Capital Punishment Essay: Just Do It

Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Why do some view the taking of a life morally correct? These questions are discussed and debated upon in every state and national legislature throughout the country. Advantages and disadvantages for the death penalty exist, and many members of the United States, and individual State governments, have differing opinions. Yet it seems that the stronger arguments, and evidence such as cost effectiveness, should lead the common citizen to the opposition of Capital Punishment.

As far back as one can look into human civilization, justice for a murder victim has always been by taking the life of the killer. In today’s society capital punishment is needed to defend it from further harm, bring justice and/or vengeance to the victims of the loved ones, and encourage psychological deterrence. As of today, there are thirty-two states which offer the only just punishment for a crime without parallel and eighteen states having abolished the death penalty.

During the past three decades capital punishment has been a very controversial issue in the United States. 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was unconstitutional because it was a form of "cruel and unusual punishment." However, this decision did not last long; in July 1975 the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment did not violate any parts of the Constitution. Executions as they had before 1972 resumed again. Since then 180 prisoners have been executed. The United States Supreme Court should abolish the death penalty because it is a form of "cruel and unusual punishment."

However, no individual has ever been able to present any credible evidence that supports the theory of deterrence. Decades of research across the country has failed to produce signs of a higher murder rate in states that have abolished the death penalty. The theory of deterrence assumes that a murderer is examining the costs and benefits of the anticipated criminal act and taking a moment to think rationally. In the United States, the death penalty is only handed down for about one out of every one hundred homicides. A murderer has a greater chance of being killed by the planned victim or in a confrontation with the police, and therefor has no reason to fear the death penalty if there is only a one in a hundred chance they will actually receive it (Jackson, Jackson, and Shapiro 33). Moreover, most homicides are unplanned, impulsive acts and to imply that a murderer is thinking calm and cooly outweighing their options in such an emotionally charged environment is simply idiotic.

“Not only are inmates placed in physically cruel and unusual circumstances, but their mind is also greatly affected by their situation, with many death row inmates suffering from mental illness and mental disabilities as a result of their death sentence,” stresses the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty.

     Many positions can be defended when debating the issue of capital punishment. In Jonathan Glover's essay "Executions," he maintains that there are three views that a person may have in regard to capital punishment: the retributivist, the absolutist, and the utilitarian. Although Glover recognizes that both statistical and intuitive evidence cannot validate the benefits of capital punishment, he can be considered a utilitarian because he believes that social usefulness is the only way to justify it. Martin Perlmutter on the other hand, maintains the retributivist view of capital punishment, which states that a murderer deserves to be punished because of a conscious decision to

Although the crimes they have committed has brought pain to other families executing our criminals brings the same distress to their families. One of the most prominent and influential cases was 1972 Furman v. Georgia. Where William Henry Furman was burglarizing a home when a family member discovered him. While trying to escape Furman fell and his gun went off killing one of the residents. This case is known to be unfair considering some jurors voted to have life in prison while other voted for him to be sentence to death. Furman was also seen to be very immoral, dropping out of school in only the sixth grade. Furman tested the lowest four percent of the intelligence test range, and was later diagnosed with being mentally deficient and having psychotic episodes. This proves that the death penalty serves no integrity to the mentally challenge. Although Furman had a gun he got scared and ran, meaning he had no intentions on using it. The death penalty is also seen be racist, it is said a black person will be sentence to death before a white person. Which is not fair behavior considering both black and white commit the same number of crimes. However, the death penalty can be costly where if you do life in prison. A 1982 New York study shows that litigating a capital case is 1.8 million ,while 40 years of life is only 602,000. Now with all the money being waste on the death penalty is it worth it so kill someone? Most people want to remember in life as

     “This is not a nice man … innocent is not a word that suits him in any way,” says Brian Webster when speaking of Matthew Poncelet, the man on death row in the movie Dead Man Walking. Many people feel that the death penalty is immoral and it should not be used; however I feel completely opposite. I believe that capital punishment is a fair sentence for a murderer to receive.

Capital punishment has been around for many years as a way of executing criminals. Despite what most believe, capital punishment is not functional in the American society. Defenders of the death penalty often claim that the execution of criminals will teach others not to do bad, initially decreasing crime rates. Unfortunately, statistics prove that thought to be wrong. Capital punishment also has great flaws. For example, many innocent people have been put to death because of capital punishment. There also is no consistency. Two of the same crimes can be convicted in two different states and the consequences with be different for both offenders. The death penalty shows to be

The way we carry out these executions is by lethal injection, which is much more humane than any ways we have carried it out in historical times (McCuen 27). A prison official had claimed, “The guy will just go to sleep forever. It will be easy-real easy” (49). He says said this when referring to a man who was on death row. By using lethal injection, the United States is ridding itself of criminals, and is carrying it out in the most humane way possible (Kurtz). Professor John McAdams of Marquette University said, “If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murderers, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call” (Marzilli 21).

In my opinion capital punishment is wrong. The death penalty is the center of much debate in society. This is due, in part, to the fact that people see only the act of killing a criminal, and not the social effects the death penalty has on society as a whole. Upon reading about the death penalty, it was found to be an unethical practice. It promotes a violent and inhumane society in which killing is considered okay. Since there are alternatives, the death penalty should be abolished. Some people believe capital punishment to be cruel and unusual. Others believe that a person who kills, should themselves be killed. This statement alone raises the question, "How should they be killed?" The question that should really

Four major issues in capital punishment are debated, most aspects of which were touched upon by Seton Hall’s panel discussion on the death penalty. The first issue stands as deterrence. A major purpose of criminal punishment is to conclude future criminal conduct. The deterrence theory suggests that a rational person will avoid criminal behavior if the severity of the punishment outweighs the benefits of the illegal conduct. It is believed that fear of death “deters” people from committing a crime. Most criminals would think twice before committing murder if they knew their own lives were at stake. When attached to certain crimes, the penalty of death exerts a positive moral influence, placing a stigma on certain crimes like manslaughter, which results in attitudes of horror to such acts.

As a minority of US bishops once said, “We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.”

Finally, capital punishment is a deterrent that makes perfect sense. It truly makes the criminal pay for his or her crime. By punishing a criminal severely, the state can demonstrate its determination to control crime and deter potential offenders. Too lenient a sentence might encourage criminal conduct (Senna and Siegel 391). Maintaining a balance between fear and justice is an ongoing quest. Deterrence assumes that people may be prevented from choosing to engage in criminal acts . Deterrence refers to the ability of criminal punishment to convince criminals that returning to criminal activities again would not be in their best interests. Sentencing for the

Knowing you may die for your crime is not a deterrent - the threat of