Introduction
The criminal justice system of our country is one of the most important institutions for preserving the rule of law in our nation. This institution ensures that members of the society obey the law. Those who violate the law are punished by being taken to court where they might be fined or imprisoned. The harshest form of punishment employed by the United State’s criminal justice system is the death sentence. This form of punishment is reserved for the most vicious offenders.
However, there is significant controversy surrounding the issue of the death penalty. While some people regard it as a necessary form of punishment, others view this sentence as unjustifiable. This essay will argue that the death sentence is justified and should therefore be utilized by States all over the country. The paper will support this argument by highlighting the various advantages of the death sentence.
Support for the Death Penalty
A major reason why the death sentence is justified is that it provides the highest deterrence. While most of the punishments given to offenders are meant to serve as retribution and rehabilitate the individual, the most vital role of punishments is to deter future crime. People are encouraged to abstain from criminal activity through the threat of punishments.
A person who is thinking of committing a violent robbery might be dissuaded from this activity when he thinks of the long prison sentence he will be given if he is caught. Law and order in the society are therefore promoted through the deterrence function of punishments. Without a doubt, the death sentence is the ultimate punishment that can be given to a person. This punishment therefore serves as the greatest deterrence to individuals who might not be dissuaded from crime through punishments such as imprisonment.
Muhlhausen asserts that the death penalty saves lives since executions have a highly significant negative relationship with murder incidents (par. 14). This assertion is supported by the deterrence theory, which states that the decisions made by an individual concerning crime consider the net costs of the activity. Most people will therefore avoid engaging in crimes that might lead to their being executed.
The death penalty permanently protects the society from vicious criminals. When the death sentence is implemented, the offender’s life is taken and he cannot reenter society. Most of the sentences issued to offenders require them to spend years in prison.
After the completion of the sentence, the offender is free to reenter society and interact with the community. The society is therefore likely to suffer from repeat offenses carried out by the same ex-convict. Opponents of the death sentence argue that dangerous criminals can be kept away from the society through life sentences.
While this is true, life sentences do not guarantee that the offender will never return to society. Parole boards might give the convict his freedom after he has served for decades in the prison. With the death penalty, the offender is condemned to death (Muhlhausen par.3). Once the sentence has been carried out, there is no chance that the individual will harm the society in future. The death penalty therefore offers a permanent solution by ridding the society of the most vicious criminals.
The death sentence ensures that justice is served by giving the offender a punishment that fits their crime. As has been stated in this paper, the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous crimes such as murder. Carmical argues that it is morally wrong to simply imprison a person who has been found guilty of murder (par. 6). The moral thing to do in such a case would be to sentence the person to death and execute him.
By passing the death penalty, the judge ensures that retribution is served to the victim of the murder. The family of the victim also receives some peace of mind by knowing that the murderer cannot harm any other person. When the death sentence is not given, the victim’s family is punished. Stambaugh and Gary explain that without a death penalty, the victim’s family has to endure multiple parole hearing requests by the murderer (par. 2).
Each time they do this they are reminded of the crime perpetrated against their loved one. Innocent people are therefore made to endure heartache and repeated traumatization because the offender is alive. In some cases, the victim’s family is forced to keep attending hearings to prevent the offender from being released. All this would be avoided if the death penalty had been imposed against the guilty person.
In spite of the vocal opposition to the death penalty, there is still a lot of public support for this form of punishment. Over the past decade, opinion polls indicate that there has been a rise in the support for the death penalty by Americans (Schmidt par.4). Gallup polls indicated that as of 2011, 61% of Americans supported the death penalty. This support stems from the fact that many Americans feel that there are crimes that deserve this severe punishment.
For them, having the death penalty gives the courts the tools necessary to tackle certain crimes and therefore ensure that justice has been served. While public support does not necessarily mean that the death penalty is justified, it does show that American’s agree that for some criminals, justice can only be served if they are executed.
Opposition to the Death Sentence
Opponents of the death sentence argue that this punishment is too costly and should therefore be abolished. Unlike other punishments, the death penalty is more time-consuming and it requires additional costs making it enormously expensive. Dieter reveals that the state is forced to use the enormous amount of resources on just a few death penalty cases since they have to be thorough (par. 15). The typical capital case will require numerous witnesses on both sides. Both the prosecutor and the defender will use expert witnesses.
The expenses incurred by the State in handling the covered through taxpayers money. Yardley reports that the death sentence wastes taxpayer money as inmates stay on death row for decades with numerous court appearances (par. 4). It is true that the current implementation of the death sentence system in the US is very expensive. However, this should not be used as justification for doing away with a very essential form of punishment.
Schmidt argues that a well designed death penalty law is needed to ensure that the society is protected from injustices (par. 12). It should also be noted that the high cost of the death penalty system arises from the extended stay that death row convicts are offered. If executions were to be carried out in a timely manner, capital punishment would be significantly cheaper than incarceration. This would therefore save the State and by extension the taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
A claim made by opponents of the death penalty is that this is a barbaric form of punishment. The death sentence involves executing the offender as retribution for his crimes. Opponents therefore argue that this form of punishment should not be permitted in a civilized society.
They claim that the death sentence should be abolished from our modern society. Cases where an inmate has suffered from excruciating pain due to errors during the execution are used as justification for this claim. However, Carmical demonstrates that the execution methods used in the US are humane to the offender (par. 9).
The most commonly used method in the last decade has been lethal injection where the condemned person is injected with a lethal concoction of drugs that react to stop the heart. The condemned person is first given an anesthetic, which means that he does not feel any pain when the lethal dose is reacting in his body. Considering the fact that most of the individuals sentenced to death are guilty of brutal crimes such as violent murder, the implementation of the death penalty is humane.
The death sentence might result in the wrongful execution of an innocent person. This fear is not unfounded since the criminal justice system is not perfect and mistakes might be made. Judges and jurors have been known to make wrong decisions leading to the wrongful incarceration of individuals.
DNA technology has shown that there are many innocent people in our prisons. Between 1989 and 2010, DNA testing had led to the exoneration of 250 prisoners who had been wrongfully sentenced (Balko par.5). Of this number, 17 had been on death row awaiting execution. The death sentence therefore presents a risk of killing an innocent person. While this is a valid argument, the risk of wrongful conviction exists in all criminal justice systems.
There have been many cases of innocent people being given prison sentences. However, the US does not have a record of killing an innocent person through court sanctioned executions. Before a person is executed, the court ensures that there is no doubt about his guilt. The convict’s lawyer requests numerous appeals and this ensures that the case is thoroughly assessed. The death penalty can therefore be implemented without risking the lives of innocents.
Conclusion
The society needs the criminal justice system to preserve law and order. The punishments issued by this system are necessary for the protection of our society. This paper has argued that the death penalty is a necessary tool in the list of punishments used by Judges in our courts.
It has shown that the death penalty serves as a form of deterrence, provides justice for the victim and ensures that the society is kept free of dangerous criminals. The paper has also highlighted some of the reasons given by people who feel that the death penalty should be abolished.
This paper has shown that in spite of arguments to the contrary, sentencing offenders to death is morally justifiable and helps to deter crime. It has also demonstrated that the death penalty is not a cruel punishment since care is taken to ensure that the execution is swift and sometimes painless. All development minded citizens should therefore advocate for the death penalty to remain in our criminal justice system.
Works Cited
Balko, Radley. “DNA Testing Reveals Serious Problems in the Capital Punishment System.” Opposing Viewpoints In Context. 2010. Web.
Carmical, Casey. “Capital Punishment Is Morally Justified.” Opposing Viewpoints In Context. 2010. Web.
Dieter, Richard. “Capital Punishment Is Too Expensive to Retain.” Death Penalty Information Center, 2009. Web.
Muhlhausen, David. “The Death Penalty Deters Crime.” Opposing Viewpoints In Context. 2007. Web.
Schmidt, Derek. “The Death Penalty Is Essential, and Its Cost Is Irrelevant.” The Kansas Prosecutor 7 2009. Web.
Stambaugh, Irl, and Gary Stambaugh. “Death Penalty Would End Punishment of Victim’s Family.” Anchorage Daily News, 7 Mar. 2009. Web.
Yardley, William. “Oregon Governor Says He Will Block Executions.” The New York Times. 23. Nov. 2011. Web. <https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/oregon-executions-to-be-blocked-by-gov-kitzhaber.html>.