欢迎来到留学生英语论文网

当前位置:首页 > 论文范文 > Philosophy

The Use Of Capital Punishment Philosophy Essay

发布时间:2017-04-04
该论文是我们的学员投稿,并非我们专家级的写作水平!如果你有论文作业写作指导需求请联系我们的客服人员

Murder is defined by Merriam Webster as the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. People seem to think that criminals deserve the most extreme punishment under the law, the death penalty. The use of capital punishment, or in other words, the death penalty, is one of the most argued and controversial method of punishment. 37 of 50 states enforce the death penalty. Also referred to as the death penalty a person can be given the punishment after being convicted by the court of law. Capital punishment is considered to be different from extrajudicial executions. The use of capital punishment goes years back to ancient times. This brings up a large amount of questions and strong opinions on whether this justifiable or not. Crime calls for punishment, and some people believe that the punishment is necessary. The most common argument for this the famous biblical passage "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" concept from the Old Testament. Then there are others who are in between who think that there is no correct answer. Then we have those who oppose of the death penalty fully. These people claim that though the person who committed the crime is dead, it doesn't change the situation at hand and you're just doing the same thing that the person did, only that is sanctioned under the law. Supporters of capital punishment back their views using the eye for an eye clause and the use of execution makes places safer.

To many, a crime can be considered so serious that it could cause damage or the loss of human life, then the only penalty for such crimes would be death. If a person can have the audacity to plot and carry out this type of horror, that person must also be able to face the consequences that come with that crime. Its cruelty factor makes it a just punishment. Capital punishment is a penalty of ancient times, though the methods and the overall definition has evolved over time. "In eighteenth century Massachusetts, for example, capital crimes included blasphemy, and the worship of false gods" (Mckenna and Feingold 140). In the twentieth century, legal executions were evoked for crimes such as burglary, rape, robberies, and attempted murder. The bulk of these executions were for murder, at a whopping 90 percent. The use of the death penalty however, was limited and rare. In the World War II era, the use of executions skyrocketed on both sides of the spectrum due in part of the Nuremburg trials. That changed with the court case Furman v. Georgia in 1972. "…many thought-mistakenly-abolished capital punishment in America". The argument in that case was that the use of capital punishment was a violation of the Eight Amendment's protection from "cruel and unusual punishment" (McKenna and Feingold 141). Another court case, Gregg v. Georgia upheld the usage of capital punishment under certain circumstances. Theses "aggravated circumstances" made it impervious to the Eight Amendment challenges. However, the legislation of individual states can choose to abolish the death penalty as they see fit, though it is highly unlikely that it would happen. After being reinstated in 1976, Congress also decided to compose its own death penalty laws in legislation. For example, 1988 legislation allowed the death penalty for drug kingpins for "intentionally killing or ordering anyone's death and in 1994 adding the option of the death penalty for other federal crimes in 1994.

There is the argument that such a punishment [death penalty] would keep dangerous criminals from being on the street of our children and innocent citizens. That it will assist to instill fear in criminals into not committing crimes for fear of the ultimate punishment. However, there are those criminals who are so mentally unstable and sick that the use of capital punishment would be a thrill for them. The rationale behind this is that if potential killers know that are going to die, they will less than likely to commit these extreme crimes. Another point of this concept is the justice attributed to society. As the country's communities are begging for that sense of security, they also want a sense of security to go along with this. This is essential for order to be continuous in a society. If criminals are allowed to get a tap on the wrist with such a serious crime like murder, and chaos would ensue. A life sentence, two life sentences, three life sentences is not enough. The person can have the opportunity to commit a murder while in these institutions. Those who are for the use of capital punishment, they feel the government are the ones to be vigilant enough to protect its innocent citizens from further harm.

"The most common theory on the issue of U.S. capital punishment is that the crime problem is far worse in the United States than in other comparable countries, even though there have been substantial fluctuations in violent crime rates since the 1960's" (Bae 87). During this time, the rate of murder in the U.S was higher than those of countries in Europe. Seventy percent of Americans support of the death penalty, and around twenty percent are against it. As you can see, there are limited amounts of the population who disown the use of the capital punishment method. As the use of capital punishment increases, the controversy surrounding it will as well. Twelve states remain who don't enforce the death penalty, but that could change soon. The use of clauses as I stated earlier by legislation have placed the use of the death penalty into question. The death penalty is observed as cruel and unusual but what is considered to be cruel and usual by the public had changed. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". This is stated in the 5th amendment of our bill of rights. This brings about the question: are we violating our own rights? Former Supreme Court judge William J. Brennan say this when giving the verdict of Gregg v. Gerorgia: "Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment... The fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death is that it treats 'members of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded" (Death Penalty). However in a more recent court case, Baze v. Reeds Chief Justice John G. Roberts stated, "Simply because an execution method may result in pain, either by accident or as an inescapable consequence of death, does not establish the sort of 'objectively intolerable risk of harm" that qualifies as cruel and unusual..." (Death Penalty). America has substituted certain methods of punishment that were more inhumane to quicker and less painful alternatives: gas chamber, electric chair, and the more popular lethal injection method.

There is also the question of wrongful death. There are a number of people who are or were on death row and were innocent. "Within the past few years, independent investigations by major news organizations have uncovered cases…where people were put to death for crimes that they did not commit"(Mckenna and Feingold 154). It's hard to figure out how many people have been executed as after someone is put to death there is usually no continuation of a case as it is presumed closed. This minuscule amount of mistakes is small compared to what people would have to endure without it. This point is contested though with the argument that the developments in DNA testing. "Irrefutable DNA evidence has exonerated some 15 death-row inmates and almost 200 other men convicted of murder or rape, mostly since the late 1990s.  This DNA-evidence revolution, along with non-DNA evidence proving the innocence of a great many more condemned men and other prisoners, has alerted many who support the death penalty in principle to the fallibility of the criminal-justice system and the risk of executing innocent people" (Death Penalty) Does this necessarily mean that the justice system is so advanced, so developed, so full proof, that its 100% error free? The answer to that would be no. According to Gwendolyn Carroll, "...post-conviction DNA testing, more often than not, provides either inconclusive results or, in many cases, confirms the guilt of the prisoner seeking testing.  In addition, DNA testing is costly, time-consuming, and provides an additional administrative burden on already over-extended state criminal justice systems."(Death Penalty)

There are also issues of social injustices associated with the death penalty. In other words whether or not capital punishment favors one demographic over another and biases. The NAACP believes that African Americans are the model minority for the death penalty as their website published and article that implied so. "Despite the fact that African Americans make up only 13 percent of the nation's population, almost 50 percent of those currently on the federal death row are African American".(Death Penalty) Others believe that this isn't true and that on the contrary that the death penalty is equal to every person. According to Roger Clegg, "The fact that blacks and Hispanics are charged with capital crimes out of proportion to their numbers in the general population may simply mean that blacks and Hispanics commit capital crimes out of proportion to their numbers. And, of course, they do". This may seem like biasness in itself as the NAACP is an organization dedicated to blacks and legal issues, but other organizations have acknowledged some type of correlation between the usage of capital punishment and race. The ACLU, or American Civil Liberties Union, composed an article that affirmed, "The color of a defendant and victim's skin plays a crucial and unacceptable role in deciding who receives the death penalty in America" (Death Penalty). Are we so blind as to not indicate that the justice system favors minorities over the majority when it comes to such a defining moment like passing judgment on a person's life?

Concern of capital punishment is not only related to social problems, but also to religious views. There are arrays of passages from the Bible that are in favor of the death penalty, but are offered up to interpretation. One such passage comes from the book of Genesis which may be in support:"Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Though it could be supporting the death penalty, there is a sense of ambiguity. Religions like Buddhism look down upon the use of capital punishment as it is not in line with their teachings. "The death penalty is inconsistent with Buddhist teachings, since philosophically, capital punishment and Buddhism are a false paradox"(Death Penalty).

Morals come into play when discussing a sensitive topic such as this. Is it right to take someone's life? Do we have that right? "It [capital punishment] is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice... No one deserves to die" (Death Penalty). The judicial system puts someone on trial for murder, they are convicted sentenced to death and then killed. Is this any better than what the person did to receive the punishment in the first place? It is still murder it's just justifiable under the law. The people who support the use of capital punishment have another opinion, claiming a person is not being demeaned in any way, shape or form. "…but that is an article of faith, not of fact, just like the opposite position held by abolitionist detractors, including myself... The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense, and thus subject even to butchery to satiate human glutton" (Death Penalty). This then goes right into another point: should executions be public? Should we have the right to observe a criminal die or respect the fact that the person is a human being and not the next Twilight movie? The most famous example of public execution involved Timothy McVeigh, a terrorist who bombed a federal building in Oklahoma in 1995. His execution was made a spectacle on television in 2001. In defense of televising the execution, Dr. Louis P. Pojman stated that "Public executions of the convicted murderer would serve as a reminder that crime does not pay" (Death Penalty). Televising the execution then was more or less using McVeigh as an example that if you commit a crime of this caliber expect consequences: Though on a surprising note, the warder of Terre Haute United States Penitentiary, the same penitentiary that Timothy McVeigh was serving out his time until his death had this to say about the situation: "the government's interests in not sensationalizing and preserving the solemnity of executions is based upon the danger that if prison inmates were to see the execution on television or receive word of the televised event through other means, the inmates may well see the execution as 'sport' which dehumanizes them…" (Death Penalty). Public executions were outlawed years before the McVeigh execution, the last being that of Rainey Bethea, a black man who was convicted of raping and murdering his 70 year old white employer. Hundreds of journalists came to report the story and thousands of spectators came and observed the hanging. The only probable explanation for the exception with Timothy McVeigh was that he "personally requested that his execution be publicized in a letter he composed to the Daily Oklahoman" (Bae 85).

The eradication of the capital punishment system in the US could create many unhappy citizens, and create a rift in the government. Capital punishment has worked to lower homicide and discourage criminals. The belief is that putting the murders of society in jail will keep them from killing again. This, sadly is false. Just because a criminal is in jail, doesn't mean that they still can't kill. Some will continue to commit the crime, only difference is that it's a change of environment. The delusion is that enforcing capital punishment, officials think that the criminals won't kill again, and if jailing them only gives them a chance to kill again, then capital punishment would be a better choice.

Capital punishment also helps citizens by reducing the cost of feeding and housing criminals. The death penalty was thought to be the more expensive alternative than that of life imprisonment. The mean price of maintaining a death row inmate is around $16,000. Which means citizens are paying millions upon millions of dollars to keep that one person alive in prison? "The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life. Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state's executions."(Death Penalty Information Center) But, you have to take into consideration that there are thousands of others who are on death row as well. The government can easily cut the costs if the system would just execute the person in a timelier manner. Or better yet we could use the money that we are using to kill each other and put it to better use. Irrigate it into our failing school systems so we will have more upstanding citizens, Pay off the gargantuan debt that we owe to China, clean the oil spill in the Gulf more efficiently.

A little known bit of information is how the criminals are treated while on death row. Felons have privileges to exercise to work out and socialize with other inmates. Citizens are providing that with their tax dollars. In addition to clothing and feeding the inmates, the prisons are also forced to release thousands of prisoners every year back on to the streets due to a lack of room and funds. "By allowing so many felons to live on death row, instead of carrying out their punishments, the tax payers are aiding in the care and well-being of hundreds of convicted murders" (Capital Punishment). The US accepts the death penalty politically. "The use of capital punishment is generally accepted, with 78 percent of the Republican Party and 52 percent the Democratic Party in support of its use for the crime of murder. The Constitution Party is in support of the death penalty, and the Green Party is opposed to its use" (Wikipedia).Its use abroad however is divided. According to Wikipedia, Europe has disallowed it with the exception of two countries, one who uses it on a regular basis while the other uses it in times of war. Africa, Asia, and the Middle East are not opposed to using it, opting for the more grotesque methods of capital punishment.

Finally there comes into fruition the main attraction: is capital punishment just vengeance of the law? There are many who justify and support the use of it, using all the reasoning stated above: but why? Has there ever been a time where someone has hurt you in a way that you thought that you wanted to do something to that person ten times worse. Is capital punishment just that, the vengeful person who wants payback? In the words of Dr. Pojman, "People often confuse retribution with revenge... Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done" (Death Penalty). A parent will tell you that disciplining a child is justified because the child won't do it again if they know it's wrong, when in reality any type of punishment is just retaliation; I don't like what you did so now I chose what happens to you as a consequence. On the hand, advocates of the death penalty have argued that there is no "bad blood" when it comes to execution. "To kill the person who has killed someone close to you is simply to continue the cycle of violence, which ultimately destroys the avenger as well as the offender" (Death Penalty). The question is then: why does the judicial system sanction it? If this quotation is true, why was capital punishment even thought of? Why did people create laws defending it and an even better question: if the cycle of violence is continued, when will it end?

上一篇:The Importance Of Memory Continuity Philosophy Essay 下一篇:The Subjective Opinion Of Artistic Judgement Philosophy Essay