The Consequences Of The Death Penalty Essay

Throughout the history of man there has always existed a sort of rule pertaining to retribution for just and unjust acts. For the just came rewards, and for the unjust came punishments. This has been a law as old as time. One philosophy about the treatment of the unjust is most controversial in modern time and throughout our history; which is is the ethical decision of a death penalty. This controversial issue of punishment by death has been going on for centuries. It dates back to as early as 399 B.C.E., to when Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for his “corruption of the youth” and “impiety”.

     There are many reasons to both support and oppose the death penalty. Many people can feel very strongly about whether or not they approve of this method of punishment. I feel that the death penalty is wrong, and I believe that there is much support to back this up. I believe that the death penalty is wrong because it is not an effective deterrent, racially and economically bias, unreliable, expensive, and morally wrong of society.

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.

The Death Penalty in America has been a talked about issue for some time now. Americans have their own opinions on the death penalty. Some people feel it is too harsh of a punishment, some believe if you take a life you should lose your life. I myself do not believe in the death penalty. To me it goes totally against what Americas was built on God. Even though over the last fifteen years or so we have slowly drifted away from “In God We Trust”. Looking at the death penalty in a whole it was never something that the United States came up with. It was adopted from Britain. (Bohm, 1999)The first ever recorded death penalty in United States history was that of Captain George Kendall in 1608. He was executed for being a spy. The death of Captain Kendall started a chain of other colonies jumping on board for the death penalty. In some colonies they were sentencing people to death for petty crimes, such as steeling, or trading with Indians. Over the years after the death penalty would be reformed and revamped numerous of times. Until it was only used when murder or treason occurred. Matter of fact Pennsylvania was the first state

In view of these safeguards, proponents of capital punishment believe that state executions are justified sentences for those convicted of willful first-degree murder. They do not think sentencing murderers to prison is a harsh enough sentence, especially if there is the possibility of parole for the perpetrator. A final argument posed by proponents of the death penalty is that execution is an effective deterrence. They are convinced that potential murderers will likely think twice before they commit murder. Despite the rhetoric of politicians for the increased use of the death penalty, a number of prominent individuals and organizations have emerged to express their opposition to capital punishment. Along with families of death row prisoners, the International Court of The Hague, the United Nations, Amnesty International, the Texas Conference of Churches, Pope John Paul II, Nobel Peace recipient, Bishop Tutu, numerous judges and former prosecutors, former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, actors, and writers are waging a determined struggle against the death penalty. They invariably argue that capital punishment is wrong and inhumane. Religious folk generally evoke the nature of an “ideal spiritual community” (Cauthen, 1). Within this perspective, a moral and ethical community does not insist on a life for a life. While a community must act to protect law- abiding citizens, an ethical response would be to

The “consequences” alternative is harder to prove. If a defendant knows that he’s shooting people, and shooting them is going to hurt them, he likely understands the “nature and consequences” of his

The death penalty can lead to the death of innocent people. For example, “…According to a new study, serious errors occur in almost 70% of all trials leading to the death penalty…”(Leibman). This shows that if 100 people were put on death row, 70 would have serious mistakes in their

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.

This can be a sticky issue when the subject of the death penalty is involved. A strong case could be made that when a subject agrees to such an evaluation, he or she may in fact be harmed by it’s results. A final factor to consider is future risk of dangerousness. While many researchers have found that future dangerousness is over compensated for, the best predictor for future behavior is still past behavior. Questions of guilt and remorse should be explored. These questions should not be in reference to the subject being caught or punished, but in regard to the harm they have inflicted on others and society in general. A callous attitude towards human life and it’s taking, should be strongly considered when evaluating a capital

As with anything in life, there is always the risk of making a mistake. Those opposed to the death penalty use this as one of their

Society and its mixed feelings towards the death penalty; capital punishment is such a harsh and uncivilised way of treating criminals, but do they look at how the criminals are acting towards ending other human beings life. They do not care about the lives they have destroyed, or, the families of their victims. The death penalty can never bring back loved ones back to their families. It seems rationally to think that if potential killers are aware that if they commit serious crimes they would be put to death for it, they are less likely to commit these crimes again.

Certain individuals who commit crimes do so at their own free will, and many have no qualms as to the consequences of their actions. To some, it matters not the possibility that if they are caught, there is the chance they may be executed. Sometimes the crimes committed by certain persons are done so in a manner that would bewilder any other human being.

    With Capital Punishment as a possible outcome for those who commit heinous crimes, there is a possibility that it deters people from committing the crimes in the first place. While deterrence is not readily proven, the death penalty does help prosecutors provide the plea bargain for criminals. The plea bargain allows the accused to confess to the crime by taking a deal to avoid execution. This could be the prosecutors saying that they won't go for the death penalty as long as the accused confesses to all the heinous crimes that they have committed, creating more solved cases for the police and closure for the families of the victims. Prosecutors claim that if “You take the death penalty off the table…Crimes will not be solved. Victims will not be recovered.” (Saunders). For example, in 2010 John Gardener, a convicted sex offender and murder of a 17 year old girl, took the plea deal that was offered to him. The deal he made was that he had to confess to the murder of another victim and inform the police of where he hid the 14 year old girl's body (Saunders). While prosecutors are offering and making plea bargains, those who are in trial facing the death penalty have their lives in the hands of the jurors. A jury does not make the decision to sent a human being to death lightly. For example they try to keep the number of criminals that face the death penalty at a minimum, “ Sacramento Deputy District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert estimates that death

When someone commits a crime, do they think of the consequences? As I sat in the court room, watching a sentencing hearing of four different cases, I really don’t think criminals really think about what can happen to them because of their actions. I watched a range of emotions go through the court; sadness, frustration, anger, disappointment, etc. The prosecution was determined to get the sentencing that they believe is the right one and the defense was determined in trying to reduce the sentencing. In every case, a plea was given to the defense. Three of the cases, I saw a defendant was the clearly upset and remorseful for what they have done, they begged the judge to go lenient on her sentencing and said they knew what they did wrong. The other defendant wouldn’t own on to what they did. They were adamant on saying they did not do the crime. I don’t think these defendants really thought of the consequences of their actions when committing their crimes. Maybe if criminals thought about what their consequences, they wouldn’t’ commit the crimes. Each case was different in their own way, which made it very intriguing to watch and observe.

People say in life all actions have unique and circumstantial consequences. Whether it is picking to have breakfast in the morning or not all decisions we make in life have certain circumstances depending on the situation. When it comes to criminals; the punishment for committing crimes could be death. Orelius Matthew Steward, imprisoned for bank robbery, said “I could have blasted him (a cop). I thought about it at the time, but I changed my mind when I thought of the gas chamber.”(Jacoby 3) when he was questioned about the incident. Criminals know the consequences of what they are doing and many criminals do not want to be but to death as a result of their crimes. Moral and legal justice are also a huge part of the whole death penalty process. When heinous criminals commit awful murderous crimes to innocent people they more than deserve the death penalty. Also legal justice is also preserved when innocent people are convicted and sentenced to the gas chamber but the appeal system allows them to appeal their sentence and allows them to be exonerated and let free of their charges. The death penalty is necessary because it deters criminals from killing and provides moral and legal justice.