INTRODUCTION
Crime is a reality of society. One crime or another is committed every minute of everyday all over the globe. Some are petty crimes, shoplifting and writing bad checks, while others are much more serious like assault, rape, and armed attacks. It is the latter crimes that garner the most severe of punishments from the legal system. While the justice system struggles to find the means to prevent, deter, and eliminate the opportunities for crime, crime continues on. When it comes to the most severe of all crimes, murder, there is a divide among the citizens about what is the appropriate punishment for some of these criminals. In countries and in some states in American the death penalty, sometimes called the “Ultimate Penal Sanction,” is considered the correct sentence; death for death (Peterson and Umbreit 1). However, many other citizens consider the death penalty to be immoral and unethical, believing that there are enough alternatives to death, including a lifetime in prison, which is sufficient. The sides of this issue seldom see eye-to-eye on the subject and America as a whole remains torn on whether there is still a place in modern society for the death penalty? The answer is yes. While the death penalty should never be evoked arbitrarily, it should remain an option for certain criminals, cases, and crimes.
HISTORY
DISCUSSION
Supporters of the death penalty explain that they are not heartless and vengeful. They would never endorse an execution in cases where there is doubt of the criminal’s guilt. Today’ technology is far more accurate at aiding in identifying true guilt and innocence, making the certainty of guilt much, much clearer (Warden 1-2). There are many criminals that commit crimes, admit to those crimes, and proudly admit they would commit more if given the chance. These people are dangerous and remain an unending and willing threat to the public. A fine example would be serial killers. Sociopaths and Psychopaths that become serial killers are not capable of being rehabilitated. Is society responsible to maintain the lives of people who will never contribute anything positive to that society? For many Americans the answer is no (ProCon Organization 1). The death penalty is appropriate in certain cases. A government and legal system must make a utilitarian decision in these cases and place the greater good of the society above the good of an individual. There are people who have no regard for life and will leech off society; even use the prison system as an alternative to normal life.
The maintenance of the death penalty throughout the United States does not diminish the value of lives and does not amount to revenge. It is true that it can be difficult to discern the line in the sand that separates justice and vengeance. The method of execution cannot involve torture or prolonged suffering and must be humane in the process. If it were simply a matter of revenge then we would let the victims or the families of victims choose and enact the criminal’s punishment. That said the most significant impact of the keeping the death penalty on the books is the level of deterrent that it can lead to among the population. It may not deter all criminals, but there are many out there that do not “pull the trigger” because they fear the death penalty. Studies remain varied (Grimes 178).
There is one group of individuals that oppose the death penalty, but not out of concern for the wrongdoer. They feel that death is too easy and over too quick to be an adequate punishment. They feel that life in prison, incarceration for the length of their life, is a far more severe punishment than death in many ways (Peterson Armour and Umbreit 2-3). Loss of personal autonomy, liberties, and freedoms is worse than death for many people. However, staunch death penalty supporters argue that for these lifelong prisoners, the prison atmosphere is “tolerable” to them. The structured environment, the roof over their head, guaranteed meals and medical care, may make prison an acceptable place to live. This is when the death penalty becomes an appropriate situation. The victims and families of victims will suffer for the rest of their lives, but the perpetrator gets a “free ride” on their tax dollars. Where is the ethics in that?
This brings us to the issue of economics in the choosing of death over life in prison without the possibility of parole. The two sides argue perpetually over which option is more cost effective. Does it cost more to maintain the death penalty than it does to house the prisoners, or vice versa, and more importantly, does it matter? Opposition argues that with the death penalty as “cost effective” option, then it will become an easy solution and diminish alternative options. This places a value on human life, even the life of a convicted serial murderer. However, supporters of capital punishment claim that it is that execution are inevitably less costly in the long run; however, it is not the cost that is relevant? It is more about public safety (Fieser 1). As many American prisons become more and more overcrowded, much legislation is being considered that would offer release to non-violent offenders, but also, the aged who are deemed unlikely to be a threat. Does American really want murderers released because they are too old to keep punishing? However, if these particular, unredeemable and most dangerous offenders would not be a concern if they had been executed; it would guarantee the public safety for all time.
Given the division of the public on the issue of the death penalty it is likely that neither side will ever complexly agree on the correct choice. However, like in many things, it is the potential for compromise that must be considered in this instance. The death penalty should not be eliminated, however its availability should be on a case-by-case basis, it must be applied only when guilt is absolute, and finally the means of execution should be the most humane but effective option available. Also, supporters of the death penalty, must, also, bend on some issues as well. There is really no ethical or justifiable reason that many executions are opened to spectators, be it victims, their relatives, and the media may be in attendance. This needs to be discontinued. That public display could push the boundaries on that line between justice and vengeance (ProCon Organization 1). Therefore by making an effort to find effective compromise is not impossible to come to terms and can find a solution that meets the needs of the people, society, spirit of justice, proper ethics, and the safety of the general public, while being willing to make changes to meet the needs of the opposition.
CONCLUSION
Supporting the death penalty is not about supporting murder, it is about permanently removing an admitted threat whose guilt is something these criminals are proud of. No one is insinuating that the death penalty should be handed out “willy-nilly” without definitive proof and evidence. Each and every day people’s lives are taken from them on the streets, in dark alleys, and, sometimes, even in their own homes. These are innocent people victimized by those with illegal, nefarious, and unjust intentions. The death penalty reminds every one the severity of such a crime and that it will cost you your life in return. It is as simple as that. Again, the death penalty may not deter every criminal, but for those that are not deterred; they have forfeited the right to their own lives. There are some people that simply take from society and give nothing back. They commit crimes to get by, they hurt people to get what they want, and when they need to they have no problem taking a life. The death penalty is by no means the ideal solution or an option that is pleasing, but it is, without a doubt, a necessity in modern society, as surely, as it has ever been. It is a necessary evil of human existence, sometime, some people are irredeemable and is an ever-present threat to society; it may be necessary to eliminate some of theses individuals from the moral coil for the greater good of the law-abiding members of society.
WORK CITED
Fieser, James. "Capital Punishment." Moral Issues that Divide Us. University of Tennessee at martin, 15 Jan 2011. Web. 8 Apr 2014. <https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/160/7-cap-pun.htm>.
Grimes, Jennifer. "The Symbolic Capital of Capital Punishment: A Scholarly Reflection." Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology 2.1 (2010): 178=199. Print.
Peterson Armour, Marylyn, and Mark S. Umbreit. "Assessing the Impact of the Ultimate Penal Sanction on Homicide Survivors: A Two State Comparison." Marquette Law Review 96.1 (2012): 1-132. Web. 12 Dec. 2914. <http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5144&context=mulr>.
Warden, Rob.. "Reflections on Capital Punishment." Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy 4.2 (2009): 1-3. Print.
Debate.org, . "Is the death penalty justified? Add a New Topic Add to My Favorites Debate This Topic Report This Topic." Debate.org. Debate.org, n.d. Web. 8 Apr 2014. <http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-death-penalty-justified>.
ProCon Organization. "Top 10 Pros and Cons: Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed?" ProCon Organization. 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 12 Dec. 2014. <http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000>.
