Critical Thinking, NO PLAGARISM.

Death Penalty

Latonya Louden

Strayer University

Professor Savaiano

10/14/17

Death Penalty

Death Penalty is a form of capital punishment which involves execution of murderers. The death penalty can also be applied to people who have committed treason, espionage among other crimes. People who advocate for this form of capital punishment argue that death penalty is a less expensive way to solve murder cases, helps maintain law and order and that it discourages potential offenders from committing such crimes. Proponents of death penalty further argue that this judgment helps appease the victims’ families, shows honor to the victim and that it rules out the possibility of the offender ever committing a similar crime.

Personally, am of the opinion that death penalty is not the most appropriate solution for capital offenses. For starters, there are no significant differences in crime rates in states that allow death penalty and those which do not. Besides, I feel that no one, even governments, has the right to take away human life. Furthermore, the death penalty is unjust as it favors the rich who can afford good lawyers. It also tends to be a little prejudiced against the minority races. In a span of four decades (from 1977 to 2016), the United States has executed more than 1400 people. I would preferably a life sentence than a death penalty as I believe life sentences to be less severe and less expensive.

One of the significant concerns according to me is the question of whether the death sentence is ethical or immoral. Personally, I believe that death penalty is immoral and unethical and a sharp violation of human rights. According to Semon Frank, a former Oregon State Penitentiary superintendent, judges who are involved in such cases are thrown into more profound convictions with their feelings leaving feelings of guilt and much contemplation (Thompson, 2017). On a moral perspective, capital punishment is a failed policy. However, an article by Edward Feser, an associate professor argues otherwise. It states that death penalties are reserved for the worst of the worst cases committed by the most brutal murderers hence justifying capital punishment as the most appropriate solution due to the heinousness of the crimes ("Why the Death Penalty is Still Necessary – Catholic World Report," 2017)

Capital punishment is immoral in principle. In practice, it is both unfair and discriminatory since no one has the right to take another person's life. It is not right to treat criminals with the same treatment they meted on their victims. Capital punishment is a barbaric practice and depicts a society as uncivilized and savage. However, proponents of death penalties, such as Alex Kozinski, a judge of the United States Court of Appeals believes that it is immoral for a society to fail to demand the life of someone who has murdered another. Others think that capital punishment is morally necessary as it will prevent offenders from taking innocent lives.

According to the Koran, Human life is God-given, and no one is allowed to take what is God justified. An article by the National Catholic reporter states that, like Jesus, we should learn to forgive those who hurt us or our loved ones and love those who have been condemned rather than judge them. That will help us stop the wheel of violence that keeps going around. The Jewish Social Policy Action Network pushes for the abolition of the death penalty as it is immoral and constitutes a cruel and unreasonable punishment that depict a culture of violence and misleads the young generations. J. Budziszewski, an associate professor at the University of Texas, believes that capital punishment should be upheld as it shows reverence for life itself and its abolition threatens to cheapen life.

The opinions of proponents who believe that death penalty is moral and ethical bring to the surface quite interesting facts. For example, the relatives of the victims feel that justice has been administered when the offender hangs. Another point is that defenders of death penalties are retributivists and consequentialists. If I believed that capital punishment is morally right, I would probably notice that the concept of death penalty conflicts with religious beliefs. Although it might be right according to me and the society I live in, it is morally wrong to take the lives of others even if they are murderers (Novek, 2011). Under certain conditions, the opinions of proponents of capital punishment might be correct. For example in countries where the correctional facilities and prisons are not well guarded, the escape of murder convicts who have life sentences is a significant risk. These convicts might hurt the people who contribute to their imprisonment. Another scenario is where the murder cases are very rampant, and the governments want to control the trend. Also, for people who have committed crimes such as treason, for example, organizing a coupe, which threatens the lives of many people and gross instability to a country, death sentences might be considered (Novek, 2011).

The second issue is the question of whether life in prison without parole is better than the death penalty (Appleton & Grover, 2006). I believe that death sentences cost more, is less efficient and might lead to the prosecution of innocent lives. In my opinion, life in prison without parole is better than death penalty as it provides a better and less brutal alternative for murder victim families and the overall public safety. The people who prefer death sentences to life in prison often argue that life in prison is an unnecessary torture as parole prisoners are condemned to the worst prisons which are designed to be punitive (Hoffman, 2005). Convicts in maximum security prisons often do not have access to restorative and rehabilitative programs.

Prisoners serving life sentences often suffer psychiatric symptoms from extreme depression to active psychosis (Hoffman, 2005). Defenders of death sentences argue that prisoners who have been in isolation for long periods of time tend to lose their sanity and lowers their human dignity. Life in prison has a lot of retributive power and should not be viewed as lenient in any sense. It is, however, the best alternative for capital offenses since it is less expensive and less exhaustive.

The advocates of death sentences bring about some relevant facts. For example, Ronald Earle, an attorney, argues that offenders can kill again while in prison hence bringing out the risks associated with life imprisonment. The psychological and emotional torture on the prisoners who are serving life sentences also makes one wonder if a death sentence could have been a more lenient sentence (Appleton & Grover, 2006). If I were a death sentence defendant, I would notice that even most of the prisoners serving life sentences would have preferred a quick 15-20 minute activity than a lifetime torture. Kenneth Hartman a prisoner serving life in prison views LWOP prisoners as dead men walking whose lives are devoid of any possibility of restoration.

Finally, the question of whether death penalties should be allowed or not is very crucial in this discussion. Personally, I feel it should be abolished, it is immoral, unfair and discriminatory and is not sufficient as a remedy for crime. The current US president, Donald J. Trump feels that death sentences should be brought back. The Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association believe that abolishing death penalties translates to denying murder victims justice. However, a former death penalty proponent Ron Briggs feels that the policy is destructive to the nation. He believes that the system benefits only criminals and attorneys and is a high burden to taxpayers and doesn't quite deliver the justice it is usually credited for.

In a June 2000 article, the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush vowed to protect the law whether it affected him politically or not. He argued that by supporting the death penalty, he was saving lives of innocent citizens. The Economist, however, opposes the death penalty claiming that it is inhuman and it is prone to injustices ("Capital punishment | Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance," 2017). In my opinion, no matter how heinous crime is, offenders should be given a chance to correct their mistakes and improve their lives. I believe criminal activity can still be controlled without resorting to inhumane methods. Hindu tradition allows capital punishment. According to an article by Hinduism today, crimes being committed in the modern times are even more heinous than in the past, and since capital punishment is sanctioned by the scriptures, it should continue.

It is interesting to note that a former US president was a capital punishment defendant and the sitting president thinks that it should be brought back. The California District Attorneys Association also feels that the death penalty is the will of the people of California and life in prison is not adequate to punish the extremely horrible crimes being witnessed. Another point worth noticing is that states without the death penalties perform better concerning crime reduction than the countries where the death penalty is allowed. According to the US. Death Penalty Information Center's former director, Richard Dieter, the death penalty wastes millions of dollars on a few individuals without any control over the outcome. In situations where life imprisonments have proved ineffective in controlling crime rates or where there are cases of people being killed by murderers who were allowed parole. In places where convicts have escaped from prison, death penalties can also be upheld.

References

Appleton, C., & Grover, B. (2006). The Pros and Cons of Life Without Parole. British Journal Of Criminology, 47(4), 597-615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azm001

Capital punishment | Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance. (2017). The Economist. Retrieved 11 October 2017, from http://www.economist.com/topics/capital-punishment

Hoffman, K. (2005). Book Review: Life Without Parole: Living in Prison TodayLife Without Parole: Living in Prison TodayHassineVictor3d ed.Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. 2004. 267 pp. $38.95. Teaching Sociology, 33(2), 229-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092055x0503300214

Novak, E. (2011). The Alternatives to Violence Project's Work for Peace Behind Bars. Peace Review, 23(3), 335-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10402659.2011.596061

Thompson, S. (2017). Opinion | What I Learned From Executing Two Men. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 11 October 2017, from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/18/opinion/sunday/what-i-learned-from-executing-two-men.html

Why the Death Penalty is Still Necessary – Catholic World Report. (2017). Catholicworldreport.com. Retrieved 11 October 2017, from http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/07/18/why-the-death-penalty-is-still-necessary/