The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment Essay

The use of the death penalty is considered by some to be the most obvious and heinous example of cruel and unusual punishment. The book An Eye for an Eye (Nathanson, 2001) articulates the opposition viewpoint. It and like-minded opponents to capital punishment do not believe that the government should be vested with the power to put any of its citizens to death and that the practice is racially biased, overtly costly, and does not achieve the intended outcome. The majority in this country believes it to be neither cruel nor unusual, on the contrary, they think it just and fair.

Originally, the death punishment is aimed to be the revenge for a crime, to protect society by imprisoning the criminal, to deter that person and other potential offenders from the commission of crimes, and to obtain reparations from the offender (Wolfgang, 1998). This type of punishment was intended to be the compensation for a crime, linked with life destruction (a crime, after which life was impossible). This category includes murder, rape (deprivation of honor), and similar actions. Originally, the death punishment should be appointed to any murderer, rapist, and serial gambler (gambling rarely deals without deaths). It is necessary to mention that capital punishment is often regarded as the most powerful crime prevention tool, as the fear of being sentenced to death makes some criminals refuse their ideas and intentions.

As for the necessity of the death penalty, the following fact should be emphasized: the death penalty is the most effective means of crime eradication. The punished criminal does not require to be guarded, fed, observed, etc. No Person – No Trouble. The principles of the criminals should be used against them, consequently, the death penalty is the best way to give humanity to realize the horror of death and the fear of being killed. Despite the fact it is considered a violation of the principal human rights, there is no necessity to regard criminals as humans, while the criminals ignore the rights of their victims. However, the investigation system should be essentially improved in order to avoid mistaken sentencing and the punishment of the innocents.

Sending a murderer away to enjoy three meals a day and a roof over their heads for life simply doesn’t fully address the issue. Death penalty laws have been known to change and probably will again. In addition, people tend to forget the past and parole boards constantly evolve their personnel so there is always a chance, no matter how small, that the murderer will strike again if he is allowed to remain alive. A life sentence imprisonment tends to depreciate with the passage of time as these examples illustrate. In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss in New York State. Her parents were opposed to the death penalty and asked that he be given life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Moore has been eligible for parole every two years since 1982 because of a change in sentencing laws. In 1966, Kenneth McDuff was convicted in the fatal shooting of two boys in the face and the brutal rape and strangulation of their 16-year-old female friend. A Texas jury sentenced McDuff to die in the electric chair but in 1972 this was commuted to life in prison after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In 1989, he was released only to commit at least six more murders which included a pregnant mother of two. He was finally executed in 1998 (Lowe, 2006).

Although the U.S. court system is at least among the most equitable in the world, no system of justice can expect to provide perfect results 100 percent of the time. Mistakes are inherent within all systems that rely on the human element for proof and for judgment. The justice system correctly demands that a higher standard be imposed for determinations of guilt in death penalty cases. With the extraordinary due process that is applied in all death penalty cases, the risk of making a mistake is minute. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, there has been no credible evidence provided that confirms any innocent persons have been executed. The more than 100 ‘innocent’ death row inmates that were ‘exonerated’ are a sham. The actual figure of innocent death row inmates is nearer 40 which should be considered in context with the 7,000-plus death–row inmates added to the roles since 1973. Mistakes within the system, though few and unavoidable, should not serve as justification to eradicate the death penalty. We should never disregard the dangers of permitting murderers to kill again (Stewart, 2006).

The death penalty is the option of last resort for criminals that cannot be rehabilitated. Every murderer executed is one less person that the taxpayers are not feeding and housing. An execution is less costly to taxpayers than the alternative, long imprisonment. “The cost of supporting criminals in maximum security prisons until they die is very high and they feel the innocent taxpayer should not have to foot the bill for the care of depraved criminals who’ve demonstrated that they have no respect for society’s laws or human life” (Olen & Barry, 1996: 273-274). Additionally, a lengthy appeals process is a costly process that ties up the court system. This cost is considered by opponents to be an insignificant argument because the value of human life cannot possibly be broken down into columns on a profit and loss ledger. Department of Justice statistics clearly illustrates that the death penalty contains many constitutional flaws. Between 1973 and 1993, almost half (forty-two percent) of inmates awaiting the death sentence had their sentences commuted or reversed. Capital punishment is “a waste of money and resources in producing what turns out to be counterfeit death sentences in almost one out of every two instances” (McCloskey, 1996: 7).

Opponents of the death penalty defy reasonable logic by arguing that taking a murderer’s life devalues human life, the ‘killing is wrong no matter the circumstances’ argument such as expressed in (Nathanson, 2001 p.7). Evidently, they have never had their car stolen and don’t understand the example or they believe that the murderer’s life is more valuable than the victim’s. Taking away criminals’ freedom is the only way of showing how much this society showing values freedom. Taking away criminals’ life is the only way of showing how much this society values life.

Works Cited

“Furman v. Georgia.” The Supreme Court Collection. (1972). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Web.

Lowe, Wesley. “Capital Punishment vs. Life Without Parole.” ProDeath Penalty. (2006). Web.

Nathanson, Stephen “An Eye for an Eye?” Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 2nd edition (2001).

Olen, Jeffrey & Barry, Vincent. Applying Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., (1996).

Prager, Dennis. “Death Penalty Guards What is Valued Most.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. (2001).

Stewart, Steven D. “A Message from the Prosecuting Attorney.” The Death Penalty. Clark County, IN: Office of the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, (2006).

Wolfgang, M.E. “We Do Not Deserve to Kill.” Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 44, (1998), pp. 19-32.