Final Draft, Mediation Paper
The existence of capital punishment is a controversial and much-debated public issue in our world. Some people believe that the death penalty is a necessary retribution for the crime of murder. Others believe that the death penalty should never be used because it unethical to take someone else’s life, even if he or she is a criminal. Especially with the possibility that the judiciary process may wrongly convict an innocent person, many argue that the death penalty is far too severe. With both sides of this issue raising compelling arguments, the conflict regarding capital punishment cannot be mediated.
With or without the death penalty, we can assume that society deems it necessary behavior to punish those who break the law. The extent of punishment to be carried out is what is debatable. The death penalty argument raises not just ethical, but economic questions as well. Depending on how the evidence is presented and interpreted, the cost of the death penalty is highly disputable. On one hand, it is hard to ignore the monetary toll on taxpayers to account for a more complicated jury selection process, a longer trial, a greater number of motions and appeals and other aspects that constitute a capital punishment trial. As of 1994, a single death penalty case costs tax payers in Texas an average of $2.3 million per execution. The cost per execution in the state of Florida is even higher at $3.2 million(Dieter). It’s hard to compare this to the average cost of a holding a prisoner with a life sentence, a mere $593,000 (Heningfeld 193). From a financial point of view, life in prison seems to be the best bet for society. Therefore, support for maintaining the death penalty must rely on ethics.
The main reason that the death penalty still exists despite high prices is its deterrence effect on potential future criminals. According to Joanna M. Shepherd’s testimony before the House Judiciary Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee, studies as recent as 2004 have “consistently shown that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect, with each execution deterring between 3 and 18 murders” (Heningfeld 95). According to some opinions, the cost of losing innocent lives far outweighs a few million dollars sacrificed to pay to bring a guilty murderer to justice. Therefore the evidence supporting capital punishment’s hindrance effect makes the death penalty seem worthwhile, if not necessary. Such strong support must be considered when choosing to allow or not allow this form of punishment.
Despite this support, opponents of the death penalty argue fiercely against the deterrence effects of capital punishment. Their main argument is that research and studies are flawed. In fact, the two states with the highest number of executions in 2003, Texas with 24, and Oklahoma with 14, actually saw increases in murder rates from 2002 to 2003. Even worse, “the top 13 states in terms of murder rates were all death penalty states” (“Innocence and the Death Penalty”). The existence of capital punishment in these states does not seem to have an effect on future murders. This is one of the main discussion points when debating the death penalty, due to such varied evidence. Depending on the study, it is truly difficult to determine whether or not murders are actually being deterred. When the evidence can go either way, the entire death penalty dispute must be left unresolved.
Mirko Bagaric of Australia’s The Advertiser goes to an extreme when he states, “It is difficult to make a stronger case for capital punishment [than for Saddam Hussein]. Yet even Saddam’s hanging was unjustifiable, and the world is a slightly worse place because of it” (Bagaric). Not only does Bagaric believe that deterrence does not occur, the execution itself is simply sending the wrong message.
Another factor about the death penalty that must be considered is the possibility of executing a wrongly-accused, innocent person. A commission established by the New Jersey Legislature to study the impact of capital punishment concludes that, “’Executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible mistake.’”(Graham). The committee argues that due to the chance of executing the wrong person, as remote as it might be, the risk that comes with carrying out the death penalty is not worth taking. The danger that an innocent person could be sentenced to death because of errors in our government is a big concern with capital punishment.
Statistics show that “As of March 2005, 128 innocent people have been released from death rows across the country since 1973” (“Innocence and the Death Penalty”). Anybody can make a mistake, nobody’s perfect, but when that mistake is taken away an innocent person’s life, it cannot be justified. There are others that believe even if the occasional innocent person is sentenced to death, this punishment will in turn save a greater number of lives. With this dilemma remaining unsettled, it is unclear what the moral solution is.
Suppose we assume that capital punishment trials always determine the correct verdict and never convict an innocent person. The debate is still unable to be resolved whether or not it is ethical to purposely take another person’s life, even when it is through judicial process. Supporters believe in the reasoning of “an eye for an eye”, while opposition believe any form of killing is simply unlawful. Either way, those questionable for the death penalty deserve harsh punishment of some kind. But should this harsh punishment be in the form of life in prison without parole, or a lethal injection?
The whole point of the death penalty is to inflict the convict with the worst possible punishment, so that they too can feel the pain that they have imposed upon others due to their heartless crimes. One person or even a group of people cannot really define what extreme cruelty is in accordance to everyone. Some people may find that spending the rest of their life in prison, rotting away in a jail cell is the worst form of penalty. Others may feel that killing them and taking their whole life away is far worse. It must also be considered that it is unfair for the families of innocent victims to have to go to a cemetery to see their loved one, while the murderer’s family can still visit jail. When it comes down to it, people cannot decide in our world today, let alone our country, which is going to be the worst form of punishment. It is almost impossible to find a common ground when both bring up valid points.
The disagreement over the use of capital punishment has been around longer than anyone can remember. It in itself is a moral conflict. Is killing wrong all the time, or is it acceptable in certain necessary situations? We in today’s world are in no position to resolve this age-old conflict by declaring the death penalty morally just or unjust.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Bagaric, Mirko. “Punishment By Death Keeps Us All In Chains.” The Advertiser. 2 Jan 2007. Melbourne. 16 Apr 2008. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T3538039565&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3538039568&cisb=22_T3538039567&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=244790&docNo=6>
D’Alema, Massimo.” The Global Shift Against the Death Penalty.” Christian Science Monitor. 26 Dec 2007. Rome, Italy. 16 Apr 2008.
<http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T3537990520&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3537990530&cisb=22_T3537990529&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=7945&docNo=10>
Dieter, Richard, C. Millions Misspent: What Politicians Don’t Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center. 16 Apr 2008 <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=385#sxn3>
Graham, Troy. “N.J. Death Penalty On the Way Out.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. 3 Jan 2007. Philadelphia. 16 Apr 2008. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T3535642277&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3535642290&cisb=22_T3535642289&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=247189&docNo=11>
Henningfeld, Diane Andrews, ed. The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006.
Innocence and the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center. 16 Apr 2008 <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6>
Schonebaum, Stephen E, ed. Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998.
Young, Cathy. "Common ground on the death penalty." Reason Online 14 June 2001 10 June 2008 <http://www.reason.com/news/show/31932.html>.
D’Alema, Massimo.” The Global Shift Against the Death Penalty.” Christian Science Monitor. 26 Dec 2007. Rome, Italy. 16 Apr 2008.
<http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T3537990520&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3537990530&cisb=22_T3537990529&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=7945&docNo=10>
Dieter, Richard, C. Millions Misspent: What Politicians Don’t Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center. 16 Apr 2008 <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=385#sxn3>
Graham, Troy. “N.J. Death Penalty On the Way Out.” The Philadelphia Inquirer. 3 Jan 2007. Philadelphia. 16 Apr 2008. <http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?risb=21_T3535642277&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T3535642290&cisb=22_T3535642289&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=247189&docNo=11>
Henningfeld, Diane Andrews, ed. The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006.
Innocence and the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center. 16 Apr 2008 <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6>
Schonebaum, Stephen E, ed. Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998.
Young, Cathy. "Common ground on the death penalty." Reason Online 14 June 2001 10 June 2008 <http://www.reason.com/news/show/31932.html>.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
The existence of capital punishment is a controversial and much-debated public issue in our world. Some people believe that the death penalty is a necessary retribution for the crime of murder. Others believe that the death penalty should never be used because it unethical to take someone else’s life, even if he or she is a criminal. Especially with the possibility that the judiciary process may wrongly convict an innocent person, many argue that the death penalty is far too severe. With both sides of this issue raising compelling arguments, the conflict regarding capital punishment cannot be mediated.
With or without the death penalty, we can assume that society deems it necessary behavior to punish those who break the law. The extent of punishment to be carried out is what is debatable. The death penalty argument raises not just ethical, but economic questions as well. Depending on how the evidence is presented and interpreted, the cost of the death penalty is highly disputable. On one hand, it is hard to ignore the monetary toll on taxpayers to account for a more complicated jury selection process, a longer trial, a greater number of motions and appeals and other aspects that constitute a capital punishment trial. As of 1994, a single death penalty case costs tax payers in Texas an average of $2.3 million per execution. The cost per execution in the state of Florida is even higher at $3.2 million(Dieter). It’s hard to compare this to the average cost of a holding a prisoner with a life sentence, a mere $593,000 (Heningfeld, 193). From a financial point of view, life in prison seems to be the best bet.
The main reason that the death penalty still exists despite high prices is its deterrence effect on potential future criminals. According to Joanna M. Shepherd’s testimony before the House Judiciary Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee, studies as recent as 2004 have “consistently shown that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect, with each execution deterring between 3 and 18 murders” (Heningfeld, 95). According to some opinions, the cost of losing innocent lives far outweighs a few million dollars sacrificed to pay to bring a guilty murderer to justice. Therefore the evidence supporting capital punishment’s deterrence effect makes the death penalty seem worthwhile, if not necessary. The strong support for the deterrence effect must be considered when choosing to allow or not allow this form of punishment.
Opponents of the death penalty argue fiercely against the deterrence effects of capital punishment, arguing that research and studies are flawed. In fact, the two states with the highest number of executions in 2003, Texas with 24, and Oklahoma with 14, actually saw increases in murder rates from 2002 to 2003. Even worse, “the top 13 states in terms of murder rates were all death penalty states” (Innocence and the Death Penalty). The existence of capital punishment in these states does not seem to have an effect on future murders. This is one of the main discussion points when debating the death penalty, due to such varied evidence. Depending on the study, it is truly difficult to determine whether or not murders are actually being deterred.
A commission established by the New Jersey Legislature to study the impact of capital punishment concludes that, “’Executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible mistake.’”(Graham). The committee argues that due to the chance of executing the wrong person, as remote as it might be, the risk that comes with carrying out the death penalty is not worth taking. The danger that an innocent person could be sentenced to death because of errors in our government is a big concern with capital punishment.
Statistics show that “As of March 2005, 128 innocent people have been released from death rows across the country since 1973” (Innocence and the Death Penalty). Anybody can make a mistake, nobody’s perfect, but when that mistake is taken away an innocent person’s life, it cannot be justified. There are others that believe even if the occasional innocent person is sentenced to death, this punishment will in turn save a greater number of lives. With this dilemma remaining unsettled, it is unclear what the moral solution is.
Mirko Bagaric of Australia’s The Advertiser goes to an extreme when he states, “It is difficult to make a stronger case for capital punishment [than for Saddam Hussein]. Yet even Saddam’s hanging was unjustifiable, and the world is a slightly worse place because of it” (Bagaric). Not only does Bagaric believe that deterrence does not occur, the execution itself is simply sending the wrong message.
Suppose we assume that capital punishment trials always determine the correct verdict and never convict an innocent person. The debate is still unable to be resolved whether or not it is ethical to purposely take another person’s life, even when it is through judicial process. Supporters believe in the reasoning of “an eye for an eye”, while opposition believe any form of killing is simply unlawful. Either way, those questionable for the death penalty deserve harsh punishment of some kind. But should this harsh punishment be in the form of life in prison without parole, or a lethal injection?
The whole point of the death penalty is to inflict the convict with the worst possible punishment, so that they too can feel the pain that they have imposed upon others due to their heartless crimes. You cannot really define what extreme cruelty is in accordance to all people. Some people may find that spending the rest of their life in prison, rotting away in a jail cell is the worst form of penalty. Others may feel that killing them and taking their whole life away is far worse. It must also be considered that it is unfair for the families of innocent victims to have to go to a cemetery to see their loved one, while the murderer’s family can still visit jail. When it comes down to it, people cannot even decide in our country today which is going to be the worst form of punishment. It is almost impossible to find a common ground when both bring up valid points.
The disagreement over the use of capital punishment has been around longer than anyone can remember. It in itself is a moral conflict. Is killing wrong all the time, or is it acceptable in certain necessary situations? We in today’s world are in no position to resolve this age-old conflict by declaring the death penalty morally just or unjust.
With or without the death penalty, we can assume that society deems it necessary behavior to punish those who break the law. The extent of punishment to be carried out is what is debatable. The death penalty argument raises not just ethical, but economic questions as well. Depending on how the evidence is presented and interpreted, the cost of the death penalty is highly disputable. On one hand, it is hard to ignore the monetary toll on taxpayers to account for a more complicated jury selection process, a longer trial, a greater number of motions and appeals and other aspects that constitute a capital punishment trial. As of 1994, a single death penalty case costs tax payers in Texas an average of $2.3 million per execution. The cost per execution in the state of Florida is even higher at $3.2 million(Dieter). It’s hard to compare this to the average cost of a holding a prisoner with a life sentence, a mere $593,000 (Heningfeld, 193). From a financial point of view, life in prison seems to be the best bet.
The main reason that the death penalty still exists despite high prices is its deterrence effect on potential future criminals. According to Joanna M. Shepherd’s testimony before the House Judiciary Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee, studies as recent as 2004 have “consistently shown that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect, with each execution deterring between 3 and 18 murders” (Heningfeld, 95). According to some opinions, the cost of losing innocent lives far outweighs a few million dollars sacrificed to pay to bring a guilty murderer to justice. Therefore the evidence supporting capital punishment’s deterrence effect makes the death penalty seem worthwhile, if not necessary. The strong support for the deterrence effect must be considered when choosing to allow or not allow this form of punishment.
Opponents of the death penalty argue fiercely against the deterrence effects of capital punishment, arguing that research and studies are flawed. In fact, the two states with the highest number of executions in 2003, Texas with 24, and Oklahoma with 14, actually saw increases in murder rates from 2002 to 2003. Even worse, “the top 13 states in terms of murder rates were all death penalty states” (Innocence and the Death Penalty). The existence of capital punishment in these states does not seem to have an effect on future murders. This is one of the main discussion points when debating the death penalty, due to such varied evidence. Depending on the study, it is truly difficult to determine whether or not murders are actually being deterred.
A commission established by the New Jersey Legislature to study the impact of capital punishment concludes that, “’Executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible mistake.’”(Graham). The committee argues that due to the chance of executing the wrong person, as remote as it might be, the risk that comes with carrying out the death penalty is not worth taking. The danger that an innocent person could be sentenced to death because of errors in our government is a big concern with capital punishment.
Statistics show that “As of March 2005, 128 innocent people have been released from death rows across the country since 1973” (Innocence and the Death Penalty). Anybody can make a mistake, nobody’s perfect, but when that mistake is taken away an innocent person’s life, it cannot be justified. There are others that believe even if the occasional innocent person is sentenced to death, this punishment will in turn save a greater number of lives. With this dilemma remaining unsettled, it is unclear what the moral solution is.
Mirko Bagaric of Australia’s The Advertiser goes to an extreme when he states, “It is difficult to make a stronger case for capital punishment [than for Saddam Hussein]. Yet even Saddam’s hanging was unjustifiable, and the world is a slightly worse place because of it” (Bagaric). Not only does Bagaric believe that deterrence does not occur, the execution itself is simply sending the wrong message.
Suppose we assume that capital punishment trials always determine the correct verdict and never convict an innocent person. The debate is still unable to be resolved whether or not it is ethical to purposely take another person’s life, even when it is through judicial process. Supporters believe in the reasoning of “an eye for an eye”, while opposition believe any form of killing is simply unlawful. Either way, those questionable for the death penalty deserve harsh punishment of some kind. But should this harsh punishment be in the form of life in prison without parole, or a lethal injection?
The whole point of the death penalty is to inflict the convict with the worst possible punishment, so that they too can feel the pain that they have imposed upon others due to their heartless crimes. You cannot really define what extreme cruelty is in accordance to all people. Some people may find that spending the rest of their life in prison, rotting away in a jail cell is the worst form of penalty. Others may feel that killing them and taking their whole life away is far worse. It must also be considered that it is unfair for the families of innocent victims to have to go to a cemetery to see their loved one, while the murderer’s family can still visit jail. When it comes down to it, people cannot even decide in our country today which is going to be the worst form of punishment. It is almost impossible to find a common ground when both bring up valid points.
The disagreement over the use of capital punishment has been around longer than anyone can remember. It in itself is a moral conflict. Is killing wrong all the time, or is it acceptable in certain necessary situations? We in today’s world are in no position to resolve this age-old conflict by declaring the death penalty morally just or unjust.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Throughout years of History, many nations have authorized the use of the death penalty as a form of punishment. Since then, some countries or states have eradicated capital punishment, imposing life sentences with no parole instead. In today’s society 34 states in our country permit executions, but the practice has long been controversial. Some believe that the death penalty should not be used in our society because there is the potential of killing innocent lives (and other reasons). Others believe that capital punishment is necessary retribution for the crime of murder.
In reaching a common ground between those that believe in the death penalty and those that do not, serious consideration should be taken. The whole point of the death penalty is to inflict the murderer with the worst possible punishment, so that they too can feel the pain that they have imposed upon others due to their heartless crimes. You cannot really define what extreme cruelty is in accordance to all people. Some people may find that spending the rest of their life in prison, rotting away in a jail cell is the worst form of penalty. Others may feel that killing them and taking their whole life away is worse. When it comes down to it, people cannot even decide in our country today which is going to be the worst form of punishment. It is hard to find a common ground when both bring up valid points.
Many consider murder to be “unlawful” killing of someone else. And it is just that, unlawful, so why is our country trying to base itself on this “unlawful” matter. What good is a corpse going to do? Is killing that murderer going to bring back the life that was murdered? Life in prison with no possibility of parole is the proper form of punishment to those who do not believe in the death penalty. It can be shown that life in prison can deter crimes from happening again. If a prisoner spends his/hers life in jail, then there is no way for them to commit another one of their murders.
Many others consider the death penalty to be used on the old reasoning of “an eye for an eye, a limb for a limb, and a life for a life.” With this argument is seems that justice is defined as you reap what you sow. The point has been brought up that “If execution is legalized murder, then imprisonment is legalized kidnapping (what would we say if one individual forcibly kept another locked up in a tiny room for years?)(Young).” Both sides have their points of validity making this argument unable to mediate.
Racial Discrimination is a big factor when considering the death penalty. To many its seems that the color of a person’s skin plays a critical and unacceptable role in capital punishment. If racial discrimination does play a part in determining whether someone receives the death penalty then that as a means of punishment should not be accepted in our society. It seems that with each coming case, there seems to statistics linking racial discrimination and the death penalty building up in society. These statistics seem to show an ugly light onto our country and government. Others might say that there is no racial discrimination in our legal system. There are also statistics that may say there is racial diversity such as: “Whites who are arrested for murder are slightly more likely to be sentenced to death than blacks arrested for murder (1.6 percent vs. 1.2 percent).” With evidence on both sides of the case, it is hard to make a clear decision on whether race is a factor in capital punishment.
One aspect of the death penalty that is hard to ignore is the high cost. Taxpayers are forced to account for a more complicated jury selection process, a longer trial, and a greater number of motions and appeals to name a few aspects that constitute a capital punishment trial. As of 1994, a single death penalty case costs tax payers in Texas an average of $2.3 million per execution. The cost per execution in the state of Florida is even higher at $3.2 million(**). It’s hard to compare this to the average cost of a holding a prisoner with a life sentence, a mere $593,000 (*).
Supporters of the death penalty argue that as a greater number of death penalty cases are resulting in executions, prosecution costs as a whole are decreasing significantly (*). With prison costs rising rapidly as more prison sentences are being issued, the costs of life sentences may eventually equal the declining costs of capital punishment.
The death penalty is often argued to have a strong deterrence effect on potential future criminals. According to Joanna M. Shepherd’s testimony before the House Judiciary Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee, studies as recent as 2004 have “consistently shown that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect, with each execution deterring between 3 and 18 murders” (*). The existence of the death penalty can be seen as a strong tool to prevent future murder. We cannot let this knowledge go to waste.
Opponents of the death penalty argue fiercely against the deterrence effects of capital punishment, arguing that research and studies are flawed. In fact, the two states with the highest number of executions in 2003, Texas with 24, and Oklahoma with 14, actually saw increases in murder rates from 2002 to 2003. Even worse, “the top 13 states in terms of murder rates were all death penalty states” (****). The existence of capital punishment in these states does not seem to have an effect on future murders. This is one of the main discussion points when debating the death penalty, due to such varied evidence. Depending on the study, it is truly difficult to determine whether or not murders are actually being deterred.
It is often noted the legal system used for determining the death sentence is not always correct. It is inevitable that executions of innocent people do occur. Needless to say, these cases are horrible blunders that result in government becoming no greater than the murderers which they aim to punish. However, increased legal procedures can eventually reduce almost all possibilities of this horrible occurrence. Ensuring the guilt of a criminal is something that cannot be taken lightly. Supporters of the death penalty argue that we must have faith in our own legal system, that the truth will be found, and proper retribution will be carried out.
The danger that an innocent person could be sentenced to death because of errors in our government is a big concern with capital punishment. Statistics show that “As of March 2005, 119 innocent people have been released from death rows across the country since 1973.” Anybody can make a mistake, nobody’s perfect, but when that mistake is taken away an innocent person’s life, it cannot be justified. There are others that believe even if the occasional innocent person is sentenced to death, this punishment will in turn save a greater number of lives. It is hard to say whether or not the death penalty should take effect because of the possibility of killing innocent lives. The question of whether it is worth it or not, is still not answered.
All of these issues concerning the death penalty still have no real answer. It is hard for a decision to be made when both sides bring about valid points for their viewpoints. Capital Punishment is hard to find a middle ground, where both sides can agree on. Until further resolutions have been made it is hard to find mediation between both sides.
Sources:
* The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints
** http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=385#sxn3
*** http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=1383
**** “Punishment”
*****http://www.karisable.com/crpundeath.htm
Young, Cathy. "Common ground on the death penalty." Reason Online 14 June 2001 10 June 2008 <http://www.reason.com/news/show/31932.html>.
http://www.karisable.com/crpundeath.htm
In reaching a common ground between those that believe in the death penalty and those that do not, serious consideration should be taken. The whole point of the death penalty is to inflict the murderer with the worst possible punishment, so that they too can feel the pain that they have imposed upon others due to their heartless crimes. You cannot really define what extreme cruelty is in accordance to all people. Some people may find that spending the rest of their life in prison, rotting away in a jail cell is the worst form of penalty. Others may feel that killing them and taking their whole life away is worse. When it comes down to it, people cannot even decide in our country today which is going to be the worst form of punishment. It is hard to find a common ground when both bring up valid points.
Many consider murder to be “unlawful” killing of someone else. And it is just that, unlawful, so why is our country trying to base itself on this “unlawful” matter. What good is a corpse going to do? Is killing that murderer going to bring back the life that was murdered? Life in prison with no possibility of parole is the proper form of punishment to those who do not believe in the death penalty. It can be shown that life in prison can deter crimes from happening again. If a prisoner spends his/hers life in jail, then there is no way for them to commit another one of their murders.
Many others consider the death penalty to be used on the old reasoning of “an eye for an eye, a limb for a limb, and a life for a life.” With this argument is seems that justice is defined as you reap what you sow. The point has been brought up that “If execution is legalized murder, then imprisonment is legalized kidnapping (what would we say if one individual forcibly kept another locked up in a tiny room for years?)(Young).” Both sides have their points of validity making this argument unable to mediate.
Racial Discrimination is a big factor when considering the death penalty. To many its seems that the color of a person’s skin plays a critical and unacceptable role in capital punishment. If racial discrimination does play a part in determining whether someone receives the death penalty then that as a means of punishment should not be accepted in our society. It seems that with each coming case, there seems to statistics linking racial discrimination and the death penalty building up in society. These statistics seem to show an ugly light onto our country and government. Others might say that there is no racial discrimination in our legal system. There are also statistics that may say there is racial diversity such as: “Whites who are arrested for murder are slightly more likely to be sentenced to death than blacks arrested for murder (1.6 percent vs. 1.2 percent).” With evidence on both sides of the case, it is hard to make a clear decision on whether race is a factor in capital punishment.
One aspect of the death penalty that is hard to ignore is the high cost. Taxpayers are forced to account for a more complicated jury selection process, a longer trial, and a greater number of motions and appeals to name a few aspects that constitute a capital punishment trial. As of 1994, a single death penalty case costs tax payers in Texas an average of $2.3 million per execution. The cost per execution in the state of Florida is even higher at $3.2 million(**). It’s hard to compare this to the average cost of a holding a prisoner with a life sentence, a mere $593,000 (*).
Supporters of the death penalty argue that as a greater number of death penalty cases are resulting in executions, prosecution costs as a whole are decreasing significantly (*). With prison costs rising rapidly as more prison sentences are being issued, the costs of life sentences may eventually equal the declining costs of capital punishment.
The death penalty is often argued to have a strong deterrence effect on potential future criminals. According to Joanna M. Shepherd’s testimony before the House Judiciary Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee, studies as recent as 2004 have “consistently shown that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect, with each execution deterring between 3 and 18 murders” (*). The existence of the death penalty can be seen as a strong tool to prevent future murder. We cannot let this knowledge go to waste.
Opponents of the death penalty argue fiercely against the deterrence effects of capital punishment, arguing that research and studies are flawed. In fact, the two states with the highest number of executions in 2003, Texas with 24, and Oklahoma with 14, actually saw increases in murder rates from 2002 to 2003. Even worse, “the top 13 states in terms of murder rates were all death penalty states” (****). The existence of capital punishment in these states does not seem to have an effect on future murders. This is one of the main discussion points when debating the death penalty, due to such varied evidence. Depending on the study, it is truly difficult to determine whether or not murders are actually being deterred.
It is often noted the legal system used for determining the death sentence is not always correct. It is inevitable that executions of innocent people do occur. Needless to say, these cases are horrible blunders that result in government becoming no greater than the murderers which they aim to punish. However, increased legal procedures can eventually reduce almost all possibilities of this horrible occurrence. Ensuring the guilt of a criminal is something that cannot be taken lightly. Supporters of the death penalty argue that we must have faith in our own legal system, that the truth will be found, and proper retribution will be carried out.
The danger that an innocent person could be sentenced to death because of errors in our government is a big concern with capital punishment. Statistics show that “As of March 2005, 119 innocent people have been released from death rows across the country since 1973.” Anybody can make a mistake, nobody’s perfect, but when that mistake is taken away an innocent person’s life, it cannot be justified. There are others that believe even if the occasional innocent person is sentenced to death, this punishment will in turn save a greater number of lives. It is hard to say whether or not the death penalty should take effect because of the possibility of killing innocent lives. The question of whether it is worth it or not, is still not answered.
All of these issues concerning the death penalty still have no real answer. It is hard for a decision to be made when both sides bring about valid points for their viewpoints. Capital Punishment is hard to find a middle ground, where both sides can agree on. Until further resolutions have been made it is hard to find mediation between both sides.
Sources:
* The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints
** http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=45&did=385#sxn3
*** http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=1383
**** “Punishment”
*****http://www.karisable.com/crpundeath.htm
Young, Cathy. "Common ground on the death penalty." Reason Online 14 June 2001 10 June 2008 <http://www.reason.com/news/show/31932.html>.
http://www.karisable.com/crpundeath.htm
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
The death penalty is a necessary form of punishment in the United States. There are several reasons for supporting this controversial issue.
First of all, the overall benefit for society is too great to disregard. Advantages from being able to execute murderers are too great to ignore, and far outweigh the potential risk of sentencing an innocent person to death. Capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect on potential future criminals. Each execution deters between 3 and 18 murders. Therefore, even if the occasional innocent person is sentenced to death, this punishment will in turn save a greater number of lives. Of course, our country carries out the death penalty with the assumption that the convicted person is truly guilty. With this assumption holding true in the vast majority of cases, capital punishment is effective in providing just retribution for the worst of criminals, while deterring future murders.
Capital punishment is the best way to give horrible murderers what they deserve. Do cold-blooded, anonymous murderers of random people deserve any better than to have their life taken in return? The moral answer is no, because this society sets the standard that assaults on human life will not be tolerated. Of course, the murderers would be subject to trial by jury to ensure the suspect's guilt. Death penalties are not taken lightly and the evidence to prove one's guilt must be overwhelming. Though it may take time and money, it is necessary to send the right message of retribution, instead of simply locking a killer away in a prison.
From an economic standpoint, costs of execution are decreasing while the cost of maintaining a prisoner with a life sentence is constantly rising. So much so, that it can no longer be argued that the price of capital punishment is too high.
Many people believe that the death penalty discriminates against minorities. This accusation is completely false.Whites who are arrested for murder are slightly more likely to be sentenced to death than blacks arrested for murder (1.6 percent vs. 1.2 percent). This proves that there is no racial discrimination against minorities.
In conclusion, it is clear that the death penalty must be maintained as a necessary form of punishment for this world's worst criminals.
First of all, the overall benefit for society is too great to disregard. Advantages from being able to execute murderers are too great to ignore, and far outweigh the potential risk of sentencing an innocent person to death. Capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect on potential future criminals. Each execution deters between 3 and 18 murders. Therefore, even if the occasional innocent person is sentenced to death, this punishment will in turn save a greater number of lives. Of course, our country carries out the death penalty with the assumption that the convicted person is truly guilty. With this assumption holding true in the vast majority of cases, capital punishment is effective in providing just retribution for the worst of criminals, while deterring future murders.
Capital punishment is the best way to give horrible murderers what they deserve. Do cold-blooded, anonymous murderers of random people deserve any better than to have their life taken in return? The moral answer is no, because this society sets the standard that assaults on human life will not be tolerated. Of course, the murderers would be subject to trial by jury to ensure the suspect's guilt. Death penalties are not taken lightly and the evidence to prove one's guilt must be overwhelming. Though it may take time and money, it is necessary to send the right message of retribution, instead of simply locking a killer away in a prison.
From an economic standpoint, costs of execution are decreasing while the cost of maintaining a prisoner with a life sentence is constantly rising. So much so, that it can no longer be argued that the price of capital punishment is too high.
Many people believe that the death penalty discriminates against minorities. This accusation is completely false.Whites who are arrested for murder are slightly more likely to be sentenced to death than blacks arrested for murder (1.6 percent vs. 1.2 percent). This proves that there is no racial discrimination against minorities.
In conclusion, it is clear that the death penalty must be maintained as a necessary form of punishment for this world's worst criminals.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The death penalty is a necessary form of punishment in the United States. There are several reasons for supporting this controversial issue.
First of all, many argue that there is the possibility of convicting and killing an innocent person by mistake. It can’t be denied that it is immoral to kill innocent people. This fact, however, is one reason why the death penalty should be allowed. The benefits gained by society from being able to execute murderers far outweigh the potential risk of sentencing an innocent person to death. Capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect on potential future criminals. Each execution deters between 3 and 18 murders. Therefore, even if the occasional innocent person is sentenced to death, this punishment will in turn save a greater number of lives. Of course, our country carries out the death penalty with the assumption that the convicted person is truly guilty. With this assumption holding true in the vast majority of cases, capital punishment is effective in providing just retribution for the worst of criminals, while deterring future murders.
The opinion that the death penalty discriminates against racial minorities is false. Whites who are arrested for murder are slightly more likely to be sentenced to death than blacks arrested for murder (1.6 percent vs. 1.2 percent). This proves that there is no racial discrimination against minorities.
First of all, many argue that there is the possibility of convicting and killing an innocent person by mistake. It can’t be denied that it is immoral to kill innocent people. This fact, however, is one reason why the death penalty should be allowed. The benefits gained by society from being able to execute murderers far outweigh the potential risk of sentencing an innocent person to death. Capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect on potential future criminals. Each execution deters between 3 and 18 murders. Therefore, even if the occasional innocent person is sentenced to death, this punishment will in turn save a greater number of lives. Of course, our country carries out the death penalty with the assumption that the convicted person is truly guilty. With this assumption holding true in the vast majority of cases, capital punishment is effective in providing just retribution for the worst of criminals, while deterring future murders.
The opinion that the death penalty discriminates against racial minorities is false. Whites who are arrested for murder are slightly more likely to be sentenced to death than blacks arrested for murder (1.6 percent vs. 1.2 percent). This proves that there is no racial discrimination against minorities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)