FREE ESSAY ON DEATH PENALTY

DEATH PENALTY

Imagine a man who commits murder, and is given a fifteen year jail sentence and is
returned to the streets where he kills again. He is imprisoned again only to be released.
This could happen since almost one in ten death row inmates has been convicted of murder
at least once. That means that some death row inmates have had more than one opportunity
to rehabilitate, yet continue to commit crimes. Should the U.S. justice system continue
to let violent criminals back on the streets where they are likely to commit murder
again? Capital punishment is one of the oldest forms of punishment. Most societies have
thought it to be fair punishment for severe crimes. American colonists used capital
punishment before the U.S. was a country, and most states still use it today. Currently,
however, there has been a controversy surrounding the death penalty. Capital cases are
long and expensive, and there are arguments in support and against capital punishment as
a deterrent. If the laws concerning capital punishment were modified so that it would
become consistent, perhaps then it would be effective. But if that took place, would
capital punishment be morally permissible? From a utilitarian standpoint, some crimes are
so outrageous, such as murder, that it is by enacting the highest penalty for the taking
of human life that society affirms the highest value of human life. Thus, if capital
punishment is the most beneficial option to society, then the ends justify the means.
One argument states that the death penalty doesn't deter crime. Dismissing capital
punishment on that basis requires one to eliminate all prisons as well because they don't
seem to be any more effective in the deterrence of crime. During the suspension of
capital punishment from 1972-1976 research shows that in 1960, there were 56 executions
in the U.S. and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were 15 executions, murders had risen
to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more
years without executions 20,510 murders occurred (Siegel, 50). The number of murders grew
as the number of executions shrank. More recently, there have been 56 executions in the
US in 1995, and there has been a 12% drop in the murder rate nationwide (Siegel, 51).
People have referred to democratic S. Africa as one of the most violent places on earth.
The New York Times magazine carried a story on the epidemic of rapes of children in that
country: 120.6 rapes for every 100,000 women as compared with 71 in the U.S. (15). One
reason for the increase in attacks on young children is that rapists think they are less
likely to have AIDS since they know that AIDS has skyrocketed among the adults of S.
Africa. Those rapist are less likely to attack grown women because they fear the lethal
consequences of AIDS. This demonstrates that violent criminals are indeed capable of
being deterred by lethal consequences. If the death penalty was just as consistent,
lethal, and unstoppable as the AIDS virus, criminals would actually have reason to back
down. 
Abolitionists will claim that most studies show that the death penalty had no effect on
the murder rate at all. They neglect to inform themselves that those studies are based on
inconsistent executions. Capital punishment must be used consistently in order to be
effective. 
Abolitionists claim that there are alternatives to the death penalty. They state that
life in prison without parole serves just as well. However, in order to make that
statement, one must ignore all the murders criminals commit within prison when they kill
prison guards and other inmates, and also when they kill citizens upon escape. For
example, Dawned Mu'Min who was serving a 48-year sentence for the 1973 murder of a cab
driver when he escaped a road work gang and stabbed to death a storekeeper in a 1988
robbery. Fortunately, there is now no chance of Mu'Min committing murder again. He was
executed in Virginia in 1997.
Mu'Min's example shows that putting a murderer away for life just isn't good enough. Laws
change, so do parole boards, and people forget the past. Those are things that cause life
imprisonment to weather away. As long as the murderer lives, there is always a chance
that he/she will strike again. This is the reason for people who value public safety that
there is no substitute for the best in its defense which is capital punishment. It
forever bars a murderer from killing again.
Abolitionist ask, Why do we kill people to show that killing people is wrong? They state,
Two wrongs don't make a right, therefore, executions are equivalent to murder. The term
murder is specifically defined in the dictionary as the UNLAWFUL killing of a person with
malice and afterthought. So the word murder cannot be used to describe executions since
the death penalty is the law. Comparing executions to murders is like comparing
incarcerating people to kidnapping or charging taxes to extortion. There is a difference
between violent crime and punishment. Is there a contradiction in a policeman speeding
after a speeder to enforce speeding laws? One displays a serious lack of moral judgment
to believe that just because two practices share a physical similarity means that they
are morally identical. What separates crime from punishment, good form evil are not their
physical aspects but rather their moral aspects. Moral aspects examine the reasons and
motivations behind one's actions. Abolitionists tend to focus on the death penalty's
physical aspects to demonstrate that it is the same as murder while completely ignoring
the moral aspects involved, therefore, demonstrating their total lack of moral
coherence.
In conclusion, every country in the world is ready to kill millions in order to defend
their nation from the aggression of others. It is difficult to see why public safety
doesn't deserve the same respect as national security. Perhaps, supporting armies and war
is far more barbarous than the death penalty. One reason nations exist is to defend
citizens from criminals. When they fail to do that, they fail their citizens. When a
society ignores its moral duty to defend the safety of its citizens they are leaving them
at the mercy of criminals. If capital punishment can guarantee the safety of the citizens
the best, and it thus benefits society, then from a utilitarian standpoint it is morally
permissible. John Mill states:
Does fining a criminal show want of respect for poverty, or imprisoning him, for personal
freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to think that to take the life of a man who has taken
that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show on the contrary...our
regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another
forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime he can commit deprives him of his
right to live, this shall (Siegel, 66).
The recidivism rate for capital punishment is zero. No executed murderer has ever killed
again. One can't say that about those sentenced to prison, even if you are an
abolitionist.
WORKS CITED
Goldberg, Stephanie. South Africa. New York Times 5th of March 1997: 103.
Siegel, Adam. The Death Peanlty in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Bibliography
oldberg, Stephanie. South Africa. New York Times 5th of March 1997: 103.
Siegel, Adam. The Death Peanlty in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.