Capital Punishment Essay Example

Capital Punishment Essay The existence of the death penalty in any society raises one underlying question: have we established our justice systems out of a desire for rehabilitation, or out of a desire for retribution? 1. Capital punishment is a practice in which prisoners are executed in accordance with judicial practice when they are convicted of committing what is known as a â€Å"capital crime. † Capital crimes are crimes deemed so heinous that they should be punishable by death. People may also use the term â€Å"death penalty† to refer to capital punishment. Worldwide, this practice is extremely controversial, with a variety of concerns ranging from human rights to economic efficiency being raised in discussions about capital punishment. Suggest Edits The practice of executing people for certain crimes is very old; in fact, the term itself dates to a Latin root, capitalis, which means â€Å"of the head,† a reference to a common execution method used in Roman times. At various points in history, a wide range of crimes have been punishable by death, including rape, murder, treason, mutiny, and theft. In the military, death sentences for â€Å"cowardice† were used as recently as the First World War, when soldiers were shot by firing squads assembled from the men who served with them, providing both a punishment and a warning. As early as the 1800s, some members of society were pushing for abolition of the death penalty, arguing that it was an inhumane method of punishment. Many abolitionists were also involved with animal welfare organizations and antislavery organizations. We will write a custom essay sample on Capital Punishment specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Capital Punishment specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Capital Punishment specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Their efforts were at least partially successful; by the beginning of the 21st century, only 58 nations were practicing the death penalty, and several of these nations had very restrictive terms which had to be met in order for capital punishment to be an option. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States lead the world in executions annually. Suggest Edits Arguments for capital punishment include the suggestion that it acts as a deterrent, by reminding criminals that they can pay the ultimate price for some claims. It is also touted in some regions as a safety measure which effectively removes people who have committed horrific crimes from the street without having to worry about their release on parole in the future. Some supporters also argue that capital punishment provides closure to family members of victims. Furthermore, supporters argue, it is possible to administer the death penalty justly and humanely. Suggest Edits People who oppose the death penalty argue that it is unevenly applied, creating the potential for erroneous executions of innocent people. Opponents are also perturbed by differing standards in judicial practice; for example, some nations allow capital punishment for crimes such as drug trafficking, and in some nations where homosexuality remains criminalized, it is punishable by death. Opponents also argue that administering capital punishment justly and fairly is tremendously expensive, and it is more cost effective to focus on incarceration. 2. Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The judicial decree that someone be punished in this manner is a death sentence, while the actual process of killing the person is an execution. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from the Latin capitalis, literally regarding the head (referring to execution by beheading). 3. Capital punishment is the practice of executing someone as punishment for a specific crime after a proper legal trial. It can only be used by a state, so when non-state organisations speak of having executed a person they have actually committed a murder. It is usually only used as a punishment for particularly serious types of murder, but in some countries treason, types of fraud, adultery and rape are capital crimes. The phrase capital punishment comes from the Latin word for the head. A corporal punishment, such as flogging, takes its name from the Latin word for the body. Capital punishment is used in many countries around the world. According to Amnesty International as at May 2012, 141 countries have abolished the death penalty either in law on in practice. ARGUEMENTS AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT Everyone thinks human life is valuable. Some of those against capital punishment believe that human life is so valuable that even the worst murderers should not be deprived of the value of their lives. They believe that the value of the offenders life cannot be destroyed by the offenders bad conduct even if they have killed someone. Some abolitionists dont go that far. They say that life should be preserved unless there is a very good reason not to, and that those who are in favour of capital punishment are the ones who have to justify their position. The most common and most cogent argument against capital punishment is that sooner or later, innocent people will get killed, because of mistakes or flaws in the justice system. Witnesses, (where they are part of the process), prosecutors and jurors can all make mistakes. When this is coupled with flaws in the system it is inevitable that innocent people will be convicted of crimes. Where capital punishment is used such mistakes cannot be put right. 1. You cant take it back The death penalty is irreversible. Absolute judgments may lead to people paying for crimes they did not commit. Texas man Cameron Todd Willingham, for example, was found innocent after his 2004 execution. 2. It doesnt deter criminals In fact, evidence startlingly reveals the opposite! Twenty seven years after abolishing the death penalty, Canada saw a 44 per cent drop in murders across the country. And it wasnt alone. 3. Theres no humane way to kill The 2006 execution of Angel Nieves Diaz, by a so-called humane lethal injection, took 34 minutes and required two doses. Other methods of execution used around the world include hanging, shooting and beheading. The nature of these deaths only continues to perpetuate the cycle of violence and does not alleviate the pain already suffered by the victims’ family. 4. It makes a public spectacle of an individuals death Executions are often undertaken in an extremely public manner, with public hangings in Iran or live broadcasts of lethal injections in the US. 5. The death penalty is disappearing Out of 198 countries around the world only 21 continue to use capital unishment. And while countries that carried out executions in 2011 did so at an alarming rate, those employing capital punishment have decreased by more than a third in the last decade. With this clear downward trend, public pressure may help persuade the worlds biggest executors China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the USA to stop. There are countless arguments for and against the death penalty. In an imperfect world where we can never be su re we have ever got the worst of the worst is it ever justified to take a life? Capital Punishment Essay Example Capital Punishment Essay Capital Punishment is described as corporal punishment in its most severe form; it is the legal infliction of the death penalty, meaning in acute circumstances, a man or woman can be put to death for the crime they have committed. It is both commended and criticised with an on-going argument as to whether it is right or wrong. Though Capital Punishment was stopped in Britain in the 1960s, it is still a standard procedure in many nations throughout the world. Some example nations are America (38 of the 50 states have the killing punishment), Iran, China, and Saudia Arabia though there are many more who still retain the death penalty for crimes they feel serious enough. Methods of execution can vary; it has been inflicted in many ways in the past, today however the main processes used are hanging, electrocution, gas chamber, firing squad, beheading, or lethal injection. So what kinds of people deserve such a brutal, barbaric ending? And is their crime really so ruthless that death is t he only punishment seen sufficient? There are many pros and cons of the death penalty; its extremely hard to come up with a satisfying conclusion as to whether it should continue being an optional punishment, or if lifetime imprisonment is a sufficient enough punishment for the offence the person has committed, even for something as profound as murder. One of the main objections to the death penalty is the risk of executing the innocent. There is no way to reimburse life, once the person has been put to death, its over, innocent or guilty they have received the harshest sentence. Had the person been sentenced to lifetime imprisonment however, and then later found to be innocent, they could gain compensation and even more rewarding, another chance in life. However cases like this that have been established are very rare, much evidence and a unanimous vote is needed to convict this punishment upon anyone, and only serious deserving crimes obtain the punishment of death. Therefore it is unusual and infrequent for the wrong person to be executed, and in many cases those who are sentenced to death can be left waiting for years to receive their punishment, in which case, if you are innocent, by then you will have hopefully gathered enough evidence to prove so. It is common for several appeals to be applied before the sentence is carried out, hopefully in which you will win your freedom. We will write a custom essay sample on Capital Punishment specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on Capital Punishment specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on Capital Punishment specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Of course its never just the perpetrator who suffers for their felony, relatives and friends also have to suffer the pain of losing a loved one, the person who has to perform the execution may have to face remorse and regret, and also the issuing judge has to go through the guilt complex of knowing that they have just taken away another persons life. A vicious circle forms as it becomes clear of how many people are forced to face the mixed feelings and weight of one mans sin. Though it is the judge who issues the sentence, its someone else who has to perform the death sentence. Its then someone else who has to bury the person, the relatives who have to attend the funeral and go through all the grief and anguish at losing a loved one. It has been known for the friends or relatives to cure their depression by taking revenge, and sadly, they feel that their anguish could only be fulfilled by killing the person to blame. Then the picture is back in court where once again their lives are to be fortuned by a man they have never met before, and so the circle continues. It must be hard for the person who has to perform the sentence; its scarring their name, emotions and lifestyle forever. The unpleasant feelings of sorrow and guilt as they perform the execution must be incredibly immense, its hard to truly understand and sympathise with these people. Bad feelings may also be felt by the judge because he may feel he concluded wrongly, but is forced to continue normally, knowing that again because of him a human life was destroyed. Imagine the outlook if it was later discovered that the now deceased individual was innocent all along, but though he had sworn his innocence, it had fallen on deaf ears as the conclusion had been the death penalty. Perhaps the outcome isnt always so extreme, but so many people have to suffer for one persons crime and another mans decision, is it really worth it? But of course, if it was evident that the being on trial was guilty, and they were killed for it, the feelings of knowing that you took another mans life away could be contented with the thought that by ridding the world of such an evil person you are encouraging the longed for peace, and possibly saving endangered innocent lives. The execution has ensured that had the person been freed from prison they wouldnt commit the same crime again and make yet more people, relatives, friends suffer for one individuals transgression. Also, if that person had committed the crime due to a mental illness, then you could argue that by stubbing them out you are preventing it from being passed on genetically to their children, and their childrens children and so on. Consequently you are preventing a whole line of these particular mentally deformed people who perform such devastating and distressing actions on innocuous, unknowing folks. But who decides what crimes fulfil the requirements to die, and what crimes can be justified by imprisonment? Who has the right to make the decision of taking a human life away, whatever the reason? Is it justice to take life to make up for another lost one? Where do you draw the line, what age is the satisfactory age to receive the death penalty? Take the Jamie Buldger incident for instance, two ten-year-old boys tortured and killed an unknowing two-year-old boy for amusement, did they also deserve to die or were they too young to truly know what they were doing? In my opinion when a ten-year-old boy viciously kills a two-year-old child, they really cant be right in the head and I feel they really can be described as evil, but still, they blame their hard upbringings, so is this a good enough excuse? Another reason against capital punishment is that by executing those at fault, they are not given the chance for that person to reform their character for the good. People killed for deeds like smuggling drugs arent necessary bad people, they may just have been in a situation where by smuggling and hopefully selling the drugs they could have made something better of themselves. Also, even murderers may have a story behind them. Others may have forced them into it or it may have been an act of self-defence, perhaps they were just trying to threaten or scare their victim but never meant for it to go any further, so therefore not necessarily their fault. However if these people are really good at heart then they may believe they deserve it from guilt or from disgusted feelings about themselves. It might even be better for these people to be killed as it saves them from having to face up to the remorse and dwell in self-pity, also from abuse of outsiders or even those in the prison with them. But if they arent so gold hearted then perhaps the guilt is a good thing as its an extra internal punishment, and sometimes can be far worse than anything any human could inflict. A question that is aroused about capital punishment is if by killing the person at fault, are they being punished enough for the deeds they have done? Do they suffer efficiently and truly regret their actions? By being killed, they no longer have to live with the bad feelings, the regret, guilt, remorse, and possibly fear of others around them. They will be free of prison and all the regulations, labour and intensity that come with it. Some may have strong beliefs of a better life after death, in which case they have nothing to fear, only something to look forward to. Especially those sentenced to lethal injection, as the pain is minute, its just like a long, peaceful sleep. It this really a brutal enough sentence for (for instance) a man who kidnapped, raped, tortured and killed young girls for pleasure? But not everyone sees it like this. Some of the people may be petrified of dying, and feel that they will end up in a worse place after death because of their inhumane actions. Also executions like hanging or electrocution are excruciating ways to die, so the punishment is great. But is it too great? Perhaps not for a crime like murder, but people are still hung for rape or even from dealing or smuggling drugs, so is this right? Do these people really deserve to die in such an extreme way? Wouldnt lifetime imprisonment be more adequate? It isnt as severe on those less deserving, but can still be a cruel experience. Hopefully a lesson would be taught after encountering the hard, violent, restricting and discriminating environment of prison. However, now days you cant even count on the prisons to be harsh enough. From documentaries shown on television on the insight of British prisons, we can see that they really arent that big a punishment. They provide warmth, shelter, regular meals, luxuries such as television, and pool tables, recurrent visiting sessions to see friends and family, and can provide companionship with other people in the same position as you. If you were homeless, constantly hungry, cold and owned nothing, then your going to want to go to prison, as you can almost be guaranteed a better life! Though prisons abroad seem to have a stricter routine, if you have nothing, then what have you got to lose? Also reports have shown that some people find love in p rison, is it really a punishment to be enclosed with your lover, the only person you would want to be enclosed with? Its hardly a huge penalty. Having the fear of the death penalty gives your conscience a reason to argue with your actions, it makes you think twice before continuing, and teaches others that the crime will not simply be overlooked and the seriousness of it. It also proves how strong and strict the law can and will be for justified crimes, teaching younger people not to do them through fear of what the consequence could be. The cost of running a prison furthermore is very expensive, good money is being spent on the well being of criminals oppose to it being spent on education, hospitals, environmental issues and the promotional aspect of reaching and stopping the younger generation from also ending up in prison. Though it may sound immoral, the truth is its cheaper for a person to be executed than to be kept in prison. By executing all the people who performed a crime like murder, you are lowering the prison numbers, and so reducing the cost, therefore there is more money to spend on the areas that need and deserve it most. But surely by putting bad people in prison for a prolonged time, you are helping the world become a better place. By not killing the people and imprisoning them instead, you are still teaching them a lesson and yet by not killing them, you are not sinking to their level as well, and contradicting the law. It hopefully still brings the message across to the younger generation on what and what not to do, but just in a much more humane way. Also, with the sentence lighter, it will hopefully encourage people to come forward with information or even to confess to the crime. Nevertheless, if the death sentence is carried out, are you not still helping to make the world a better place by ridding it of all these unruly people forever, allowing those innocent to feel safe again? It lets those involved sleep easily once more, and live a happier, more relaxed life and generally have peace of mind. The message still gets across to the younger generation, but this time in a much more threatening and effective way. Also, by exterminating those on the wrong side of the law you are ensuring that had they ever been released or even escaped, more innocent lives wouldnt be affected or even destroyed. Of course, a good reason for capital punishment is simply that they deserve it. If a bloodthirsty killer for no provoked, reasonable motive murders innocent, undeserving people, then why should they live? They are heartless and cruel, and need to be punished. It is proper suffering for their atrocious offence, especially if they are put onto death row for a few years, then they will suitably suffer. Though it is said that surely by killing a murderer you are just as bad as them, is this really so? What is worse? Someone killing a person who neither knows them nor has done anything to offend them for pleasure or because something inside them tells them to, or, someone executing that guilty, malevolent person? They are hardly the same. As stated in Genesis 9:6, whosoever sheds mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed, it is letting the punishment fit the crime, and therefore isnt as wicked and terrible as the initial murderers crime. But a wrong doesnt make a right, you are always going to be criticised for killing a murderer, however right it may have seemed at the time. While researching on the Internet I came across a site containing the letters of a man who was on death row in America, awaiting his death, though unprovoked he had killed three men. His name was Richard, the letters were addressed to a friend he had met through the pen-pal organisations with prisoners, and the two had become close. The friend worked as a teacher, and kept in touch with Richard the whole three years he was on death row. While reading through the letters there was one I found most interesting, which I feel is a significant view from a victim of Capital Punishment. He wrote; Your class of the 19th sounded very exciting with all the debating and questions going on. You have your work cut out for you where a couple of kids are concerned. Would they pull the switch? I find it interesting, I sit here on death row for killing 3 men, and yet I couldnt pull the switch on anyone. Maybe people need to think beyond the person who committed the crime and think of the people who will be hurt most by it. Do the kids in your class say why they support such an evil? Do they think death is worse then spending a lifetime in prison? If they do, tell them to go and sit in their bathroom for a couple of hours and think of a lifetime of that. If one believes in the death penalty, then they dont really think murder is wrong, just getting caught is. What about the people who have committed worse acts of murder then most of the guys on death row but got life? Whats worse, two guys who rape and murders a 12 year old girl, stabs her, put sand in the mouth and nose to suffocate he r and come back the next day to burn her body (When they snatched her, she was on her way to the store for her mother), or 4 guys who robbed and killed three drug dealers? Ask the kids who should have gotten the death penalty if they can only choose one. The murderers were the same age. One had money and the other didnt. One wore a suit to court the other didnt. You know the ending. My eyes hurt, and your class has given me a headache. It brings up the issue of prejudice, not always in respect of colour, but also on the wealth and prosperity of the person convicted. It is an obvious issue that if you do have the money to pay for the right look, lawyers and legal aid then you are going to come off better, whatever your crime. There can be big racial prejudice in the court, and sadly, though not always, it is more against poorer black people who havent got the money or means to support their case. It shows the law to be unjust when one coloured person goes down harshly for the same crime committed by a different coloured person, whereas the second coloured person gets a much lighter sentence. Is this really righteousness? Also, surely if, for instance, a white person sees other white people getting off with their crime will they not continue to do it? Children will start growing up thinking that because they are of a certain colour they cannot get into trouble, which in some respects appears to be true. If you live i n what is considered as poorer housing, it can affect the outcome of your trial, though it shouldnt, because you come from a bad part of town you are automatically going to be considered bad. Gender plays a big part in court, male judges tend to give much harsher sentences than female, making it deeply unfair to those generally convicted by males. Religion can also be important in the decision, if the person has the opposing religion to the judge or jury than it unfortunately can and has made a difference in the judges final verdict. It really is so hard and yet so unfair in this world of give and take. In conclusion to the question of whether capital punishment should be an option or not, I find myself with mixed feelings. There are points I strongly agree with on both sides of the argument, and some I find a weak line of relevance to my assumption. Much consideration and debate went into my last viewpoint on the whole discussion and I have expressed my true feelings on the subject. I comprehend the difficulty of making a decision on what cases are appalling enough to deserve the ultimate punishment. Who does have the right to call death, life is precious, no one should devaluate it and no one in reality should have the right to take it away from someone else. But is it really that wrong if it helps to improve the world and brings peace of mind to many people? I personally dont think it is always that bad if the decision is coming from a judge about a sick -minded murderer, do you? I agree with capital punishment in some cases. I think it is required as a punishment to not only teach both that person and other likely candidates of the same crime a firm lesson, but also because I feel its justice, justice to the victim, justice to the friends and family of the victim, and justice to the world from a safer, more formidable and optimistic view. The main case I feel that execution is needed is murder, and only then in particular cases. I do not agree with the killing of people for smuggling or dealing drugs, rape, treason, and burglary as I feel it is inadequate, overdramatic and too severe to be considered humane. With murder I believe that the recognised capital crime should be that of a person who viciously planned the murder of their victim. It should be even more compulsory if the murdered victim was a child, an older, elderly person, or even someone like a policeman on duty who was only doing their instructed job. The attack must be from a cold, calculating p erson who did it out of spite rather than, for instance, euthanasia. I particularly pointed out the elderly and children as a strong cause because they are generally defenceless and innocent, which these malicious people pick up on and use to their advantage in a cruel, heartless way. I disagree that people should be killed if the murder was performed in the heat of the moment e.g. in a fit of rage, jealousy or passion. This doesnt necessary mean that they are evil people, we all make mistakes when at the peaks of our emotions. Though they still killed someone so unless it can be proven as self-defence, they should still get a long sentence. The other crime which I feel is justified with the punishment of the death sentence is the kidnapping and torturing of another human being until they are barely alive. This is the work of monsters, not sane human beings; these people dont deserve to live. I think that if capital punishment was brought back to England then despite the obvious reason, I do believe it would save lives. People would be much more cautious about there actions, and wouldnt get themselves so frequently into positions where death could occur. For instance, it is general knowledge that when you perform a robbery you carry a gun. This is because if you do have to shoot and kill someone whats to worry about? So you may get a few more years but theres appeal, so whats the big deal about killing someone who gets in your way? If Capital Punishment was reinstated then I feel it would act as a deterrent to these kinds of people, and prove to save many more innocent ones. I think that five years on death row should be obligatory because if the convicted is truly guiltless, it gives them the time to reinstate themselves and their innocence, whereas if they are guilty, it still gives them the endearing prison sentence. I really dont believe that by killing these people we are bringing ourselves down to that level because no one could get that low. There a good vindicated reason for the death of these people, whereas their victims suffered for a bit of fun.