Death Penalty As A Justifiable Punishment example essay topic

Capital punishment, or more to the point, the death penalty, is a severe form of punishment given to criminals, if judged accordingly, who commit heinous acts that seem to be most deserving of this punishment. At least that is the basic definition of the term. Many people believe that it is a necessary gesture, used to scare would-be criminals into choosing a different path, others look to it as a sense of comfort and justice for the murder or loss of someone close to them due to the hands of another. And then, there are those, like myself, who oppose the death penalty. Those who believe that the death of another person will bring no more comfort than stepping on a nail with your bare foot. I quote Orlando and Phyllis Rodriguez, whose son Greg died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, "We can understand why victims' families would look to the death penalty as a justifiable punishment for convicted terrorists, but we feel that it is wrong to take a life.

If any good can come out of the disaster of Sept. 11, perhaps it will include examination of how we can maintain our humanity in the face of terrorists' threats". And that is my point that I make to you. Capital punishment is killing, and killing in any sense is wrong.

No matter what the reason, be it for God and country, revenge, or religion, there is no sense in bringing about the death of another human being. Now, for those who support who support the death penalty, I will not say that you are flat out wrong for supporting it. A strong argument can be made from both sides on capital punishment. It's just that it seems to me that you are contradicting yourselves.

Allow me to make a statement and a question. The death penalty is used to punish those who commit murder, but if this is so, then how does the killing of the murderer justice? I mean, why do me kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong? I would like to make a few points on capital punishment, including the ones of which I have just pointed out.

In the support of the death penalty, it is believed that the threat of execution is enough to make criminals think twice about committing a capital crime. Professional criminals, like everyone else, are aware of the consequences of their actions; the existence of the death penalty will make such criminals think twice. From a utilitarian perspective, the taking of one life may be justified if it prevents the taking of other, innocent lives, whether through the incapacitation of the killer or through the deterrence of other potential killers. From a victim's standpoint, or those close to the victim, capital punishment apparently offers piece of mind to those who have been hurt. A murderer shatters many lives, not just the victim's. Often, friends and families of the victim are tormented by the notion that the killer lives while the victim cannot; what kind of system values the killers' rights above their grief?

This is true. Many families and friends who have victim to a murderer's doing have suffered tremendous damage both physically and psychologically. To know that someone who took the life of a person you loved still lives, whether in prison or not, is truly heartbreaking. Now, I can understand that the threat of jail time is not as scary as it once was, and capital punishment helps to prevent a lot of crimes, but it is irrational to assume that a criminal is going to carefully weigh the consequences of his actions before committing a criminal act. Clearly, by the time he has decided to commit his crime, he has already disregarded other forms of punishment besides the death penalty, such as lengthy imprisonment.

He is also likely to assume that he will not be caught anyway. Criminals to whom the death penalty is administered are anti-social individuals, acting contrary to and despite of the rules that law-abiding citizens live by. How is another law going to deter a lawless individual? Besides, the statistics on the matter are inconclusive, given the enormous number of variables that must be accounted for in determining why crimes are or are not committed. But punishment is supposed to be for the protection of society, and for the reformation of the wrongdoer. It's purpose is to protect society by preventing the same criminals from repeating their crimes, and by acting as a deterrent to other prospective criminals.

Capital punishment is a notorious failure in these respects. It does indeed remove the particular culprit from the possibility of repeating his crime; but this is of very small account in view of the fact that murder is seldom a career of repeated acts, but consists of single acts perpetrated by different individuals. The man whom we remove from the scene, therefore, is not the man who, if suffered to live, would have been likely to endanger our safety. One of the points against the death penalty is that it hasn't been a deterrent to violent crime, but it has been a deterrent to discussions about meaningful responses to violent crime. Right now, anytime anybody talks about violent crime, elected politicians say "death penalty". As a deterrent to other murderers, the death penalty has proved a signal failure, as may be seen by comparing the criminal statistics of those countries where the punishment is in force with those of countries where it has been abolished.

Nor is the reason of this failure far to seek. Murders are nearly always committed in sudden fits of passion or temporary insanity, when no consideration of reason or self-interest can appeal to the doer. There's even research that's beginning to suggest that for some people the message from the death penalty is that it's OK to waste somebody that messes with you. For deterrents to work you have to identify with the person being punished. But for a guy on the street who's kind of crazy to start with, he's not going to identify with the person who's goofy enough to get caught and punished. He's going to identify with the person doing the punishing.

So the message is it's OK to punish somebody that's done something to you. To make my next point, I quote an anonymous writer from a feedback forum on capital punishment. "Barbarians. That's what we have become. We kill each other and instead of mourning the tragedy, we want the state to satisfy our bloodlust by killing the offender... we must learn to deal with these people in our midst - punish them, but do not become them". This is true, by killing criminals, we have become what we fight so hard against.

We have become a group of people who have decided to kill another human being for a reason that we see fit. No matter the reason, no one holds the right to take another human's life. Let us find another way of dealing with people like this, a way that provides the same effect, but does not deal in death. A way that will deliver the same, if not, a stronger, punishment than taking a life. Capital punishment sins most by depriving the culprit of his chances of reformation. As a weaker brother, who has fallen through causes that are inherent in our social structure, and for which we are all more or less responsible, he should claim our care and protection.

Our duty to society is fulfilled by isolating the dangerous man for so long as he may continue to be dangerous. As for deterrent action, this should be compassed, not by fear, but by reformative and protective measures in our social policy. The only way to destroy a criminal is by reforming the man who is a criminal. To destroy his bodily life is nothing but a stupid blunder.

When the physical life of a criminal is cut short by this summary and unnatural means, we do not bring to an end thereby the evil passions which prompted the crime. They are not slain; they continue to exist. And, having no longer a bodily tenement, they must wander abroad to prey upon the community and inspire fresh deeds of horror in weak and unbalanced natures whom they obsess. Thus are accounted for those mysterious outbursts of crime which are distinguished by the frequent confession, "I do not know why I did it, but something came over me". In view of this fact, the folly of capital punishment is more glaring than ever. Of course, this reasoning is more of a spiritual nature and cannot be proven with physical evidence, but let us not forget old Shakespearian proverb, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than dreamt of in your reality".

Anger and fear are passions, and retribution may be left to the eternal justice. Why then should we continue to justify by legal sanction a procedure which, if committed privately, would be murder pure and simple? Why should the State, which represents the people, continue to do in cold calculation deeds which the mere criminal only perpetrates in the heat of passion and madness? In truth no reason can be urged in justification except such reasons as rest on a repudiation of our divinity and our responsibility as divine beings to our fellow man. Theosophists therefore appeal to humanity to lay aside its fears, its prejudices, and its anger, and to replace them by a large-hearted intelligence; and to gain new confidence in the irresistible power of a strong and pure motive. Instead of resorting to clumsy and inefficacious methods of obviating the evils which we permit to grow, let us grapple with the whole question patiently and manfully, assisting our fallen brother in every way instead of heaping fresh woes and disabilities upon him.