Death Penalty
Society, in general, agrees that the taking
of an innocent life is an
unforgivable act, and that the rape of children is
particularly heinous. I will
argue that all persons convicted of the crime of
murder or the rape of a child
under ten years of age should be given a
manditory death penalty. Capital
punishment is not only justifiable but is
morally correct and should be the
mandatory sentence for such crimes once an
individual is found guilty. It would
be neither unjust nor immoral to execute
such an individual. It is not logical
or rational to believe that a person
raised in our society does not know that
the crimes of murder or the rape of
a child will not be tolerated. Regardless of
an individual’s background or
socio-economic status, individual choices lead
to results that carry personal
responsibility. It is inappropriate to make
excuses for these criminals
simply because they were not reared in well-to-do
circumstances. neglected,
or perhaps suffered abuse as a child. None of these
forced them to make the
choice to commit the crime. As stated by Ernest van den
Haag, "by
committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the
risk." (1)If an
individual commits the crime of murder, or rapes a child,
that person has
forfeited any moral right to continue to live, even if
imprisoned for life.
Their victim had no choice and no chance to live a
fruitful, productive life.
Why should society be required to pay the costs
associated with imprisonment?
A society, which values the lives of its citizens,
has the right to exercise
capital punishment for those who have been convicted
after due process of
law. The U.S. Constitution provides for punishment of
capital crimes so there
is certainly no trouble with it in the law. However,
some of the most
impassioned arguments against capital punishment are the
possibility of
convicting the wrong person, and discriminatory application of
the law.
Abolitionists also argue that we should base on justice system on
reform and
rehabilitation. First, the possibility of convicting an innocent
person is
often cited as an argument that the death penalty is unjust. One
Internet
source indicates that 350 people were wrongly convicted of homicide
or
capital rape from 1900- 1985. (2) (It should be noted that the article
does not
specify how many of these individuals were later released.) In our
text, Ernest
van den Haag refers to a study conducted by Hugo Bedau that
found that of 7000
executions during that same period, only 25 were
purportedly innocent. (Ibid.
p.286) The execution of an innocent person
appears much less a risk than the
risk that a person guilty of this type of
violence would repeat the crime.
Criminals kill people knowing that they
will live and either spend the rest of
their lives in prison or get out in 10
to 20 years. Consistent application of
the capital punishment laws would have
a deterrent effect on some potential
murderers if not all. While states that
do carry death penalty provisions
significantly outnumber those that do not,
there appears to be a certain
reluctance to apply the laws. As a result, many
violent criminals no longer fear
the court system. Further, capital
punishment laws have undergone many decades
of review by the highest courts
in the country and are anything but capriciously
imposed. A further argument
against the "innocent are convicted" is
found in a review of the extensive
appeal system that has been mandated by the
courts that may take as much as
fourteen years to complete. Even if this were a
legitimate concern, the
chances of an innocent person being wrongly convicted
are very slim. The
second argument, discriminatory application holds that a
disproportional
number of non-whites receive the death penalty upon conviction,
in
particular, a black convicted of murdering a white. This is really
an
argument against a flawed justice system that favors one class of
citizen’s
over another. Unequal distribution among the guilty is irrelevant
to the
morality of the punishment. The system is far from perfect but can be
improved.
In the past, women were much less likely to be executed than
men, and we are all
aware that if you have enough money to hire good lawyers,
you have a better
chance to evade punishment. Haag (ibid.) argues that recent
data indicates that
the discriminatory aspect against blacks was primarily
due to capital punishment
for rape. Additionally, in recent years, the once
prevalent trend of more
non-whites than whites being executed, and more men
than women, seems to be
reversing. For example, in recent months I recall
reading about four persons
executed in the United States, two were women, and
one was a white male. Working
to improve the criminal justice system so that
everyone who deserves the death
penalty gets it, would ensure justice and
equality. Lastly, some would argue
against the death penalty by claiming that
our criminal justice system should be
based on reform rather than punishment.
Even without arguing specifically
opposite this point, it is almost
self-evident that the criminal who can be
reformed is not the problem. The
real problem is the criminal you cannot reform.
It becomes simple to say,
"just give him a life sentence". However,
the problem is more complicated.
Long prison terms mean large and costly
institutions that must, sooner or
later, be paid for by all of us. Some may
argue that killing such a murderer
violates his human rights and would suggest
life imprisonment as a better
alternative. Even from the point of view of the
individual, natural life
imprisonment as an alternative to capital punishment is
apt to be no better
than the substitution of a slow death for a quick one. In
both cases, a
convicted murderer’s only way of paying his debt to society is
through dying.
In this paper, I have argued that the death penalty is a
necessary form of
retribution--the only adequate means of expressing society's
condemnation of
a particular crime--and a necessary deterrent against this same
crime.
Furthermore, it is necessary for a just and effective system of
criminal
justice. The justification for capital punishment is based on
retribution as
well as deterrence. It is a just penalty for a set of horrid
crimes as well as
being a demonstrably effective means of protecting
potential victims.
Bibliography
1 "The Ultimate Punishment: A
Defense", Ernest van den Haag, p.287
ETHICS: Theory and Contemporary
Issues, Barbara MacKinnon, Wadsworth Publishing
Co., 1995 "Capital
Punishment: Our Duty or Our
Doom?"