paraphrase T2

Death Penalty

A policy claim is a piece of argument that holds that a certain condition or position should be upheld or let to exist. A policy claim therefore expresses the writer’s argument that the position is necessary and hence portrays a sense of obligation. A policy claim can therefore be easily recognized because of the modal verbs used in it like ‘must’, ‘ought to’, ‘need’ or even ‘have to’ among others. The modal verbs play a crucial role in communicating the sense of obligation. The claim of policy therefore goes ahead to advocate for the adoption of a specific policy because there is a problem at hand that calls for a solution. The society we live in has always relied on punishment as a way of discouraging persons who would undertake criminal activities from engaging in such unlawful actions. The same society we live in, somehow believes that murder tops the least of criminal acts and as such must be discouraged by attaching the strongest punishment for would be violators, the death penalty. Even the bible prescribes a death penalty for murder. The rationale being that when a murderer is executed through a death sentence, the would-be murderers would not even toy with the idea of killing someone because they would be afraid to lose their own lives in the process. For several years, criminologists have studied the rates of murder to establish if indeed there is how they are reduced by the very likelihood that convicted murderers would always be executed but the results from such studies continue to be inconclusive. Those who are of the school of thought that the death penalty indeed prevented new murder cases hold that the inconclusiveness of these studies is probably simply because the death penalty is an intervention that is rarely used.

They hold that even when used, it is always because of a long process that takes several years before it is finally done. This piece is going to argue against death penalty as a deterrence tool against murder.

In Europe, the campaign against the death penalty started back in the 1750s by academicians like Voltaire and Jeremy Bentham. These brains held that the death penalty was unnecessarily overrated as a crime deterrence tool and that it was unnecessarily cruel. They instead advocated for life imprisonment as an alternative means of punishing such offenders. This was the beginning of a worldwide move to see the death penalty abolished. The state of Michigan in the US was the first one in the United States of America to abolish death penalty in 1847 (Bedau, pg 34). Several other countries across the world more so in Western Europe and Latin America have since abolished it. The British however abolished it in 1965. All these were because there was a problem since even persons who were only supposed to be guilty of manslaughter, ended up being convicted for a death penalty (Heilbrun, pg 57). Besides this, there are several social, ethical and moral issues that death penalty seriously violates but it does not even result in deterrent as claimed by its proponents.

There is indeed a problem with the death penalty because apart from the issue of deterrence there is also the issue of morality that continue to bedevil it even today. It is a non-contested belief in the moral circles that the state does not enjoy the absolute right to put its people to death. The question of whether two wrongs in terms of killing someone who had murdered the other, has continued to elicit mixed reactions among the public. It is worth noting here that even in the face of these moral questions, a large majority of the population like in the UK, still favor the application of death penalty for murder criminals. It is worth believing that in the event that a majority of the people stand for something especially in a democracy, it is only fair that their opinion is factored in but with equal consideration for the downside of their views (Bedau, pg 178). There are those who argue in favor of the death penalty by insisting that either way, people are still going to die even if not by a decision of the court. Others have held that the argument against the death penalty is biased since those advocating it have not raised their voices against death cases resulting from activities of the doctor or even from suffering terminal illnesses like cancer.

The first argument is that death penalty permanently incapacitates the criminal. This sees to it that the justice system eliminates the hardcore criminals and hence has been seen as a safety measure for those who would fall victims of the criminal because it is common sense that a dead criminal has no capacity to commit crime again. The second argument has been that it is better to eliminate these cruel criminals rather than use the taxpayer’s money to take care of them in state prisons. In the US, the cost has been that of executing the offender since the US legal system allows for several appeals that can go for as long as 12 years unlike in the UK where the average time is between 3 to 8 weeks and there is only one chance for an appeal.

The third argument is support of death penalty is retribution. This argument holds that through retribution, the murderer is forced to pay for the crimes he/she committed in a way that is real because he/she is not subjected to a rehabilitative process but made to suffer for the wrongs committed. This rule of ‘an-eye-for an –eye’ also referred to as ‘lax talens’ is however being questioned for its rationality and whether it still has a place in today’s society. The other reason, which is in contention, is that it brings about deterrence. The question in regards to deterrence is whether death penalty really deters potential criminals from engaging in murder. It has been hard to prove this in one way or the other because in most cases, the number of persons that are executed in a year is always very small compared to the number that is sentenced to death in the same period (Bedau, pg 202), . Those who argue in support of this position point that in countries where the death sentence has been implemented unopposed like in Singapore, the cases of murder are significantly low. This can only be absolute in the case where execution fro murder is almost an absolute certainty and the public knows the same. As an anti-death penalty crusader, I believe that the element of deterrence can only function effectively if it is applied in a situation where the crime is to be organized and therefore the criminals have the time to think about their act and the possible consequences for the same. However if the crime of murder is being committed just in the heat of the moment, punishment can never act as a deterrent because there is no time to consider the consequences. A study undertaken in Italy in 2007 revealed that 311 individuals who were serving life sentences without parole had petitioned their government to execute them because they argued that life sentences without parole was very harsh and therefore they would better be put to death (Bedau, pg 56). This in a way means that the death penalty is not as harsh as life sentence without parole, which opponents of death penalty have always advocated.

In the UK, ever since the abolition of the death penalty in 1965, the rates of unlawful executions by the public has been on the rise ever since. The figures at the home office for instance, indicate that in 1964, there were about 300 unlawful killings that had occurred but it increased to 565 in 1994 and then 834 in the year 2004. The same records also reveal that there have been instances of recidivism where murder convicts who were sentenced to life imprisonment but later released, end up committing other crimes like rape, murder and other criminal acts. The number of persons in prison serving life sentences for committing murders has also increased tremendously. The fact that the rates of murders went up during the time when the death penalty was upheld in Britain does not prove anything to the effect that if the death penalty could have been enforced all the way, the murder cases could have reduced. This is particularly because there are other measures that have since been put in force such as tighter gun control and easier methods of divorce that have also reduced the cases of murder significantly. Pro-death penalty proponents have however argued that due to the enforcement of death penalties, even hard-core criminals have been changing their tactics (Parks, pg 57). This has been seen in a change of pattern where robbers have switched from robbing during the day and weekdays, when they used to leave a trail of blood in murder to stealing during the weekend where they do not even carry firearms.

For starters, death penalty has seen the execution of persons who though may have killed their victims, were not liable for murder charges. In most cases, the only two parties that should suffice the court with evidence of what transpired are the accused and the deceased person. However because the deceased cannot give an account, the defense lawyers and the prosecution always have to use their skills to determine if it was a case of murder or manslaughter. Therefore, the death penalty cannot be used as deterrence when in real sense it only works to convict persons who are supposed to be convicted of manslaughter with murder because it will lack the goodwill to correct mistakes that happen leading to death. The death penalty also brings unto the family of the accused, unprecedented pressures and stress of life. This means that the death penalty is cruel enough to punish even those who are supposed to be out of the dragnet. The sufferings that the family members undergo are equally valid and should be taken into consideration. In a research undertaken in the US, it was established that as at January 2008, the correction facilities across the country had 2,200 persons serving whole life sentences who were under the age of 18 at the time they committed the offences. They could not be put through a death penalty since the US law does not allow execution of minor offenders (Bedau, pg 174). This can in another way be used to argue that the death penalty is still flawed because it provides a leeway for minors to commit the murders.

To administer death penalties for murder charges on grounds that it would act as deterrence is a little bit misplaced. The only instance that a death sentence would act as deterrence for murder instances is when it is certain that ones one is found guilty, the penalty is administered regardless of age, sex or even mental state at the time of the occurrence of the incident (Hann, pg 165). This would also call for prompt executions without further delays and doing it in such an open manner that the message is passed across to the public loud and clear. All those who hold the opinion that death penalty is or can be a proven deterrent to any future murders have the burden of responsibility to prove their position. The death penalty is likely to bring about a brutalized effect on the community instead of deterring new occurrences. Because of the brutalizing effect, the murder penalty can only achieve more murders. Data gathered between 1973 and 1984 reveal that without the death penalty, the murder rates were lower and amounted to 63% of the rates compared to the states that retained the death penalty. This therefore also served to refute claims that death penalty brought about deterrence.

There are several countries across the world like Canada and even several States in the US that have significantly lower crime rates compared to other countries that do not embrace death penalty. Perhaps this is an indication that having the death sentences in place, has not worked to reduce murder cases. It is also a point worth noting that death penalty can never be a deterrent to murder cases because the persons, who undertake to commit the murders, never expect to be found committing the act nor do they put into perspective the possible consequences of their actions. Normally, murders are undertaken in either moments of passion or even anger (Bedau, pg 109). The other instance is when the person who commits the murder is a drug abuser who acts in an impulsive manner. It would therefore be in order to address the underlying issues that make people to act impulsively like drug abuse instead of the harsh death penalty that has proved ineffective this far. In a study undertaken in the 60s, Thorsten Sellin compared the statistics for adjacent countries where one embraced death penalty and another did not (Bedau, 85). The evidence revealed that that the rates were almost 1: 1 meaning that death penalty could not be talked about as deterrence. He therefore held that if at all death penalty halted murder cases, there could have been a significant difference between the countries that halted it and those that had not but this was not the case.

The safety of the society can still be guaranteed without using death sentence because it has not been proven anywhere that death penalty is better off than life sentence. This, considering that there are nations that today has the right legislations to ensure that life sentence can be administered without parole. When serving life sentence under such conditions, the offenders are already out of reach of the rest of the community and hence cannot pose any form of threat to their security.

All those who support the view that death penalty can be effective in deterrence hold the position that not all these issues raised by anti-death penalty crusaders add up. The argument here is that the moment one takes another’s life, the society’s wheels of justice go off balance and therefore it is imperative that the balance is restored by also taking away the murderer’s life away as a way of avoiding the society from sliding into a condition where the rule of violence prevails (Bren, pg 39).

Death penalty according the arguments advanced by the proponents of death penalty seems to ride on the emotional impulse for those baying for the accused person’s blood to undertake retribution. In a mature society like the one we live in today, does not support such impulsive and unmeasured responses to problems like murder. It is necessary that the laws used to bring law and order in our society, leads us to certain higher principles that teach us to always respect life and the right to life even if it is that of a murderer. To engage in revenge missions that end with the killing of the accused persons, only contribute in extending the community’s chain of disorder and violence. In addition, people lose their sense of caution and may not really respect life in the end (Bedau, pg 67). A policy of ‘kill the killer’ is not one that appeals to man’s sense of reason nor does it appeal to our sense of morality, which believes that to produce good is to sow good.

My position on this matter therefore can be best summed in a statement from the Judaism and Catholic reform and conservative movement in the US, confessed in their National Council of Synagogues and Bishops’ meeting of committee members in 1999. Their position was that; “Respect for all human life and opposition to the violence in our society are at the root of our long-standing opposition (as bishops) to the death penalty. We see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. As we said in confronting the Culture of Violence: 'We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.' We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes, but for what it does to all of us as a society.

Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life” (Bedau, pg 123). I therefore urge the withdrawal of the death penalty policy so that other effective measures that address the root causes of murders are used rather than retribution of death penalty that simply relies on its characteristic of being ‘scary’ to claim deterrence.

Work Cited

Bedau, Hugo. Debating the death penalty: Should Americans have capital punishment? The experts on both sides make their case. 2008. New York: Rutledge. Pgs 256 Print

Hann, Robert. Deterrence & the death penalty: a critical review of the econometric literature. 1977. London: Prentice hall. Pgs 276 print

Heilbrun Alfred. The death penalty: Beyond the smoke and mirrors. 2006. Chicago: Riverside publications. Pgs 189 print

Parks Peggy. Does death penalty deter crime? (In controversy). 2009. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pgs 178 print

Bren JoAnn. Death penalty: Fair solution or moral failure? (USA Today’s Debate: Voices and perspectives. 2009. Manchester: Rutledge. Pgs 217 print