Abolition Of Capital Punishment As The Article example essay topic

Crimes occur every now and then all over the world. Crimes could be robbery, burglary, or homicide and etc. In the past, society found that the solution for the prevention of major crimes is to punish the criminal with an equal or more severe punishment. In other words, the only solution for preventing a murder is with a severe punishment such as a death sentence. This sounds absurd.

In my opinion, I totally support that capital punishment should be abolished. Those people who supported the capital punishment argued that we humans fear death. Thus, the criminal who is a human being who fears death and, therefore, refrains from committing crimes. I have doubt with this statement.

They do not have any proof or evidence to support this statement. If this statement is true, why are some countries or states that apply this capital punishment policy still have a high crime rate In the article "Let Them Die", Wendy Ka miner stated, "Capital punishment has never been shown to have any deterrent effect on violent crime: today 36 states provide for the death penalty with no apparent gain to public safety. Texas, with one of the most populous death rows and the most executions, has one of the nation's highest homicide rates" (30). Those who supported the abolition of capital punishment declare that a person commits crime is usually out of necessity or because of a particular circumstance which may out of control. A murder is done on impulse.

Therefore, how could we condemn a person when he is in a state of anxiety and fear Why does a murderer kill Do we really know the reason Let us question ourselves. It is because they find it a pleasure If this so, they are psychos, or lunatics. On the contrary, if he or she does not find killing is a pleasure, then he or she kills because he or she is disturbed by conflicting emotions. It is an injustice to kill insane prisoner or people with unstable, unsettled and confused mind.

I the article of "Tinkering with Death", Caroline Moorehead said, "Since World War II and the signing of Universal Declaration of Human Right, which recognized each person's right to life" (38). As a result, they have the right to live even though they are crazy. They should get treatments from doctor or psychiatrist. In addition, we could say that these people are not just only unfit to live in this society but also will be threat to the society. Then we may as well kill them. However, since they are unfortunate human beings, we should not deprive their life.

In the same situation, we should not also deprive the unfortunate criminals of their life since they are similar in condition. Society is merely a group of people, and when it kills one person, it killing part of itself. In that case, we should ask ourselves another question, who gave or had the right to kill. Societies do not have any right to kill. Professor Jorge L. Carro said, "Art. 3 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("Everyone Has the Right to Life") (629).

All we can is none but God can command us to destroy in the points of religion. Beside that, there will be a high expenditure in sending a person to death. In the article "Contemplates The Death Penalty", Paul W. Kev e wrote that the capital punishment is high expenditures and with no gain (11). And according to the article of "The Case Against The Death Penalty", Eric M. Freeman wrote", In Florida, each execution runs the state $3,200,000 six times the expenses of life imprisonment California has succeeded in executing just two defendants (one a volunteer) since 1976, but could save about $90,000,000 per year by abolishing the death penalty and the re-sentencing all of its Death Row inmates to life" (48). The expenditure is so high is because money used to build or set up the electric chair, gas chamber, gun and bullet, hanger and others. Instead of wasting money in all kind of executions, why does not the government abolish the capital punishment and use the money to give treatment, imprisonment or counseling to the criminals.

In other words, put the criminal into the rehabilitation. By doing this, the criminal possibly change to be a better person and could be a good citizen. Then they can continue their life. If the government use this method, the government will save money and life, and also gains the appreciation from the public especially the criminals themselves and their family. In addition, as we know that the purpose of the capital punishment is to refrain people from committing crimes or prevent the crimes rate to become higher and higher.

It is true that prevention is better than cure but does anybody really want to see another killing. I guess nobody wants it, and if it is so, what is the different between capital punishment with murder as well as the revenge. We do not want to see people dying and that why we set up the law, so definitely we do not want to see people dying of suffering. In the article "This Is Your Death", Jacob Weisberg wrote about a situation of people being executed by getting the information from Clinton Duffy, the warden at San Quentin who participated in sixty hangings and the scene is just like written below: The man hit bottom and I observed that he was fighting by pulling on the straps, wheezing, whistling, trying to get air, that blood was oozing through the black cap. I observed also that he urinated, defecated, and the stench was terrible. I also saw witnesses pass out and have to be carried from witness room.

Some of them threw up. (23) After reading this statement, do you feel that this type of execution is very cruel Even the retired judge agreed with this; which David Kaplan wrote, "Debate at the high court on the death penalty has nearly disappeared since the retirements of William Drennan Jr. And Thurgood Marshall, who both steadfastly believed the punishment was cruel and unusual" (52). Maybe those in favor of capital punishment will say that the criminals deserve it. Moreover, "The death penalty is not often the result of the worst crimes but the worst lawyer", as MaryAnn Dadisman wrote on the article of "Critics charge Death Penalty Unfair" (25). It is true that if a person is innocent and being for murder, the defendants do not have a good lawyer due to the government failing to adequately finance death penalty defense.

If this person sentenced to death in spite of he fact that he or she not guilty, it sounds sad! Let us say that the police find out the real murderer after period of time but the person is already dead. However, if the person is still in prison, he or she could be released and prove his or her innocent. It must be understood that environment shapes our life. Our personality and behavior change as we find ourselves in various environments.

Sometimes environment harasses one and restricts one's free and wholesome development. Environment has and can bind our lives. We are the subjects of particular environments that are responsible for our growth and behavior; they are responsible for the attitudes and ways of criminals too. Therefore, we should eradicate the obnoxious environment instead of the criminals.

So let us leave God to destroy what he created. Like what is stated in the Bible", From dust to dust". In conclusion, from the facts and evidence we can see how disadvantages or harmful is capital punishment to all of us. Therefore, we should stay together to support the abolition of capital punishment.

Some civilized countries have abolished this cruel punishment, France for example has abolished capital punishment in 1981 (19). Some governments also support the abolition of capital punishment as the article "The Death Penalty: Right Or Wrong", stated that the death penalty shall be abolished in the 1950 Convention for the Protection Of Human Right (629).