(Student’s Full Name)
“Capital punishment is as fundamentally wrong as a cure for crime as charity is wrong as a cure for poverty.”—Henry Ford
“I think capital punishment works great. Every killer you kill never kills again.” –Bill Maher
The above statements reveal the strong and opposing views which many individuals have on the topic of capital punishment. Some persons contend that it is unnecessary and inhumane. While others, like myself, posit that capital punishment is necessary for a fair, just, and civilized society which do not want to worry about the threat of a convicted murderer roaming the streets. Hence, it can be argued that although there is little or no evidence that clearly indicates that capital punishment deters others from committing future crimes and the death penalty is not a just response to crime, capital punishment should be implemented by a country's legal system because capital punishment ensures that the offender suffers in proportion to the crime committed and it helps to prevent the occurrence of future murders.
Capital punishment should be used because it deters the future occurrence of murders. For example, Ernest van den Haag, the John M. Olin Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy at Fordham University argues that because of the finality of the death penalty it is “more feared than imprisonment” by criminals (van den Haag par. 13). No one will argue that this is, in fact, not the case. Van den Haag adds that “the severity and finality of the death penalty is appropriate to the seriousness and the finality of murder” (par. 14). In other words, implementation of the death penalty is appropriate for the committing of a severe and final crime such as murder. Furthermore, it is understandable that capital punishment will deter others from committing more murders because most persons fear death; and, consequently, most persons will do their very best to avoid deliberately placing themselves in circumstances where they will be killed.
The death penalty ensures the retribution for the killing of another human being. Robert Macy, a district attorney of Oklahoma City states the following which reveals the need for retribution using capital punishment: “In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed” (Michigan State University and Death Penalty Information Center 5). Macy then indicated that the killer should not be given the privilege to being a prison cell where he is given three meals a day, visited by family and given “endless appeals” (Michigan State University and Death Penalty Information Center 5). Macy noted that “some killers need to die” so that justice can prevail (Michigan State University and Death Penalty Information Center 5). In other words, it is simply unjust and unfair for a murderer to be treated humanely when he treated a fellow human being inhumanely. This treatment will be unfair and unjust not only for the victims, but for the whole of civilized society. Consequently, this will not be in keeping with the principles of justice which are fair and balanced.
Nevertheless, persons who oppose the death penalty contend that capital punishment is not a just response for murder. For instance, the National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCBB/USCC) stated the following in their report, To End the Death Penalty: A Report of the National Jewish/ Catholic Consultation: “Some would argue that the death penalty is a means of retributive justice.Yet we believe that we are called to seek a higher road even while punishing the guiltyso that the healing of all can take place” (NCCB/USCC par. 5). Additionally, they recommend that the justice system use “life-long incarceration” instead of capital punishment (NCBB/USCC par. 5). Opponents of the death penalty contend that the implementation of a life-long incarceration rather than the death penalty will help to respect and preserve the sanctity of life. Furthermore, opponents of capital punishment posit that the eye for an eye concept, which would require that the justice system kill a murderer for killing another person, is a rather simplistic way to deal with criminality, and ignores the use of rehabilitative methods rather than methods which promote vengeance, such as capital punishment. In addition, those who oppose capital punishment contend that the justice system will never think it appropriate to rape a rapist because such behavior will simply perpetuate the crime rather than stop it.
Moreover, opponents of the death penalty argue that there is no clear evidence which indicates that the death penalty deters others from committing crime. For example, Hugo Adam Bedau argues in their article “The Case Against Death Penalty,” that “[d]eath penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death penalty states” (Bedau par. 31). They posit further that between the timeframe from 2000 to 2010, the states which still have capital punishment instituted within their legal system have a murder rate which was “25-46 % higher than states without the death penalty” (Bedau par. 32). An even more surprising statistic reveals that the southern states which accounts for “more than 80% of the country's executions, also has the highest murder rate” when compared to other areas of the United States (Bedau par. 33). Moreover, Bedau contends that the implementation of the death penalty can actually worsen a situation by inciting the “capital crimes it was supposed to deter” (par. 36). The article mentions an incident involving Daniel Colwell, who was mentally ill, and indicated that he killed a “randomly-selected couple in a Georgia parking lot so that the state would kill him” (Bedau par. 36). It should be noted that Colwell committed suicide while on death row (Bedau par. 36). In addition, Bedau's research indicates that between 1992 and 1995, “176 inmates were murdered by other prisoners” (Bedau par. 34). The majority of these inmates were in states which supported the death penalty. This statistic can be contrasted with “2% of all inmate assaults on prison staff” which were committed in states opposing capital punishment (Bedau par. 34).
An analysis of these statistical findings reveals that rather than deterring murders, the capital punishment actually increases the incidence of violent crimes and murders. An analysis of these statistical findings reveals that rather than deterring murders, the capital punishment actually increases the incidence of violent crimes and murders. Naturally, that defeats the purpose of implementing the capital punishment. Additionally, Bedau's article indicates that the use of the death penalty, in essence, “‘weakens socially based inhibitions against the use of lethal force to settle disputes’” (qtd. in Bedau par. 31). In other words, opponents of the death penalty argue that a country’s use of the death penalty will only give license for others to use killing or murder as a means of dispute resolution rather than peaceful or amicable means.
Although there is no indication that the death penalty has the ability to deter future crimes, it still deters the criminal who is executed from committing future crimes on potential victims. For instance, van den Haag asserts that “[s]paring the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibilitythat executing them will not deter others” (par. 13). In other words, the killing of the murderer by the use of the death penalty will ensure that other potential victims of this murderer will not be killed in the future. This argument is very plausible when one considers sexual sadists and serial killers, who have a high propensity for violence and, who are consistently scoping out the next target to act out their sadistic fantasies on unsuspecting victims. The death penalty will ensure that another person will not be targeted by a psychopathic and sadistic individual who enjoys inflicting pain on others to the point of death. In addition, van den Haag argues further that criminal law was created to protect innocent victims from potential dangers from dangerous criminal elements, such as terrorists, sadists, and socio- or psychopaths (par. 13). From the perspective of criminal law, it is the victim’s life which is of high value, as asserted by van den Haag (par. 13). However, the criminal who commits atrocities and heinous crimes against a fellow human being has a life which is of “negative value” to the preservation of a civil and just society (van den Haag par. 13).
The opponents of capital punishment who use the biblical references, which suggest that only divine authority is needed to execute another person's life, often misinterpret the biblical references while taking it out of context. These persons often quote the following words to support the viewpoint that death penalty cannot be used as a form of retribution by human beings: “‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Prov. 25: 21; Romans 12: 19). However, opponents of the death penalty fail to note, as mentioned by Louis P. Pojman in his book, that the Bible continues by indicating that the state has the right to “‘execute criminals in the name of God,’” as posited by Romans 13: 1-4 (qtd. in Michigan State University and Death Penalty Information Center 5). In other words, authority is given by God, according to the Bible to deal with offenders or criminals in the manner that the state deems just, fair, and right. Additionally, Pojman asserts that one of the duties of the state is to ensure that it promotes “‘justice and the good of its people’” by punishing the criminal (qtd. in Michigan State University and Death Penalty Information Center 6).
In conclusion, the death penalty is necessary to ensure the preservation of a civilized and just society by punishing a criminal who has a high propensity for violence and has committed a brutal and inhumane crime against a fellow human being. The death penalty will ultimately deter that criminal from committing future crimes and attacking potential victims, even if does not deter others from committing the same crime. Nevertheless, one should not discredit the merits of the abolitionists’ argument which state that the death penalty can be perceived as inhumane, cruel, and unusual. On the other hand, it can be argued that a criminal who has destroyed another human being’s life, especially in a heartless, cruel, and sadistic manner, has forfeited his right to be treated humanely by a just and civilized society. Criminal law and the justice system should place more value on the life of the potential victim and her family members rather than the criminal, who chooses to destroy the life of another individual brutally with complete disregard to the consequences of such actions. When an offender, such as serial killer, decides to kill irrespective of the consequences and shows scant regard and respect for another person’s life he has, in essence, forfeited his own right to live. Hence, a just and civilized society will do well to get rid of an individual who has the ability to kill another person with little or no remorse or pity. Indeed, if a society decides to keep an individual such as this alive then it could be potentially threatening its social order and harmony. Although critics of capital punishment would disagree, the use of the death penalty to preserve a potential victim’s life in essence is a society’s “recognition of the sanctity of human life,” as asserted by Orrin Hatch.
Works Cited
Bedau, Hugo Adam. “The Case Against the Death Penalty.” American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 June 2014. <https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty#deterrent.
Michigan State University and Death Penalty Information Center. “Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty.” Death Penalty Curriculum. Michigan State University and Death Penalty Information Center, n.d. Web. 10 June 2014. <http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/arguments.PDF>.
National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. “To End the Death Penalty: A Report of the National Jewish/Catholic Consultation.” DPIC. National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops' Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 22 Mar. 1999. Web. 10 June 2014. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/end-death-penalty-report-national-jewishcatholic-consultation>.
Van den Haag, Ernest . “The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense.” PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 10 June 2014. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/haagarticle.html>.
