Time And Stiffer Enforcement The Death Penalty example essay topic

To Kill or Not To Kill Man has always depended on punishment to enforce the laws necessary for the survival of both himself and his species. But how can man justify committing murder as a punishment for just that, murder. This is an argument that our modern society has wrestled with for decades. This essay will attempt to shed some light on this highly controversial subject and at the same time, try and put to rest the age old argument of what human morality should allow.

According to a study conducted at the University of Iowa in 1998, states that have the death penalty had the same or higher murder rates as those that don't. However, some of the lowest crime rates on the planet belong to China, a country to which the death penalty is hardly a stranger. This suggests that if given enough time and stiffer enforcement the death penalty could eventually have significant effects on the crime rate here in North America. Another good argument against the death penalty is the simple fact that it relies on a justice system that is far from perfect and that unlike other sentences, it cannot be overturned. Statistically, two out of every three death row inmates will later be found innocent and with the introduction of new evidence, such as DNA, this number will only increase. North America's prison system however, runs on the principle of rehabilitation and since it is believed that for certain murderers, at least, the idea of rehabilitation has been exhausted to the point of gross redundancy.

Therefore, it is safe to say that most death row inmates could never have contributed positively to society again and as such are taking up valuable prison cells needed for other convicts who actually have a chance to be rehabilitated. And finally the penny pinchers, people who think that the death penalty is necessary simply as a means to save money by not having to feed, clothe, and house inmates for an entire life sentence. The fact is that the extreme legal fees attached to the prosecution of a defendant facing the death penalty far exceed the cost of institutionalizing that defendant for life. These fees are only compounded by the constant appeals and injunctions that go along with defending a murderer.

On the other hand, there is the much more serious problem of over-crowding. Murderers serving a life sentence only take up room needed for other prisoners and in the case of violent offenders who continue to murder other inmates in prison, a private prison cell and round-the-clock supervision is often required. Life sentences also pose the problem of time, because prisons are, in some cases, forced to wait upwards of twenty years to see inmates leave. This statistic can barely compare to the seemingly endless string of new prisoners coming in everyday. It seems as though the death penalty is just one of many issues that man is destined to argue over for many years to come.

None of this, mind you, not one bit changes the fact that the moral implications of killing another human whether for punishment or not, far outweigh the "quick fix" benefits. In closing, the justice system does not rape rapists, nor does it burn down the homes of arsonists, why is it then that the only answer we have to crime of murder is even more death? The solution is clear; the complete abolishment of the death penalty and in its place, stiffer prison terms for violent offenders and as well as less possibilities for parole.