Amanda Pierce

Lucinda Ligget
English 112
Position Essay FD
09 Dec 2009
Capital Punishment

For many years, politicians have been passionately debating the subject of the
capital punishment. Capital punishment is a legal infliction of death for violating a
criminal law. The practice of capital punishment is as old as government itself. Capital
punishment or in easier terms the death penalty is applied to people who have done
various forms of bad behavior. There are seven types of capital punishments known to
world. They are hanging, by firing squad, electrical chair, poisonous gas, lethal
injections, stoning, and guillotine. The most common method today is lethal injection.
This is an extremely sensitive subject, and it inspires strong emotions in both directions.
This is particularly an issue on which everyone is never likely to agree. This issue is also
one which is not easliy solved, because both sides have merit in this argument. Although
there is merit when supporting capital punishment, there are also flaws and certain
consequences that can never be reversed.
One argument against capital punishment, is that premeditated murder, even if
commited by the state, lowers the value of human life. Some can argue that these people
who committed these crimes deserve to die for what they have done and that since it is
being done by the state then it is justified. This seems easily understood, but looking at a
different aspect, even if the state is the one to be killing these people, it is a violation to
human rights. According to the Declaration of independence, the premier American
document, all men (including women) are endowed by their creator with certain (natural
or human) rights, such as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Very few people
have a problem accepting this idea. The Declaration says that not only do we possess
these rights but these are "inalienable" rights, which means these rights cannot be taken
away and cannot be transferred or forfeited. Here is the dillemma, if the state imposes a
death sentence, is it not taking away a person's right to life, a right that the Declaration of
Independence says is inalienable? If the right to life is truly inalienable, the state cannot
take it away and no person may transfer it or forfeit it. We cannot logically accept the
premise that the right to life is "inalienable" and then proceed to argue that the state can
take it away, even under extreme circumstances. It is either an "inalienable" right or it is
not. The state can either take it away or it cannot. The principals involved in both our
natural rights and capital punishment is contradictory to one another. Therefore, even
though capital punishment is death sentenced by the state it cannot be that easily justified.
Another issue raised whenever discussing capital punishment is whether or not it
actually deters crime. Many supporters of the death penalty argue that capital punishment
does, in fact, deter crime. It is easy to see why many people may think this. Although
there are many reasons why we could believe this to be true, there is no actual evidence
to prove this theory, in fact Canada's crime rate has dropped by 27% since the death
penalty waas abolished in 1976. The death penalty does not make communities safer.
Wisconsin, which has not had the death penalty for 150 years, has a murder rate that is
half that of states like Texas and Florida that use the death penalty frequently. This quote
was taken from Willie L. Williams, an L.A. Police Chief, "I am not convinced that capital
punishment, in and of itself, is a deterrent to crime beacause most people do not think
about the death penalty before they commmit a violent or capital crime." Also this is a
statement from the former U.S. Attorney, Janet Reno, "I have inquired for most of my
adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have
not seen any research that would substantiate that point. About 84% of current and
former presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies reject the notion
that research shows any deterrent effect from the death penalty (Fact Sheet: The Death
Penalty Does Not Deter Crime.) Some criminologist claim they have statistically proven
that when an execution is publicized, more murders occur in the day and weeks that
follow. A good example is in the Linberg kidnapping, a number of states adopted the
death penalty for crime like this, but figures showed kidnapping increased. Publicity may
encourage crime instead of preventing it. There are many different ways to deter crime
that have shown proven results. One way to help to deter crime is to actually get to the
root of why the crime is happening. About 60 to 70 percent of people we put in our state
prisons have a substance abuse problem. A study by the Northwestern University School
of Law concludes that drug treatment alternatives to prison are responsible for reducing
property crime and violent crime. "What New York has done, we have taken an active
role in treating addiction. And addiction is clearly what's leading to criminal behavior. So
if we treat the disease of addiction, we reduce the crime rate," Judge Schwartz said
(Stull.) There are many other ways that these criminals can be handled instead of just
ending their lives because it is the easiest way. Getting to the root of crime can help to
put an end to it ultimately without such severe punishment.
Another argument over capital punishment is that of wrongful convictions. Some
supporters believe that although there is a possibility of wrongful convictions and death
that capital punishment is much more important. Although, a lot of the wrongful
convictions are not carried out all the way until the execution, even just one should be
enough to put an end to it altogether. The wrongful execution of an innocent person is an
injustice that can never be rectified. According to the National Coalition to Abolish the
Death Penalty, since the reinstatement of the death penalty, at least 124 men and women
have been released from death row nationally-some only minutes away from execution.
One story specifically is that of Anthony Porter. Porter was an innocent man who was
charged with two muders that he did not commit. He had exhausted his appeals, his
family had made his funeral arrangements, and he was just 50 hours away from execution
when he won a reprieve from the Illinois Supreme Court in late 1998 (Anthony Porter).
Also in the past two years, evidence has come to light that indicate that four men may
have been wrongfully executed in recent years for crimes that they did not commit (Facts
and Figures). If even one wrongful execution can be prevented then would it not make
sense to abolish this irreversible punishment. It is a proven fact that humans, in general,
make mistakes. Almost everything in this world is uncertain. Although, it is necessary to
keep criminals and muderers off of the street, why is it necessary to end their lives? The
justice system has came a long way, and is full of some of the most intelligent people in
the country, surely there has got to be a better alternative to death, like possibly
improving law enforcement methods, correcting social conditions that contribute to
crime, incarcerating those who are a danger to society, rehabilitating criminals who aren't
incorrigible, and deterring people from becoming lawbreakers.
Aside from wrongful convictions, there is also a question of fairness. Even though
America is supposed to be all about equal rights and freedom, unfortunately this is not
always the case. For example, this case in Texas from the 1980's tells a very sordid story.
In 1980 a black high school janitor, Clarence Brandley, and his white co-worker found
the body of a missing 15 year old white schoolgirl. Interrogated by the police, they were
told, " One of you two is going to hang for this." Looking at Brandley, the officer said,
"Since you're the nigger, you're elected." In a classic case of rush to judgment, Brandley
was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. The circumstantial evidence against him
was thin, other leads were ignored by the police, and the courtroom atmosphere reeked of
racism. In 1986 Centurion Ministries, a volunteer group devoted to freeing wrongly
convicted prisoners, came to Brandley's aid. Evidence had meanwhile emerged that
another man had committed the murder for which Brandley was awaiting execution.
Brandley was not released until 1990. Capital punishment is a racist and unfair solution
for the criminals in our system. It discriminates toward individuals on the basis of their
race, wealth or social standing in society. It is not right to kill nineteen men a year out of
hundreds and hundreds of convicted murderers. These men are not being killed because
they committed murder. They are being killed because they are poor, black, ugly or all of
these things. As capital punishment becomes less and less likely to be applied, it becomes
more likely to be used in discrimination against those who have no money to afford a
good lawyer, those who are poor and powerless, personally ugly and socially
unacceptable. Since 1930, 89 percent of those executed in the United States for rape have
been black, as were 76 percent of those executed for robbery, 85.5 percent of those
executed for assault by life-term prisoner, 48.9 percent of those executed for murder, 100
percent of those executed for burglary. All together, 53.5 percent of those we have put to
death in this Nation since 1930 have been black (Bedau). Study after study turns up the
same results. Capital Punishment is unfair. Doing away with the death penalty altogether
would eliminate this problem of unfairness.
There are also a lot of misunderstandings about capital punishment. One, for
example, is that of the cost of capital punishment. It only makes sense that one would
think that the death penalty would be much less expensive than a sentence of life without
parole. This, however, is not the case. The death penalty is actually much much more
expensive than life in prison without parole. Almost anyone who has done research on
this topic can agree with this, whether pro or con. Using California as an example, the
cost of their present death row system with reforms recommended by the Commission is
$232.7 million a year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of
lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year. The
reason that this is so is because the states want to try to be as positive as they can that the
suspect is guilty, also many death row inmates will use all of their appeals until they have
no more left. This ultimately costs more. A new study released by the Urban Institute on
March 6, 2008 forecasted that the lifetime expenses of capitally-prosecuted cases since
1978 will cost Maryland taxpayers $186 million. That translates into at least $37.2
million for each of the state’s five executions since the state reenacted the death penalty.
The study estimates that the average cost to Maryland taxpayers for reaching a single
death sentence is $3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case.
When a single sentence of death can take millions of dollars to carry out; it doesn't make
economic sense to retain the death penalty. The amount of money and time necessary to
execute one single inmate might be used to put several criminals behind bars for the
remainder of their lives (Financial Facts About the Death Penalty).
One other issue is that capital punishment is only used for revenge. Supporters of
this issue may argue that this is not the case, but it only used to protect people from
violent criminals. Although this is true, capital punishment is also seen as a way of
revenge for the victims' families. Those in favor of the death penalty aren't moved by
arguments that capital punishment actually costs the state more money than life
imprisonment, or by the findings that indicate that it doesn't deter murder or violent
crime. Many cases are about revenge. It is hard typically for anyone to think of a person
commiting the worst kind of crime and still being allowed to live, but revenge has no
place in the justice system. It isn't the business of juries to feel the victims' pain but to
decide what harm has been done to society (Cohen.) Additionally, the death penalty
actually harms families of murder victims.The death penalty adds to the suffering of the
surviving family members and loved ones of victims. For them, revenge and retribution
can never produce genuine healing. It can only deprive them of the opportunity for
forgiveness and reconciliation that is needed for the healing process (Revenge has No
Place in the Justice System.)
In conclusion, no one wants to have murderers or rapists running lose on the
street, but also no one wants to see an innocent person executed either. Capital
Punishment is itself a premeditated murder. This is unacceptable even if it is inflicted by
state authority as it lowers the value of life. In fact, such an act can only brutalize the
society. "Revenge is essential" can become a society attitude. By witnessing such acts,
our own mental makeup starts believing that violence is necessary to curb the
wrongdoings. Instead of inflicting Capital punishment, it’s the country's duty to provide
opportunities for all people to accomplish a good life in a rational culture. Rev. David B.
Thompson, Bishop of Charleston, South Carolina said, "Capital punishment feeds the
cycle of violence in society by pandering to a lust for revenge. It brutalizes us, and
deadens our sensitivities to the precious nature of every single human life (Joy)."The
death penalty is barbaric and belongs in the past. There is no evidence of the death
penalty having any deterrent effect, life imprisonment without parole is just as effective a
means of preventing re-offending, any system of capital punishment is bound to make
mistakes, and who is our country to take another human being's life in any case? This
should be the work of God and not of the government.

Works Cited
 "Anthony Porter." Northwestern Law. Northwestern University, 2006. Web. 5
Dec. 2009.
Bedau, Hugo Adam. "The Case Against the Death Penalty." The Case Against the Death
Penalty. Michael Wood, July 1992. Web. 06 Dec 2009.
Cohen, Micheal. Capital Punishment Is Ineffective and Dangerous. Current
Controversies: Capital Punishment. Ed. Paul Connors. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007.
Web. 07 Dec 2009.
"Facts and Figures." NCADP. National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, 2009.
Web. 7 Dec 2009.
"Financial Facts About the Death Penalty." DPIC. Death Penalty Information Center,
2009. Web. 6 Dec 2009.
Joy, Dhanya. "Facts About Capital Punishment." Buzzle.com. Buzzle, 18 June 2009.
Web. 7 Dec. 2009. <http://http://www.buzzle.com/articles/facts-about-capital-
punishment.html>.
"Revenge Has No Place in the Justice System." Murder Victims' Family for
Reconciliation. Beth Wood, 2009. Web. 07 Dec. 2009.
Stull, Elizabeth. "Report Says Alternative Sentences Reduce Crime." BNet. Dolan Media
Newswires, 08 Dec. 2009. Web. 08 Dec 2009.
United States. The Declaration of Independence. By Thomas Jefferson. Philadelphia,
1776. Print.