NOTE: I will post a debate on a topic of this blog
once a month.
 |
|
|
Point: The
death penalty is ineffective and only perpetuates more killing in the name of
justice
By Blake Branch | Posted: Thursday,
August 29, 2013 10:17 am
Capital Punishment is highly
ineffective.
They say that for every action, there
is an equal and opposite reaction. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. So
why shouldn’t it be a death for a death?
Thirty-two states currently use some
form of the death penalty, also known as Capital Punishment. Since the U.S.
Supreme Court reinstated the use of the death penalty in 1976, a total of 1,340
people have been executed. People may be against the death penalty from a moral
standpoint: that killing someone, while not by their own hands, may make them
feel no better than the person convicted of the crime. But people should be
against the death penalty because it simply isn’t effective.
Capital Punishment doesn’t work in
part because as a country, we can’t collectively agree on not only having it
but what method should be used. Eighteen states have abolished the death
penalty, with Maryland (2013) and Connecticut (2012) being the most recent.
While that isn’t the majority, a still hefty 36 percent of the state governments
don’t believe in killing someone for their actions. And several states and
groups who have the death penalty, including New Hampshire, Kansas and the U.S.
Military, have not executed a person since 1976. This group did include New
Jersey until 2007, when they simply abolished it outright. In the Western
Hemisphere in 2011, the United States was the only country to execute someone
through the death penalty.
But even with the vast majority of
states allowing the death penalty to be used, at times they can’t decide on
which of five methods to use. Currently, people can be executed via the
electric chair, the gas chamber, firing squad, the gallows and lethal
injection, which is the most common. It would seem things like a firing squad
and hanging would be extremely outdated and rarely used. But the last
electrocution was January of this year, firing squad was three years ago,
lethal gas was in 1999. And hanging? That would be 1996, simply 17 years
ago.
Typically the death penalty is used
when the crime charged is murder or homicide. However, since 1994 the death
penalty can be used in situations where the person sold illegal narcotics (The
Drug Kingpin Act) or is accused of espionage or treason (the Federal Death
Penalty Act of 1994). In 2008 in Kennedy v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled against the state of Louisiana’s decision on the death penalty for child
rapists, saying “there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder
on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individual persons.” In
addition, they ruled out the death penalty for any crime against an individual
where the victim’s life was not taken.
Currently there are 3,125 on death
row. And that is a fairly typical number, with inmates on death row nationwide
averaging in the 3,000’s since 1995. Since 1988, there has been at least 2,000
people on death row and at least a thousand since 1982. If it was an effective
program, it should deter some people from committing these crimes, not increase
it. And many of these people have been on death row for a number of years.
According to the Bureau of Justice, in 1984 the average time between sentencing
and execution was 74 months, or a little over six years. In 2010 it was 178
months, the equivalent of 14 years and 10 months. As a result, nearly a quarter
of death row deaths are as a result of natural causes, this according to the
United States Department of Justice.
Everyone has their day in court.
They go through the legal processes and a jury of their peers decides their
fate. For some people, justice is done when the person is convicted. For
others, it’s when they are gone from this earth. And that shouldn’t be the
case. An eye for an eye. Never a life for a life.
For Ryan's counterpoint read: Not all should receive death penalty,
only those who commit atrocious crimes
Counterpoint: Not all should receive death penalty, only those who commit atrocious crimes
By Ryan Duggan | Posted: Thursday, August 29, 2013 10:22
am
Life
is a blessing. Merely existing, feeling, experiencing the world around us and
having conscious thought are all aspects of living that, in and of themselves,
are often the overlooked beauties of being alive. It can be a great gift, one
which some fully cherish, but others take for granted.
However,
I do not believe that all who are living deserve this gift. There are instances
of heinous acts in which individuals forfeit their right to live by taking the
lives of others in unwarranted, atrocious crimes.
Call
me callous, but some criminals deserve death. However, I emphasize some, and
what I disagree with is the notion that no murderer should be executed, as
opponents of capital punishment fight for.
Take,
for example, Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, two monsters in Connecticut
who did unspeakable crimes. The men broke into the house of William Petit and
Jennifer Hawke-Petit, bludgeoned William, raped and then strangled Jennifer,
sexuality assaulted their 11-year-old daughter while taking photos on their
cell phone, then tied the 11-year-old and another daughter to a bed before
setting the whole house on fire.
These
two men were rightfully sentenced to death, but opponents to the death penalty
would argue that they deserve to live their life in prison and die of natural
causes.
No,
their deaths won’t give back what was lost, but it will be a sense of justice.
It will be a sense of justice in that by executing them, they are punished for
their crimes by taking away the one thing that cannot be given back, also the
very same thing they took from others.
Society
teaches us how bad an act is by the punishment it merits Allowing men like this
to live would belittle the heinous acts of murder and rape which they
conducted, displaying to citizens that the most vile things cannot earn someone
death in the justice system, all the while simply being an innocent victim of
crimes like this can result in death.
Keeping
them alive does not send a message of leniency and forgiveness, it’s a message
that undermines the value of a moral life if murderers get to live while the
innocent die.
It’s
not necessarily an eye for an eye philosophy that I adhere to, but I believe
these men are well past the point of rehabilitation, and sitting in a prison
cell with daily meals, access to books, writing material, and often the radio
or television is a bit too much.
That
being said, I also don’t believe that all those who are convicted of murder
should receive the death penalty. Say, for example, George Zimmerman was
convicted of second degree murder. Even though his acts were unfortunate and
considered evil by some, I don’t think anyone would compare them to a degree
similar to Hayes and Komisarjevsky.
Murders
that are a result of a situation that escalated out of control and were not
premeditated, torturous acts, deserve life in prison with parole being
debatable. If a judge and jury can without a doubt conclude that a murderous
act was intentional and torturous, then those criminals should be put to death.
Also,
it’s uncertain whether capital punishment deters crime. Even so, I still say
this: If we execute murderers and there is no deterrent in capital punishment,
all we have done is taken from criminals what they took from others. If we
don’t execute and there is a deterrent effect, then we have allowed even more
innocent people to die and murderers to live.
Many
also point to the cost of executions and the lengthy process of conducting
them, as well as those on death row eventually proven innocent and
released from prison. Yes, killing those who are rightfully innocent would be a
terrible thing. But abolishing the death penalty and allowing those who are
clearly guilty of atrocious acts is just as terrible.
As
for the cost, just speed up the process. With advancing methods of gathering
evidence, we should be able to sift through which criminals deserve the death
penalty and which ones are not beyond reasonable doubt in regards to committing
their crime.
In
cases like the one above, or recent cases like Ariel Castro, James Holmes or
Nidal Hasan, there is no doubt who committed the crime. There is no doubt what
they did, and there is no doubt these were atrocious acts.
Life
is a precious thing, and capital punishment should be dealt with the utmost
rigorous process. However, there are those crimes which enable no excuse of
leniency, and justice should be dealt accordingly.
For
Blake's view read: The
death penalty is ineffective and only perpetuates more killing in the name of
justice
No comments:
Post a Comment