Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Amanda PierceLucinda LiggetEnglish 112Position Essay FD09 Dec 2009Capital PunishmentFor many years, politicians have been passionately debating the subject of thecapital punishment. Capital punishment is a legal infliction of death for violating acriminal 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 donevarious forms of bad behavior. There are seven types of capital punishments known toworld. They are hanging, by firing squad, electrical chair, poisonous gas, lethalinjections, 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 alsoone which is not easliy solved, because both sides have merit in this argument. Althoughthere is merit when supporting capital punishment, there are also flaws and certainconsequences 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 peoplewho 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 adifferent aspect, even if the state is the one to be killing these people, it is a violation tohuman rights. According to the Declaration of independence, the premier Americandocument, all men (including women) are endowed by their creator with certain (naturalor human) rights, such as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Very few peoplehave a problem accepting this idea. The Declaration says that not only do we possessthese rights but these are "inalienable" rights, which means these rights cannot be takenaway and cannot be transferred or forfeited. Here is the dillemma, if the state imposes adeath 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 cannottake 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 cantake it away, even under extreme circumstances. It is either an "inalienable" right or it isnot. 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, eventhough 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 itactually deters crime. Many supporters of the death penalty argue that capital punishmentdoes, in fact, deter crime. It is easy to see why many people may think this. Althoughthere are many reasons why we could believe this to be true, there is no actual evidenceto 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 quotewas 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 astatement from the former U.S. Attorney, Janet Reno, "I have inquired for most of myadult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I havenot seen any research that would substantiate that point. About 84% of current andformer presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies

reject

the notionthat research shows any deterrent effect from the death penalty (Fact Sheet: The DeathPenalty Does Not Deter Crime.) Some criminologist claim they have statistically proventhat when an execution is publicized, more murders occur in the day and weeks thatfollow. A good example is in the Linberg kidnapping, a number of states adopted thedeath penalty for crime like this, but figures showed kidnapping increased. Publicity mayencourage crime instead of preventing it. There are many different ways to deter crimethat have shown proven results. One way to help to deter crime is to actually get to theroot 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 Schoolof 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 activerole in treating addiction. And addiction is clearly what's leading to criminal behavior. Soif 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 justending 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. Somesupporters believe that although there is a possibility of wrongful convictions and deaththat capital punishment is much more important. Although, a lot of the wrongfulconvictions are not carried out all the way until the execution, even just one should beenough to put an end to it altogether. The wrongful execution of an innocent person is aninjustice that can never be rectified. According to the National Coalition to Abolish theDeath Penalty, since the reinstatement of the death penalty, at least 124 men and womenhave 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 wascharged with two muders that he did not commit. He had exhausted his appeals, hisfamily had made his funeral arrangements, and he was just 50 hours away from executionwhen 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 mayhave been wrongfully executed in recent years for crimes that they did not commit (Factsand Figures). If even one wrongful execution can be prevented then would it not makesense 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 tokeep 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 inthe country, surely there has got to be a better alternative to death, like possiblyimproving law enforcement methods, correcting social conditions that contribute tocrime, 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 thoughAmerica is supposed to be all about equal rights and freedom, unfortunately this is notalways 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 foundthe body of a missing 15 year old white schoolgirl. Interrogated by the police, they weretold, " 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, Brandleywas tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. The circumstantial evidence against himwas 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 wronglyconvicted prisoners, came to Brandley's aid. Evidence had meanwhile emerged thatanother man had committed the murder for which Brandley was awaiting execution.Brandley was not released until 1990. Capital punishment is a racist and unfair solutionfor 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 becausethey 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 becomesmore likely to be used in discrimination against those who have no money to afford agood lawyer, those who are poor and powerless, personally ugly and sociallyunacceptable. 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 thoseexecuted 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 todeath in this Nation since 1930 have been black (Bedau). Study after study turns up thesame 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 wouldthink 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 moreexpensive than life in prison without parole. Almost anyone who has done research onthis topic can agree with this, whether pro or con. Using California as an example, thecost 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. Thereason that this is so is because the states want to try to be as positive as they can that thesuspect is guilty, also many death row inmates will use all of their appeals until they haveno more left. This ultimately costs more. A new study released by the Urban Institute onMarch 6, 2008 forecasted that the lifetime expenses of capitally-prosecuted cases since1978 will cost Maryland taxpayers $186 million. That translates into at least $37.2million

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 singledeath sentence is

$3 million - $1.9 million more than the cost of a non-death penalty case.