution and deterrence. The pragmatic justification for the death penalty sees it as a unique and effective deterrent, which therefore protects society” (Von Drehle, 2008, p. 38). According to Schaefer, “supporters of capital punishment insist that fear of execution will prevent at least some criminals from committing serious offenses.” He continues to mention that although it doesn’t serve as a deterrent, it is still justified. Many believe that the worst criminals deserve to die for what they did. Just because people are being threatened with capital punishment doesn’t necessarily change their mentality on crime. Some people truly don’t care about whether the death penalty is in effect or not. “Our death penalty 's continued existence, countering the trend of the rest of the developed world, expresses our revulsion to violent crime and our belief in personal accountability. The endless and expensive appeals reflect our scrupulous belief in consistency and individual justice. This is also a nation of widely dispersed power--many states, cities and jurisdictions. Out of this diversity has emerged the staggering intricacy of death-penalty law, as thousands of judges and legislators from coast to coast struggle to breathe real-life meaning into such abstract issues as what constitutes effective counsel, what is the proper balance of authority between judge and jury, what makes a murder "especially heinous," what qualities and defects in a prisoner compel mercy, and so on.”(Von Drehle, 2008, p. 40)
There are quite a few countries that implement the death penalty into their government law system. In the past for example Britain had specific cases where the death penalty would come into effect. “From 1861 onwards only four crimes by civilians were still punishable by death in Britain: murder, treason, piracy with violence, and arson in government dockyards and arsenals. In practice murder was the only crime for which the death penalty was imposed. The judge had no choice but to pass a death sentence on a convicted murderer, reflecting the concept that 'every murderer forfeits his life because he has taken another 's. ' Because it was recognized that murders varied greatly and were viewed accordingly by public opinion, many murderers were reprieved by the Home Secretary exercising the royal prerogative of mercy. This state of affairs remained unchanged until 1957” (Homans, 2008, para. 2). Though that was based more in the past, many feel that the death penalty should have a more restrictions and better judgment on what crime justifies the use of capital punishment.
My own viewpoint on the death penalty is open. When looking back at the crime committed by Timothy McVeigh in 2001, with the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma, it changes my thoughts on the issue. When the crime of McVeigh was described, I automatically thought that he deserved the death penalty. But when looking at other people who commit murder, when the individual state has to decide based on the heinous actions of the crime, it then becomes a shaky subject. How do we determine which murder is more heinous? What scale are we using to measure the severity of the crime? I noticed that some people who murder two people may not actually receive capital punishment but someone else who may have killed only one person may actually receive the death sentence. The way that the law decides the limits on capital punishment are baffling. If the law could come up with specific crime standards on the death penalty and not just go case by case, then I would be pro death penalty. Due to the lack of order in the system, at the moment I am against capital punishment. Research shows that it is less expensive for the state to actually give the criminal life in prison then to actually have the death penalty. Schaefer states “According to a recent analysis, imprisoning a person for life costs $1.1 million, but sentencing a person to death costs $3 million due to the legal cost of appeals and enhanced spending on death row inmates (Roman et al. 2008).” I also agree that the death penalty is unfairly given to those who may not even be able to afford decent representation in court for their crime. If someone is lacking the financial means for a top-notch lawyer and they were accused of murder, regardless of whether they were innocent or not, they would need help to prove it. If they are unable to prove it then the court tends to prey on that weakness and can easily sentence them to the death penalty.
When focusing on youth who commit violent crimes, I then go back to the fact of how violent is the crime at hand? I do not feel that youth should be given the death penalty, but I also do not agree with youth committing crimes at the age of 13 and being released at the age of 21 due to good behavior. If the youth committed a violent heinous crime then they should be punished accordingly with life imprisonment.
In summation, until the justice system can decide on a specific measure on what can cause someone to be sentenced to the death penalty, then it shouldn’t be a means of punishment. Also when looking at capital punishment as a deterrent for crime, it obviously has not made the crime rate decrease in many parts of the world. The death penalty will remain a controversial subject until it is better determined who should receive it and for what crime.
References
Homans, L. (2008). Swinging Sixties: The Abolition of Capital Punishment. History Today, 58. doi: 00182753
Schaefer, R. T. (2009). The Death Penalty in the United States and Worldwide. In M. Ryan (Ed.), Sociology: A Brief Introduction (8th ed., pp. 175-177). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Von Drehle, D. (2008). Death Penalty Walking. Time, 171, 38-41. doi: 0040781X
References: Homans, L. (2008). Swinging Sixties: The Abolition of Capital Punishment. History Today, 58. doi: 00182753 Schaefer, R. T. (2009). The Death Penalty in the United States and Worldwide. In M. Ryan (Ed.), Sociology: A Brief Introduction (8th ed., pp. 175-177). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Von Drehle, D. (2008). Death Penalty Walking. Time, 171, 38-41. doi: 0040781X
Capital Punishment is a very controversial issue that is sweeping the nation. While some feel that the death penalty serves as a rightful and just punishment to the crime that was committed, others feel that we as humans have the right to decide whether they die for the crimes they commit. The question at hand is does the death penalty serve a deterrent to crime? The death penalty does not serve as a deterrent to crime. “Capital punishment has always attracted controversy. Simply, the arguments for and against can be divided into four categories with a moral and a pragmatic argument on each side. The purpose of the death penalty is central to the debate. Punishment can be seen as serving three purposes: retribution, deterrence and reformation. The death penalty can have no reformative purpose in terms of re-establishing 'a good citizen '. Therefore, the case for it must rely on retribution and deterrence. The pragmatic justification for the death penalty sees it as a unique and effective deterrent, which therefore protects society” (Von Drehle, 2008, p. 38). According to Schaefer, “supporters of capital punishment insist that fear of execution will prevent at least some criminals from committing serious offenses.” He continues to mention that although it doesn’t serve as a deterrent, it is still justified. Many believe that the worst criminals deserve to die for what they did. Just because people are being threatened with capital punishment doesn’t necessarily change their mentality on crime. Some people truly don’t care about whether the death penalty is in effect or not. “Our death penalty 's continued existence, countering the trend of the rest of the developed world, expresses our revulsion to violent crime and our belief in personal accountability. The endless and expensive appeals reflect our scrupulous belief in consistency and individual justice. This is also a nation of widely dispersed power--many states, cities and jurisdictions. Out of this diversity has emerged the staggering intricacy of death-penalty law, as thousands of judges and legislators from coast to coast struggle to breathe real-life meaning into such abstract issues as what constitutes effective counsel, what is the proper balance of authority between judge and jury, what makes a murder "especially heinous," what qualities and defects in a prisoner compel mercy, and so on.”(Von Drehle, 2008, p. 40)
There are quite a few countries that implement the death penalty into their government law system. In the past for example Britain had specific cases where the death penalty would come into effect. “From 1861 onwards only four crimes by civilians were still punishable by death in Britain: murder, treason, piracy with violence, and arson in government dockyards and arsenals. In practice murder was the only crime for which the death penalty was imposed. The judge had no choice but to pass a death sentence on a convicted murderer, reflecting the concept that 'every murderer forfeits his life because he has taken another 's. ' Because it was recognized that murders varied greatly and were viewed accordingly by public opinion, many murderers were reprieved by the Home Secretary exercising the royal prerogative of mercy. This state of affairs remained unchanged until 1957” (Homans, 2008, para. 2). Though that was based more in the past, many feel that the death penalty should have a more restrictions and better judgment on what crime justifies the use of capital punishment.
My own viewpoint on the death penalty is open. When looking back at the crime committed by Timothy McVeigh in 2001, with the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma, it changes my thoughts on the issue. When the crime of McVeigh was described, I automatically thought that he deserved the death penalty. But when looking at other people who commit murder, when the individual state has to decide based on the heinous actions of the crime, it then becomes a shaky subject. How do we determine which murder is more heinous? What scale are we using to measure the severity of the crime? I noticed that some people who murder two people may not actually receive capital punishment but someone else who may have killed only one person may actually receive the death sentence. The way that the law decides the limits on capital punishment are baffling. If the law could come up with specific crime standards on the death penalty and not just go case by case, then I would be pro death penalty. Due to the lack of order in the system, at the moment I am against capital punishment. Research shows that it is less expensive for the state to actually give the criminal life in prison then to actually have the death penalty. Schaefer states “According to a recent analysis, imprisoning a person for life costs $1.1 million, but sentencing a person to death costs $3 million due to the legal cost of appeals and enhanced spending on death row inmates (Roman et al. 2008).” I also agree that the death penalty is unfairly given to those who may not even be able to afford decent representation in court for their crime. If someone is lacking the financial means for a top-notch lawyer and they were accused of murder, regardless of whether they were innocent or not, they would need help to prove it. If they are unable to prove it then the court tends to prey on that weakness and can easily sentence them to the death penalty.
When focusing on youth who commit violent crimes, I then go back to the fact of how violent is the crime at hand? I do not feel that youth should be given the death penalty, but I also do not agree with youth committing crimes at the age of 13 and being released at the age of 21 due to good behavior. If the youth committed a violent heinous crime then they should be punished accordingly with life imprisonment.
In summation, until the justice system can decide on a specific measure on what can cause someone to be sentenced to the death penalty, then it shouldn’t be a means of punishment. Also when looking at capital punishment as a deterrent for crime, it obviously has not made the crime rate decrease in many parts of the world. The death penalty will remain a controversial subject until it is better determined who should receive it and for what crime.
References
Homans, L. (2008). Swinging Sixties: The Abolition of Capital Punishment. History Today, 58. doi: 00182753
Schaefer, R. T. (2009). The Death Penalty in the United States and Worldwide. In M. Ryan (Ed.), Sociology: A Brief Introduction (8th ed., pp. 175-177). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Von Drehle, D. (2008). Death Penalty Walking. Time, 171, 38-41. doi: 0040781X
References: Homans, L. (2008). Swinging Sixties: The Abolition of Capital Punishment. History Today, 58. doi: 00182753 Schaefer, R. T. (2009). The Death Penalty in the United States and Worldwide. In M. Ryan (Ed.), Sociology: A Brief Introduction (8th ed., pp. 175-177). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill. Von Drehle, D. (2008). Death Penalty Walking. Time, 171, 38-41. doi: 0040781X