Capital Punishment Is It Required Essay Research

Capital Punishment: Is It Required Essay, Research Paper

Capital Punishment: Is It Required

Looking out for the state of the public’s satisfaction in the scheme of

capital sentencing does not constitute serving justice. Today’s system of

capital punishment is fraught with inequalities and injustices. The commonly

offered arguments for the death penalty are filled with holes. “It was a

deterrent. It removed killers. It was the ultimate punishment. It is biblical.

It satisfied the public’s need for retribution. It relieved the anguish of the

victim’s family.”(Grisham 120) Realistically, imposing the death penalty is

expensive and time consuming. Retroactively, it has yet to be proven as a

deterrent. Morally, it is a continuation of the cycle of violence and

“…degrades all who are involved in its enforcement, as well as its

victim.”(Stewart 1) Capital Punishment has been part of the criminal justice

system since the earliest of times. The Babylonian Hammurabi Code(ca. 1700 B.C.)

decreed death for crimes as minor as the fraudulent sale of beer(Flanders 3).

Egyptians could be put to death for disclosing the location of sacred burial

sites(Flanders 3). However, in recent times opponents have shown the death

penalty to be racist, barbaric, and in violation with the United States

Constitution as “…cruel and unusual punishment.” In this country, although

laws governing the application of the death penalty have undergone many changes

since biblical times, the punishment endures, and controversy has never been

greater.

Perhaps the most frequent argument for capital punishment is that of

deterrence. The prevailing thought is that imposition of the death penalty will

act to dissuade other criminals from committing violent acts. Numerous studies

have been created attempting to prove this belief; however, “All the evidence

taken together makes it hard to be confident that capital punishment deters more

than long prison terms do.”(Cavanagh 4) Going ever farther, Bryan Stevenson,

the executive director of the Montgomery based Equal Justice Initiative, has

stated that “people are increasingly realizing that the more we resort to

killing as a legitimate response to our frustration and anger with violence, the

more violent our society becomes.

“Revenge is an unworthy motive for our society to pursue.”(Whittier 1)

In our society, there is a great expectation placed on the family of a victim

to pursue vengeance to the highest degree — perhaps 1 the death penalty. Pat

Bane, executive director of the Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation

(MVFR), stated, “One parent told me that people made her feel like she was

betraying her son because she did not want to kill the person who murdered

him.”(Frame 50) This creates a dilemma of morality. If anything, by forcing

families to seek the death penalty, their own consciences will be burdened by

the death of the killer. Furthermore, “Killing him will not bring back your

son[s].”(Grisham 402). At some point, man must stop the violence. Seeking

temporary gratification is not a logical basis for whether the death penalty

should be imposed. Granted, revenge is easily confused with retribution, and

most would agree that the punishment should fit the crime, but can society

really justify murdering someone else simply on the basis that they deserved it.

Government has the right and duty to protect the greater good against people who

jeopardize the welfare of society, but a killer can be sentenced to life without

chance of parole, and society will be just as safe as if he had been executed.

The key part of the death penalty is that it involves death — something

which is rather permanent for humans, due to the concept of mortality. This

creates a major problem when “there continue to be many instances of innocent

people being sentenced to death.”(Tabak 38) In the United States legal system,

there exist numerous ways in which justice might be poorly served for a

recipient of the death sentence. Foremost is in the handling of his own defense

counsel. In the event that a defendant is without counsel, a lawyer will be

provided. “Attorney’s appointed to represent indigent capital defendants

frequently lack the qualities necessary to provide a competent defense and

sometimes have exhibited such poor character that they have subsequently been

disbarred.”(Tabak 37). With payment caps or court determined sums of, for

example, $5 an hour, there is not much incentive for a lawyer to spend a great

deal of time representing a capital defendant. When you compare this to the

prosecution, “aided by the police, other law enforcement agencies, crime labs,

state mental hospitals, various other scientific resources, prosecutors

experienced in successfully handling capital cases, compulsory process, and

grand juries”(Tabak 37), the defense that the court appointed

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать