Capital punishment Essay Example

its decreasing usage weakens its legal justification, making it an ineffective deterrent for crime. Many argue that capital punishment fails to discourage criminal activity since states with or without it have similar murder rates. To serve as a deterrent, specific factors must be present in the offender's mind before committing the crime.

The criminal should be aware that others have received punishment for the same offense they intend to commit and may face similar consequences. While this method is sometimes successful, there are instances where individuals who commit crimes like car theft and murder do not think about the aftermath of their actions. Ultimately, crime prevention relies on each person as everyone has their own moral values.

The amount of tolerance and boundary-setting varies from person to person. It is influenced by friends, family, and the individual's upbringing. If someone is not taught restraint in their childhood, they may never grasp the concept of limitations until they personally experience them. This is where the increased utilization of the death penalty could be beneficial.

The death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder by creating fear in potential killers who ignore boundaries, as mentioned before. When people believe they will suffer harm themselves, they are less likely to engage in harmful actions. Additionally, the death penalty discourages murder by ensuring that once a killer is executed, they cannot take another life. Many supporters of capital punishment argue that offenders should be punished for their crimes, regardless of its effectiveness in reducing crime rates. Advocates of the death penalty argue for using offenders as examples and believe that the possibility of death is enough to deter crime.

There are varying

opinions on capital punishment, with some viewing it as a way to seek retribution against the murderer, while others see long-term incarceration as a form of revenge. This raises concerns about fairness, as murderers receive basic necessities while innocent individuals may lack those same resources. Critics argue that capital punishment is more humane than the state taking someone's life.

An example from February 1963 illustrates this perspective. At that time, Gary McCorkell, a 19-year-old sex offender, was initially set to be executed but had his sentence changed to life imprisonment by Lester Person's liberal cabinet. However, less than twenty years later, McCorkell was arrested and found guilty of kidnapping and raping a 10-year-old boy in Tennessee after facing trial. Consequently, he received a prison term of 63 years.

If McCorkell had been executed in 1963, the boy who suffered sexual abuse would not have had to endure such horror. It is important to acknowledge that individuals who have been sexually abused as children may become sex offenders themselves. However, despite potentially being a victim of assault in the past, McCorkell's crimes are still unjustifiable. Rather than isolated incidents, his actions were ongoing and led to the death of two boys and the assault of two others, with one being critically injured. The fact that McCorkell was conscious of his actions further emphasizes the seriousness of his crimes.

The question of whether this man should be allowed to live arises due to the immense harm he has caused four children. The suitable punishment for this case according to the state's perspective is also being pondered upon. The individual in question lacks innocence, forgiveness, or a willingness to reform. Research

conducted by Isaac Ehrlich suggests that each execution carried out in the U.S. deters eight murders. Ehrlich argues that if one execution prevents the loss of an innocent life, it can be considered justified. Death penalty advocates like Ehrlich prioritize saving even one life over numerous executions of guilty individuals and reject the notion that society commits murder when executing criminals.

According to Professor Stephen K. Layson of the University of North Carolina, the execution of convicted offenders is believed to demonstrate society's significant respect for innocent life. Professor Layson's study indicated that capital punishment has a relatively low deterrence factor, deterring only 18 murderers per execution in the United States.

Support for the death penalty in the United States has changed over time. In 1966, 42% of Americans supported capital punishment and 47% opposed it. However, as crime rates increased, so did support for the death penalty. By 1986, there was a significant shift with 80% in favor and only 17% against; there were also 3% who remained undecided but leaned towards supporting capital punishment if they had to vote immediately.

These studies and surveys show that the death penalty effectively deters crime and receives approval from the public and society. The possibility of losing their lives makes potential criminals think twice about committing a crime. Even if it fails as a deterrent, it still allows for retribution against murderers.

Capital punishment provides a sense of security by guaranteeing that murderers will never get the opportunity to murder again. The fundamental aspect of the death penalty is its irreversible nature, as death is an unchangeable concept for humans because of our mortality. However, this presents a significant issue

as there are numerous cases in which innocent individuals have been mistakenly condemned to death. Our legal system encompasses several flaws that can jeopardize justice for those facing capital punishment, particularly concerning the management of the defendant's defense counsel.

If the defendant does not have legal representation, they will be provided one by the state. However, there is no assurance of their expertise and proficiency. This uncertainty can be harmful for the defendant as an inexperienced lawyer might jeopardize their life. Additionally, concerns arise about potential bias from judges within our legal system.

When a judge displays bias or prejudice, they may rule in favor of the prosecution, leading to an unfair trial. Similarly, if a biased or ill-informed jury is selected, it can result in an unjust trial. Consequently, even innocent individuals may be sentenced to death without receiving a fair opportunity. These factors contribute to the opposition against capital punishment held by certain individuals. Furthermore, seeking revenge is an inappropriate motive for our society as it places a substantial burden on the victim's family to pursue the most severe form of punishment – namely the death penalty.

Pat Bane, executive director of the Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation, highlights the ethical dilemma faced by families who feel compelled to seek the death penalty for their loved ones' killers. This pressure can cause them to feel like betrayers if they choose not to pursue capital punishment. However, it is important to consider that killing the murderer will not bring back their lost family members. Some argue that there comes a point where society must put an end to violence. The decision regarding the death penalty should not

be influenced by temporary satisfaction or prejudice.

While revenge and retribution may seem similar, it is generally agreed upon that punishment should match the severity of the crime. Nonetheless, opponents of capital punishment question whether society can morally justify taking someone's life solely because they believe the person deserves it.

The government possesses both the right and responsibility to safeguard society from individuals who pose a threat. Nevertheless, a killer can also receive a sentence of life imprisonment without parole, which ensures public safety just as effectively as an execution would.

Those who oppose capital punishment argue that the commonly held belief that the death penalty is cost-effective compared to long-term imprisonment is widely spread. However, the court appeals and procedures involved in ensuring proper legal treatment for death penalty cases are lengthy, prolonged, and costly. In 1992, it took an average of 114 months or around nine and a half years from sentencing to execution for the 31 individuals on death row. When taking into account expenses related to the criminal justice process - trial court costs, appeals, post-conviction costs, prison expenses (including time spent on death row awaiting execution) - each execution exceeds a sum of 250 thousand dollars. The expense per execution surpasses two million dollars.

When comparing the costs of a twenty-year prison term for a first-degree murderer, which amounts to approximately $330 thousand dollars, it becomes evident that sentencing someone to life in prison is a more cost-effective choice. Instead of going through the trouble and expense of executing a criminal, we can simply incarcerate them for life at a lower cost. The issue of capital punishment sparks intense debate, with both sides firmly

holding their beliefs and employing various strategies to influence public opinion. However, caution must be exercised to ensure that innocent individuals are never put to death, even when significant doubts arise. While it is likely that innocent people have been wrongly executed throughout history, thorough police investigations can help prevent such errors. Nevertheless, when the evidence clearly indicates that an individual remains a threat to society as long as they are alive, capital punishment must be utilized. The Advantages of Capital Punishment Despite consistent criticism regarding the severity of laws in the United States, do they truly serve as effective deterrents? Are the penalties for murder sufficiently strong to discourage people from committing such crimes? In most instances, the answer is no; therefore nationwide implementation of the death penalty should take place and its usage should be increased.

Throughout history, the death penalty has served as an effective means of deterring violent criminals in the USA. It has played a pivotal role in justice systems, administering punishment for various crimes. In previous times, laws were more stringent and permitted executions even for offenses such as theft and allegations of witchcraft. While public executions were once prevalent globally until the 1830s, they have now become rare occurrences, although certain countries continue to practice them.

In the past, various cruel methods of execution were inflicted upon individuals, such as burning at the stake, stoning, being thrown to animals, or being thrown from a cliff. Presently, execution methods have become more humane. Nevertheless, there are those who contend that the death penalty is ethically unjustifiable due to its involvement of governmental life-taking. An objective examination of the matter demonstrates its

fairness and ultimate service to the country's best interest. Annually, murderers are sentenced to life imprisonment as punishment—a seemingly unjust consequence considering they have themselves taken their victims' lives.

In the USA, the current issue is the lack of strictness shown towards violent criminals. A large number of repeat offenders could have been stopped from committing further crimes if we had taken action after their initial offense. Shockingly, in 1993, individuals on parole were responsible for a staggering 84,800 crimes. These included 13,200 murders, 12,900 rapes, and 49,500 robberies. These statistics demonstrate that some criminals are not deterred by their punishments. Tragically, around sixty two percent of violent crimes result in deaths and even fewer lead to imprisonment.

The average duration of imprisonment for murder convicts is just under three years before they are set free, whereas their victims suffer the loss of their entire lives. These statistics highlight a notable problem that calls for the adoption of measures like the death penalty to eliminate it. The death penalty possesses great potential as an exceptionally influential deterrent.

If the death penalty were more frequently and swiftly enforced, it would create fear in criminals. Another point to consider is that very few people would commit murder if their own death happened at the same time as their victim's. In this situation, only those who also desired death would be tempted to commit murder. However, in the United States, the problem lies in the long duration of the process. Spare me or electrocute me, but please do not prolong it (Jesse Walter Bishop). On average, inmates on death row spend nine years there.

During a nine-year period, the state incurs significant

expenses due to the imprisonment of inmates and the numerous appeals they file. Implementing stricter limitations and criteria for filing appeals would make the death penalty a cost-effective and permanent solution for murderers. Additionally, the death penalty acts as a warning, much like a lighthouse guiding ships safely through dark waters. While shipwrecks often make headlines, we seldom hear about those that are successfully guided by the lighthouse. Although we cannot accurately measure its lifesaving impact, it is crucial not to dismantle the lighthouse (Hyam Barshay).

Even though we cannot quantify the exact number of murders prevented by capital punishment, it is widely acknowledged that it acts as a deterrent. Despite the numerous appeals and lengthy incarceration periods involved, capital punishment is still more cost-effective than sentencing someone to life without parole. On average, a life without parole inmate costs around three million dollars, which includes thirty-four thousand dollars per year for fifty years for the prison cell and seventy-five thousand dollars for the trial. Conversely, an inmate serving a death sentence only costs approximately one point eight million dollars, consisting of sixty thousand dollars per year for six years for the prison cell and one point five million dollars for the trial.

The cost of the death penalty is currently lower than the cost of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Furthermore, if fewer appeals were made, the overall cost would decrease even more. An important issue to consider is determining which crimes justify the punishment of death for the offender. The most obvious example is murder; it is unquestionable that individuals who intentionally take someone's life should also have their own lives taken away.

Additionally, drug dealing may be another crime that could warrant a death sentence.

This suggestion may appear extreme and unconventional, but it would effectively eradicate the issue. Certain individuals perceive drug dealing as an uncomplicated and expedient means of earning significant profits rapidly. They acknowledge the existence of a certain level of risk, albeit not a significant one. However, having the consequence of death upon apprehension would undoubtedly give them pause to reconsider.

Many countries in Asia have strict rules, making them safe places to live. Singapore is one such example, where even chewing gum is prohibited. However, the streets in Singapore are incredibly clean and there is no need to worry about being mugged. Although these rules may appear unfair, they contribute to making the country an excellent place to live.

Opponents of the death penalty claim that executing a murderer is ethically wrong. However, upon contemplation, this statement lacks credibility. The notion of "an eye for an eye" suggests that the punishment of death is the only just consequence for someone who has unlawfully ended another person's life.

Abolitionists are likely to become supporters if someone close to them is murdered, as they would seek justice by wanting the perpetrator to be killed. This is why most abolitionists come from privileged backgrounds and peaceful neighborhoods. They advocate for capital punishment because they have not personally experienced the impact of murder or violent crime. Not only does the death penalty serve as retribution for the victim, but also for their family. It would be unjust if someone took the life of a loved one and only served a short prison sentence; death is the only appropriate punishment. Furthermore,

abolitionists argue that state executions are essentially similar to acts of murder.

If the state executing a criminal is considered murder, then would it be considered kidnapping when inmates are placed in cells and held against their will? The answer to both questions is no. There is a distinction between premeditated murder and the execution of a criminal. In the case of a murderer killing someone, there is no trial or crime committed, and there is no justification for taking that person's life. However, an execution is not morally wrong because it is the punishment for a crime that warrants death.

The question of whether the methods used to execute criminals today are both painless and ethical is a major concern. The answer is that no, today's methods are not always painless. It is possible for all methods to be mishandled, resulting in pain for the criminal. The fairness of subjecting criminals to such pain may be questioned. However, one must consider the fear and pain experienced by the victim prior to being killed by the inmate. Therefore, if it takes multiple attempts and causes a person's hair to catch on fire during electrocution, or if the injection is not mixed correctly leading to a painful death, or if the noose is improperly tied causing a prolonged five-minute death, or if pellets dropped cause coughing and gagging as they struggle for air, it is still likely not as severe as what the victim endured. While it is argued that criminals should not be afforded a painless death, there are painless methods available, such as asphyxiation by nitrogen.

Using nitrogen, the inmate would experience no pain and would become

unconscious within a few minutes after it is introduced into the room. Subsequently, they would pass away painlessly in a matter of minutes. An additional advantage of this approach is the potential for organ donation to hospitals. By removing a criminal from society and providing organs to someone in critical condition, lives could be saved.

It is possible that an innocent person could be wrongly convicted and executed, although the likelihood of this occurring is low. The modern legal system has implemented numerous measures to minimize such occurrences. In trials for capital crimes, there are two phases, with the first phase solely focused on determining the accused's guilt.

The sentence issue is the focus of the second phase. Technological advancements, such as DNA analysis, allow us to often prove beyond any doubt whether someone has committed a crime. Among the eight thousand executed criminals, it is believed that only twenty-three might have been innocent. Twelve of these twenty-three cases lacked substantial evidence or had none at all to establish guilt.

The United States is the last major commercial country in the west that is still implementing the death penalty. Some argue that this implies we should cease using it because everyone else has. However, Ernest Van den Hag's quote raises a valid point - I cannot give much weight to the argument proposed by Prof. Conrad because numerous countries have abolished the death penalty. Should we also follow if many countries emulate the Soviets and establish cruel concentration camps? Should our national decisions conform to international trends? This country currently faces a significant crime problem and it is high time that we confront it head-on. We are being

too lenient with criminals and not treating law-abiding citizens fairly.

The streets should be made safer for everyone. The police officers on the streets are working hard to create a safer living environment. They should not have to worry about the possibility of being killed by someone they pull over for speeding, as a desperate attempt to avoid arrest. Individuals who engage in such atrocities should not get a chance to repeat their actions. Moreover, knowing that they may lose their lives if they resort to violence should deter others from considering similar acts. Therefore, those who argue that it is better to imprison criminals for life should delve deeper into the subject and explore the numerous benefits of capital punishment, which could significantly improve the United States. The money saved from implementing capital punishment could be allocated to important causes such as education, homelessness, and assisting those in need.

The death penalty should not be employed as a means for heartless murderers to remain alive in prison, potentially allowing them to take more lives. Ultimately, there is no justified rationale behind not implementing the death penalty and doing so more frequently.