Argument On Capital Punishment example essay topic

For hundreds of years, capital punishment has been applied for various crimes and in various forms. Judges and juries alike have sentenced many men to death as punishment for crimes they have committed, from the hanging and firing squads of the 1800's to the lethal injection and electric chairs of today. Today however, capital punishment has been either completely or partially abolished in many states. The states that have completely abolished capital punishment are; Alaska in 1957, Arizona in 1916, Colorado in 1897, Delaware in 1958, Hawaii in 1957, Iowa in 1872, and Maine in 1876, among others. Six states have partially abolished capital punishment. They are; Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont.

The exceptions to the partial abolishment in which these states hold include, but are not limited to; treason, murder of a law enforcement officer, second time murder offense, murder of a guard, and rape. Of the states that continue to apply capital punishment, twenty seven states consider lethal injection a lawful method of execution, twelve states consider electrocution, seven that allow lethal gas, four that continue to use hanging as a method of execution and one state still uses a firing squad. Of these five options for execution, Washington state utilizes two; lethal injection and hanging. For as long as capital punishment has been around there has been controversial debates on the different forms of execution. Men and women alike have undergone execution for crimes committed for over a thousand years. Over the years there have been changes in how the executions are carried out in an effort to make them more humane.

In ancient times, 1792 to 1750 B.C., a person could be executed for adultery, robbery and murder. "Depending on the crime, one could be beheaded, stoned, or even drowned" (Steins 12). During that time the criminals were expected to suffer. Today however, the laws offer the criminals an opportunity to reform.

In ancient Rome, execution was carried out by crucifixion. "A common form of punishment during the Middle Ages in Europe was burying people alive" (Steins 16). In 1233, while capital punishment was being administered by the church, a person who refused to confess to a crime would be burned at the stake. Executions in early England and France were carried out by beheading the criminal. Hanging became the most common from of capital punishment in colonial America. In the 1800's the United States underwent many reform movements one of which was the prison-reform movements.

Modern methods of execution came about during the prison reform movement. "These new methods were thought to be quicker and more humane than hanging" (Steins 29). The first major change in executions came with the invention of the electric chair. "Despite his strong opposition, Westinghouse's generator was used in 1890 to provide a power for the first execution in an electric chair" (Steins 30). Death by gas was the next new method of execution and was considered more humane than that of the firing squad or hanging. The first person to be executed by gas in the United States was Gee Jon.

"Gee Jon was executed in the gas chamber at Carson City, Nevada, on February 8, 1924" (Steins 31). In 1977, when Oklahoma decided against spending the money to repair the electric chair and dismissed the gas chamber because of cost, death by lethal injection was passed by the state legislature. Lethal injection is the main form of execution now used in the United States. Another controversial debate that has been changed over the years is the age at which we will allow the sentencing of death to be permitted. "In the fourth century A.D., a 13-year-old girl name Agnes was sentenced to death by stoning after refusing the offer of marriage from a wealthy older man" (Steins 14). Today, there is a law against sentencing a minor to death.

The laws today permit, at youngest, a 16-year-old to be sentenced to death. There are still debates that continue today over the age that is allowed under the laws of the death penalty. Many argue that an 18-year-old is young enough to be treated with the chance that they may be completely rehabilitated. This raises arguments on applying capital punishment to a 16-year-old. To make these juveniles death sentence more humane and ultimately better accepted the states do not carry through the executions right away. These juveniles wait on death row for anywhere up to ten years or more before they are put to death.

The age at which capital punishment comes into play is controversial even for those that support the death penalty. Many supporters believe that a 16-year-old needs to be held responsible for their actions and therefore should be tried as an adult even if the consequence of such actions leads to executions. With the changes in capital punishment in order to make it more humane, what is there to fear? Is the death penalty a deterrent to criminals? This strikes up some controversy.

Fifty-three percent of Americans believe that the death penalty deters crime. Many people believe that capital punishment can serve as a deterrent if more publicity is given to the executions that are being carried out. "Another fundamental premise of deterrence theory is that to prevent crime, the threat and application of the law must be communicated to the public" (Bedau 144). Those that believe that death is the most feared form of punishment believe the death penalty to be a deterrent. Ernest Van Den Haag comments on how capital punishment is a deterrent of crime.

He states, "Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, I believe that capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else" (Bedau 450). There are also many arguments against the idea that the death penalty actually deters crime. Hugo Adam Bedau argues Van Den Haag's fear of death theory for deterrence by stating, "Perhaps they would say they do, if they were asked to answer the question, Which do you fear more, a death penalty or life in prison? But armed robbers, gangland hit men, kids in cars hell-bent on drive-by shootings, and other persons really interested in murdering someone are not thinking about that question" (Bedau 462). Along with this argument is the question of how the United States can have such a high murder rate if the death penalty is such a deterrent. "Those opposed... point to the fact that, while the United States has death-penalty laws in 36 states, the country has one of the highest murder rates in the world.

In contrast, Great Britain, which abolished the death penalty in 1969 for all crimes except high treason and piracy with violence (skyjacking), has one of the lowest murder rates in the world" (Steins 42). If the machismo of the criminal is elevated, rather than deterrence, the crime may be seen as a way to boost self-esteem and social status among fellow inmates. Many of the inmates and their families believe the death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment as well as a violation of their constitutional rights. In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was in principle not an unconstitutionally 'cruel and unusual punishment'. After this ruling took place, the attorneys for death row convicts began to pursue a wide range of other constitutional challenges to the procedures being followed under the new death penalty laws as they were applied in particular cases. In one such case, "Coker vs. Georgia (1977): The Court ruled that a Georgia law authorizing capital punishment in certain cases of rape violates the Eight Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment because it is disproportionate to the crime" (Steins 40).

In the case of Furman vs. Georgia (1972), the courts concluded that the death penalty as administered is unconstitutional. "Death is an unusually severe and degrading punishment; there is a strong probability that it is inflicted arbitrarily; its refection by contemporary society is virtually total; and there is no reason to believe that it serves any penal purpose more effectively than the less severe punishment of imprisonment. The function of these principles is to enable a court to determine whether a punishment comports with human dignity. Death, quite simply, does not...

". (Bedau 194). Such litigation has continued to this day and shows no signs of coming to an end. On the other side of the debate, for whether or not the death penalty is a violation of constitutional rights, are many people who believe it is not. The belief among numerous people is that the constitution authorizes and supports the death penalty.

Van Den Haag argues against the unconstitutional claim by breaking down the Fifth Amendment. He states that, "The fifth amendment, passed in 1791, states that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. ' Thus, with 'due process of law,' the Constitution authorizes depriving persons 'of life, liberty or property' " (Bedau 445). The amendments and constitution lead into another controversial debate over morality. The question of whether or not the death penalty is moral brings up a completely new argument. Many argue for the morality based upon the teachings of the Bible.

Criminal or not, each individual bears God's image and must be treated accordingly, that is, with dignity and worth" (Bedau 423). Based on the Biblical perspective of capital punishment, though in some forms violates human dignity and worth, overall is compatible with God's standards of human worth and. ".. is the ultimate compliment to the human dignity of both victim and murderer; it implies the most pro-human stance possible" (Bedau 424). With this said the strongest argument for the death penalty has been based on citations of morality from the Bible. One such argument is from "Genesis 9: 6" which is believed to cite evidence of God's instruction to punish murder by death. "Whosoever shedd eth a man's blood, so shall his blood be shed" (Flanders 34).

Though the Bible has been a strong source for those fighting to maintain capital punishment, it has also been used in citing the immorality of the death penalty. Sister Helen Prejean, who was a nun as well as the spiritual advisor of Patrick Son nier, argues against the morality of the death penalty. Prejean does not dispute that the Bible calls for death as a punishment for murder, "But we must remember that such prescriptions of the Mosaic Law were promulgated in a semi nomadic culture in which the preservation of a fragile society - without benefit of prisons and other institutions - demanded quick, effective, harsh punishment of offenders" (Prejean 194). During this statement, Prejean also brings to attention that the Bible prescribes death as a punishment for numerous other crimes. "Contempt of parents... ; trespass upon sacred ground... ; sorcery... ; bestiality... ; sacrifice to foreign gods... ; profaning the Sabbath... ; adultery... ; incest... ; homosexuality... ; and prostitution... And this is by no means a complete list" (Prejean 195).

The argument made here is that if the Bible is to be used as evidence to the morality of the death penalty, then the death penalty must be carried out for all crimes stated in the Bible to be punishable by death. This is viewed as too extreme and will not be carried out. As well as the Biblical side of the argument on morality is the argument that a second wrong does not make a right and therefore, the argument on capital punishment is not a moral matter. If the death penalty is not a moral matter, then how is justice decided?

This opens up debate on whether or not capital punishment claims the lives of innocent people. "Opponents of the death penalty often cite the risk of executing innocent people as a good enough reason to abolish the death penalty. Better that a guilty person should go free, they say, than an innocent one die" (Steins 46). It is a difficult thing to consider that an innocent person may be sent to an electric chair or placed in a gas chamber. "A two-year study of capital punishment in the U.S. by Hugo A. Bedau of Tufts University and Michael L. Rade let of the University of Florida documents that in this century 417 people were wrongly convicted of capital offense and 23 were actually executed" (Prejean 218). The argument has no actual evidence to support the claims of innocents being executed.

However, there have been many lives spared due to miracles as some have termed it. "Though no one has come forward with definite proof of such errors in recent years, history abounds with many cases of innocents, condemned to death, who were saved by a miracle of fate, with a last minute commutation to life imprisonment, a court order, or by some other unexpected circumstance" (Block 55). The argument over the wrongful execution of an innocent life is because the justice system is of human formation and therefore not exempt from errors. Those that support capital punishment base their argument on the benefits of the death penalty versus the possible harm that may arise. "Those in favor of the death penalty will point out that mistakes-even dreadful mistakes-can happen, but that the good of society as a whole is what counts in the end. A patient may die while having a simple operation, bet we don't then abolish surgery, they say" (Steins 46).

Van Den Haag states, "Our government employs trucks. They run over innocent bystanders more frequently than courts sentence innocents to death. We do not give up trucks because the benefits they produce outweigh the harm, including the death of innocents" (Bedau 451). Their argument is that, although there is the risk of error in which case an innocent life may be taken, the benefits leading to a safer society is of greater importance. This brings up another controversy over whether or not capital punishment condones murder.

Abolitionists argue that by doing to the murderer, through execution, what the murderer did to the victim is legitimizing murder. Van Den Haag counters this argument by putting claim to capital punishment as a way of paying back the offender. "We may lock away a kidnapper who wrongfully locked away his victim, and we may kill the murderer who wrongfully killed his victim. To lawfully do to the offender what he unlawfully did to his victim in no way legitimizes his crime" (Bedau 453).

The argument claims that the act of execution does not fall into the category of crime because it is a legal punishment. A crime is an unlawful act and categorized as such because of its social or antisocial character. Another controversial aspect of capital punishment is of the rights of those directly involved in such cases that may ultimately lead to a death sentence. There are also the rights of those that are indirectly involved as well as those that are not involved but rather fear the safety of society with criminals being set free.

Where is the line drawn to determine the extent of rights each person will maintain? Does the justice system hear the voices of the families of the murder victims? There is a debate between families of murder victims over the continuance of capital punishment just as with any other aspect. At one end of the debate are family members that push for the death penalty and are disgusted with those family members that oppose the punishment.

"Many families have shunned, or even disowned, members for publicly opposing the execution of the person who murdered their loved one" (King 1). On the other end of this debate are the family members that are opposing the death penalty. "Sometimes the justice system shuns them: prosecutors, parole boards, and judges have silenced people who have tried to speak against the death penalty" (King 1). Another question to consider is whether the families of the offenders have rights. Does the justice system allow them to speak up on behalf of their loved ones?

The families of the offenders have not been convicted of any crime and yet are treated in a manner that leaves them with the feeling that they are just as guilty as the offender is. "I ask the warden if the family can hug Robert and he shakes his head no. 'Security,' he says" (Prejean 201). The families have lost their rights to their loved ones.

For security reasons, the families are not allowed to hold or touch their loved ones while they are imprisoned. This continues to hold true even at the last moments when the execution is drawing near. The families are unable to say goodbye. For either of the families, those of the murder victims or those of the offender, there is a long road of healing ahead.

The members of Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, or M VFR, have come to a universal conclusion that the death penalty did not help them heal. "In fact, it actually impedes healing" (King 2). However, this is not always the case in murder victims' families. Those that support the death penalty are able to find closure to the crime committed against their loved ones. They feel at ease with the offender put to death. What about the cost of capital punishment, can we afford the death penalty?

"Those who favor the death penalty argue that it is more costly to keep a criminal in prison for life than it is to execute him or her" (Steins 43). Their argument is also supported by the overload of prisons as well as the amount of cases that are still to be tried in the court system. For those opposing capital punishment argue that the cost of the death penalty is causing a financial burden upon the states. "Opponents of capital punishment say that lengthy legal appeals and the cost of keeping death-penalty equipment in condition place a heavy financial burden on states" (Steins 43). The controversies over cost as a reason to continue or abolish the death penalty will continue for years to come as with any of the controversies pertaining to capital punishment. The controversial debate over whether to abolish or continue capital punishment is spread over a wide range of questions.

There is no way to be certain of the psychological or physical aspects of execution. The only facts on the humanity of such executions is what professional doctors and psychologists are willing to offer. The fact that there is insufficient research to place claim on whether the death penalty is a deterrent leaves a varied range of open arguments. These arguments are based primarily on the opinions of those fighting for or against executions. As with anything that is in existence, the constitution and amendments are looked upon from two different views. One person, for example, may perceive an amendment as written word for word while another person will perceive the same amendment completely differently by reading between the lines.

Along side of this argument is how religion falls into play and how someone perceives the readings of the Bible. The questions pertaining to capital punishment will linger on for years. There is no sure way to find answers to all the debatable questions. Whether the death penalty condones killing, is considered justifiable, pursues the rights of all involved, or whether it can be considered moral and ethical are all still debated based on opinion more often than on the basis of research and facts.

Bibliography

Abu-Jamal, Mumia. (1995).
Live from Death Row. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Bedau, Hugo Adam. (1997).
The Death Penalty in America - Current Controversies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Block, Eugene B. (1983).
When Men Play God - The Fallacy of Capital Punishment. San Francisco, CA: Crag mont Publications. Bosco, Antoinette. (2001).
Choosing Mercy. New York, NY: Orbis Books. Brown, Edmund (Pat) with Dick Adler. (1989).
Public Justice, Private Mercy - A Governor's Education on Death Row. New York, NY: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Flanders, Stephen A. (1991).
Capital Punishment. New York, NY: Roundhouse Publishing. Hood, Roger. (2002).
The Death Penalty - A Worldwide Perspective, Third Edition. King, Rachel. (2003).
Don't Kill in Our Names - Families of Murder Victims Speak Out Against the Death Penalty. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Prejean, Sister Helen. (1993).
Dead Man Walking. New York, NY: Random House. Steins, Richard. (1993).
The Death Penalty - Is it Justice? New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company Inc. Stevens, Leonard A. (1978).