Violent Crime Punishable By The Death Penalty example essay topic

Imagine a loved one was tortured and brutally murdered. Imagine them screaming out for help and no one coming for them. Imagine, their last moments on Earth as the most horrific and terrible anyone has ever known. What should the punishment be for the murderer?

After seriously weighing my initial feelings that capital punishment is murder against what I would feel if this happened in my family, I still believe that taking another life is wrong. There is no action that can ever justify the murder of another person. Capital punishment is wrong because the taking of another person's life against their will is murder. Imagine again that a murderer has taken the life of a family member. The first feelings would be intense emotions driven by revenge and retribution.

Yet these emotions are what fuel the need for violence. And capital punishment is the most violent response to the crime. This is an emotional response, not a rational one. Violence begets more violence.

Statistics show that in the thirty-eight states that have the death penalty, violent crime punishable by the death penalty is not lower then in the states that do not have the death penalty. Nor has it reduced the amount of violent crime in that state. In the world, eighty-six other countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Countries who have not executed a single person in the last ten years are abolitionist-in-practice countries. Twenty-five countries are abolitionist-in-practice. Of the seventy-four countries that retain the death penalty, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States account for over 80% of the executions in the world.

In the United Kingdom, there is no death penalty, no armed police, and yet, the crime rates are five times lower then they are in the United States. Is this a coincidence? Parallels can be drawn that the use of force and violent begets more force and violence. One explanation of the lack of crime in the UK without violent punishment, and the huge amount of crime in the US with the promise of violent punishment is "rising to meet expectations".

Imagine a child in a school that sets high expectations for learning, behavior and social interaction. Instead of being reinforced by punishment if not met, the child was rewarded when the expectations are met. What would that child do? The child tries to meet the expectations. The child learns to think, to model their behavior and social interactions to meet the high expectations. They strive to excel.

Now take the same child and instead of applying high expectations, label them "bad". Apply to them the expectation of acting out, anger and escalating violence. Time after time one sees them rise to meet that expectation, become anger, violent, "bad". If one applies this logic to a society instead of a child one sees the same set of principles. The society where the expectation of its citizens is one of rational, non-emotional interaction, the settling of disputes and miscommunication's is non-violent. And that society is rewarded with a much lower violent crime rate.

The society that expects its citizens to behave "bad", and interact violently is ever ready to respond with violence. That society does not hesitate to display and brag about their use of force. That society works against itself and spirals into an endless cycle of violence. Will the outcome be its destruction? The dictionary defines justice as: 1. The quality of being just; fairness. 2. a.

The principle of moral rightness; equity. b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness. 3. a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. Legally, justice is defined as the quality of being just, impartial, or fair. Lady Justice is blind for a reason. The blindfold across her eyes symbolizes a rational approach to justice without being partial or biased.

Thus justice can be seen as the rational application of being fair and impartial. Yet our society applies justice through a jury of one's peers, what inherently is emotional, biased, and riddled with prejudice. How can one claim our justice system is impartial when in 82% of the cases, the race of the victim is the basis for issuing the death penalty? How is justice served when prosecutors time after time use their ambition and desire for power to "push" the death penalty regardless of the circumstances? Justice is in direct contradiction of the death penalty. We live in the 21st century.

We claim enlightenment of all humankind yet we use the same ideas and beliefs that we have held for thousands of years - the Christian and Muslim belief of "an eye for an eye". Capital punishment does not deter crime, it provokes it. Capital punishment does not seek justice. Capital punishment is murder. We as a society are guilty of a capital crime. What is our punishment?