Death Penalty As A Type Of Punishment example essay topic

The death penalty has been an ongoing debate for many years. The following essay will not solve the issue either; I will only try to persuade the reader to understand my point of view. The death penalty has both supporters and non-supporters. The death penalty is justified in certain cases such as Mcveigh vs. State of Indiana; however it is unjustified when in other cases, including Bloodsworth vs. State of Maryland.

The death penalty is a must, especially in today's society. With the increase in vicious crimes today, the government must act just as harsh with our justice system to try and prevent these types of crimes. Non-supporters argue that the death penalty is inhumane and should be considered murder. People of this malicious caliber must be dealt with in the same way, an eye for an eye.

Putting these criminals to death doesn't solve the crime that they committed, but it helps the victim's family and friends to feel a sense of justification for what's happened to them. Capital Punishment has been part of the criminal justice system since the earliest of times. The earliest historical record that contains evidence of capital punishment is the Babylonian Hammurabi Code. "It ordered death for crimes as minor as the fraudulent sale of beer. Egyptians could be put to death for disclosing the location of sacred burial sites". During the time of the code you were put to death for the smallest crimes, which now would be a minor offense or even considered being nothing Today, capital punishment is still apparent in society.

People are put to death because of murder or rape. The different types of punishment used are anywhere from hanging to lethal injection. The death penalty is a better deterrent than imprisonment because taking offenders life is more of a severe punishment. By using the death penalty as a type of punishment, it will in the future prevent other criminals from committing similar crimes and eventually make our society a much better place to live.

The concept is very simple, the death penalty prevents a murders by putting the fear of death into would be killers. A person is less likely to do something, if he or she thinks that harm will come to him. Another way the death penalty prevent murder, is the fact that if the killer is dead, he will not be able to kill again. As Issac Ehlrich is quoted saying, "If the execution of a guilty capital murderer deters the murder of one innocent life, the execution is justified". This means that if the news of an execution changes a potential murderer the death penalty is appropriate act for the situation. The Bible also states that there should be retribution for a crime.

The Bible says "whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall be shed". This statement has been interpreted as a divine justification for putting a murderer to death. A very fine example of the death penalty doing something for the general welfare of the American people is the death sentence of Timothy McVeigh, the brains behind the Oklahoma City bombing. "On April 19, 1995,168 people, including many young children in the day care center, died in the Murray Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK".

Many people believed that McVeigh should fry in the chair, and it looks like it will happen. It shows that capital punishment does some good for the country to keep the citizens safe from violent offenders such as convicted murderers and rapists. Capital punishment is a logical form of justice for the United States, even though many people are against it. For the people against the death penalty, they need to realize that capital punishment is for the general welfare of the people because the death penalty is the most logical way to punish criminals of vicious crimes. Everyone in the world needs to follows certain laws, and if they are broken, the accused has to pay to price for his or her crime. The sentences might be anywhere from ten to twenty years in prison, but some crimes force the defendant to die for their crime or crimes.

Capital punishment is just, and it should stay in effect as long as people commit serious crimes. It should show a lesson for people not to commit crimes, or they will have to pay the price. "On July 25, 1984 a nine year old girl was found dead in a wooded area". She had been beaten with a rock, sexually assaulted, and strangled. Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted on March 8, 1985, of sexual assault, rape and first-degree murder. A Baltimore judge sentenced Bloodsworth to death.

The prosecution based its cased on witnesses who said they saw Bloodsworth with the little girl earlier that day. He received an appeal but the juror found him guilty for a second time. In 1992, his lawyer asked for a more sophisticated testing on the evidence. The DNA test showed that there was no semen of Bloodworth's on the little girl's clothes and on stick found near her.

In December of 1993 he was released from jail because of new evidence brought to the case. This is an example of when the death penalty is unjustified. In the past, there were many people wrongfully executed for crimes that they did not commit all in the name of justice. It has happened that after the execution of the alleged guilty party, the real murderer confessed to elevate his guilty conscience. 'No matter how careful courts are, the possibility of perjured testimony, mistaken honest testimony, and human error remain all too real. We have no way of judging how many innocent persons have been executed, but we can be certain there were some.

' This means that it is very difficult to determine what is real or a simple mistake. The key part of the death penalty is that it involves death, something, which is rather permanent for humans, due to the concept of mortality. This creates a major problem when. ".. there continue to be many instances of innocent people being sentenced to death". In our legal system, there exist numerous ways in which justice might be poorly served for a recipient of the death sentence.

Foremost is in the handling of the accusers own defense counsel. In the event that a defendant is without counsel, a lawyer will be provided. "Attorney's appointed to represent indigent capital defendants frequently lack the qualities necessary to provide a complete defense and sometimes have exhibited such poor character that they have subsequently been disbarred". With payment caps or court-determined sums of, for example, $5 an hour, there is not much motive for a lawyer to spend a great deal of time representing a capital defendant. When you compare this to the prosecution, .".. aided by the police, other law enforcement agencies, crime labs, state mental hospitals, various other scientific resources, prosecutors... experienced in successfully handling capital cases, compulsory process, and grand juries... ". , the defense that the court appointed counsel can offer is puny.

If, in fact, a defendant has a valid case to offer, what chance has he to offer it and have it properly recognized. Furthermore, he shouldn't be punished for a mis justice that was created by the court itself when it appointed the incapable lawyer. Even if a defendant has proper legal counsel, there is still the matter of impartiality of judges. "The Supreme Court has steadily reduced the availability of habeas corpus review of capital convictions, placing its confidence in the notion that state judges, who take the same oath of office as federal judges to uphold the Constitution, can be trusted to enforce it". This makes for the biased trying of a defendant's appeals, .".. given the overwhelming pressure on elected state judges to heed, and perhaps even lead to, the popular cries for the death of criminal defendants". The unique thing about the death penalty is that it is final and irreversible.

"According to a 1987 study, 23 people who were innocent often crimes for which they were convicted and were executed between 1900 and 1985". With stories of people like Rolando Cruz, released after 10 years on Illinois's death row, shows that the courts makes horrible mistakes considering the fact that another man had confessed to the crime shortly after his conviction. Now, there are safeguards guaranteeing protection of those facing the death penalty. These safeguards are: The defendant can not be insane, and the man's real or criminal intent must be present. Also, minors very rarely receive the death penalty because they are not fully mature and might not know the consequences of their actions. Finally the mentally retarded are very seldom executed.

The reason for not executing the retarded is that they often have difficulty defending themselves in court, have problems remembering details, locating witnesses, and testifying credibly on their own behalf. These safeguards are to try to insure that justice will be served without having it suffer. Of course, a person may think it is immoral to kill someone no matter what they have done. When I say it is retributive justice to take the life in turn for the taking of another life, it could be argued that a criminal is not able to learn a lesson since he dies as an immediate result of the punishment.

How can this be called punishment if no lesson is taught? In my opinion, the only way for justice to be served is to have the criminal pay with their life, ' an eye for an eye. ' Many people believe that capital punishment does not belong in a civilized society. I believe it is needed because we do not live in a civilized society, if we did there would be no crime.

We live in a day and age where killings happen everyday, and many get away with it. Those who do get caught don't stay in a jail cell for the rest of there live. If we could rig our streets of murderers, it could mean a safer place for everyone. Men and women could feel safer jogging or doing errands at night. Single women could feel safer in their homes. Children could feel safe playing in their yards.

No executed murderer has ever killed again.

Bibliography

1. Bright, Steven B. "Judges and the Politics of Death: Deciding Between the Bill of Rights and the Next Election in Capital Cases". Boston University Law Review 75 (1995) 2.
Connors, Edward, web Stephen A. Capital Punishment. New York, NY: Facts on File, 1991.
4. Long, Robert Emmet. Criminal Sentencing. New York, NY: H.W. Company, 1995.
5. Nathanson S. 1987 An eye for an eye Totowa: Rowman and little field 6.
Robinson, Bryan, web Ronald J. "Report: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Lack of Due Process in Death Penalty Cases". Human Rights 22. Winter (1995) 8.