Student Essay, Research Paper

weapon against the murderers; because no executed murderer has ever killed again. You cannot say that about those sentenced to prison.

Death sentence also depends on the case. I am not saying that everybody who commits the murder should be placed on the death row. There are different types of the murder and every murder that was planned or intentional should be severely punished. As Hugo Adam Badeu says, ?Despicable crimes should be dealt with realistically? (Badeu et al. 131). I have no mercy for the killers, and nobody should have any mercy for anybody who does harm to another human being. Who gives a right to anyone to commit crime anyway? Michael Kronenwetter says, ?The death penalty has always been considered especially appropriate for the crime of murder? (Kronenwetter 6). Murder is the biggest crime and biggest offense, and it should be treated like that.

Over the years, public safety has become a meaningless thing, not worth defending anymore, and the death penalty has been persecuted for just that reason. Every country in the world is ready and willing to kill thousands, even millions of human beings in brutal, merciless way to defend their nation from the aggression of other countries. I don?t see why public safety doesn?t deserve as much respect and protection as a nation?s national security does. In fact, it can be argued that supporting armies and war is far more barbarous than the death penalty is. The whole reason why nations and government exist is to defend their citizens from vicious criminals. When it fails to do that, they become of little use to its citizens. I think that the people in all the nations will soon realize that capital punishment, like the military or police force and even taxes is an unavoidable consequence of every civilized society, and it will no longer be the question of whether or not a nation should have the death penalty, but rather how it should be used.

?According to polls, more than 70 percent of Americans feel that murderers deserve the death penalty? (Winters et al. 168).

What can you say to the parents of the kids that were killed in Columbine High School, their kids will never come back, and their killers were kids, too. What can be done about juvenile murderers? ?President Clinton proposed that the age at which penalty could be applied should be reduced from 21 to 18? (O?Rourke 1). I agree with that and if that law could be put in place, no killer would be protected. Everybody who is mature enough to the consequences of the things they do should be equally punished as everybody else. Most of the people don?t agree with this, but that?s just the way it is. As I said laws change and convicted could be out on the streets again, and they could strike again.

Those who advocate the abolition of capital punishment have supported their cause with many arguments. They have claimed that some have been wrongly sent to death row, while other decisions have been unfairly applied to minorities and the poor. Others argued for the sanctity of human life, as well as the expense involved in capital punishment. But those who believe in the opposition of the death penalty are often misled. They should consider the following cases that underlie the support for capital punishment, for it is certainly the only way to deal with the cruelty of crime that has infected our society.

Capital punishment was once supported by the theory of deterrence, yet studies have shown weaknesses in this argument. Although the death penalty may not have an effect in deterring crime, it protects society from the threat of the same criminal committing a violation again when they are set free. A notable example is the case of Ali Agca, who attempted to assassinate the Pope after he had previously been tried and convicted of murder. Opponents may often refute this by suggesting a life sentence without parole, yet research has shown that the crime rates in prisons are gradually increasing. What happens when a person sentenced with life imprisonment kills another inmate or guard during that time? This brings about reconsideration for those who advocate sentences without parole instead of capital punishment.

A second way to look at the validation of capital punishment is the concept of retribution. Retribution cannot be confused with the concept of revenge. It is society’s right of intolerance to heinous crimes that bring about the need for death row. Criminals have not only injured their victims but also the important values that govern society, which is the respect for life. Society has a responsibility to protect its citizens, doing what is necessary and appropriate to those who break the laws. Thus, capital punishment is necessary to ensure the priceless value of human lives.

Thirdly, some people urge to abolish the death penalty because of their concern for the sanctity of human life. That is precisely the reason why this form of crime prevention should be maintained. Capital punishment is different from murder because the person being executed had committed a crime and was tried and found guilty. An execution carried out after a trial cannot be compared to a murder committed by a criminal.

Lastly, it is suggested and often proven that the death penalty discriminates against the poor and minority groups. One must see that this problem does not concern the justification of the penalty, but the unfair way in which it is distributed. This problem may be improved by properly reviewing the cases, imposing decisions without regard to race or class. This can be achieved so that all defendants receive equal protection ground.

Capital punishment has proven to have good benefits upon the country in determining the consequences that criminals deserve. This is needed to ensure the safety and moral values of society. If this is the case, there is no need for us to consider the expenses involved in the death penalty. Certainly human lives are more important, for it may easily be yours. We should not abolish capital punishment, but hold our country accountable for properly exercising the death penalty upon those who deserve it.

Many criminals don’t fear the judicial system. They know that they will get out in ten years if they murder someone. They are not afraid of jail or their punishment. How can we force them to stop killing or stealing if they are not afraid of the punishment we give them. Most rational men are afraid of death. They don’t want to die. There are also men that don’t fear death, but enjoy killing. They must be controlled, but if they are sentenced to life they are soon free to kill again. Again, I am not saying we should kill all the men in jail and any other criminal in the world. That is not the answer either, but we must have the death penalty as an option so that they will be afraid to break the law, and to control those who don’t fear death but love to break the law.

What do you do with men who do not fear the loss of their life? One criminal of America, Carl Panzram was quoted in saying, “In my life I have murdered 21 human beings. I have committed thousands of burglaries, robberies, larcenies, arsons and last but not least I have committed sodomy on more than 1000 male human beings. For all of these things I am not the least bit sorry. I have no conscience so that does not worry me. I don’t believe in Man, God nor devil. I hate the whole damned human race including myself” (Panzram 1).

Men like this who do not care for any law and do every unthinkable act are being supported in some jails around the world. What do you do with people who only want to kill and cause chaos? There is very little you can do, especially if they do not care if they are imprisoned. Panzram cares for nothing. He doesn’t mind his fifteen years in prison, or even his twenty-five. Panzram was executed and can no longer bother man kind, but there are others like him. Australia has abolished the death sentence. They can no longer control the men like Panzram. Martin Bryant shot and killed 35 innocent people in Tasmania. He is now being supported by the people of Australia. There is one option, which Australia no longer has. They cannot put this man to death, they are not allowed. This cannot be the case in other countries, so that those criminals like Panzram and Bryant, will be able to do what they want and not be executed for it. We must keep the death penalty for the people like this; people who like to kill and that don’t fear imprisonment.

The death penalty should be maintained?

Works Cited

1. Bedau, Hugo Adam. ?The Death Penalty in America? Statements in favor of the Death Penalty. Ed. J. Edgar Hoover. Chicago: Alding publishing company, 1964. 130-135

2. Kronenwetter, Michael. Capital Punishment. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1993.

3. Winters, Paul A. et al. The Death Penalty. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1997.

4. DiLulio, John J. ?Abolish the Death penalty, officially?. May, 99 1+. Online. UMI-ProQuest Direct. (27 May, 99).

5. Ramirez, Richard. ?Carl Panzram, 1861-1930? 1996. http://www.serialkillers.net/case_studies/panzram.htm (28 June, 1996).

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT Capital Punishment deters murder, and is just Retribution Capital punishment, is the execution of criminals by the state, for committing crimes, regarded so heinous, that this is the only acceptable punishment. Capital punishment does not only lower the murder rate, but it’s value as retribution alone is a good reason for handing out death sentences. Support for the death penalty in the U.S. has risen to an average of 80% according to an article written by Richard Worsnop, entitled “Death penalty debate centres on Retribution”, this figure is slightly lower in Canada where support for the death penalty is at 72% of the population over 18 years of age, as stated in article by Kirk Makir, in the March 26, 1987 edition of the Globe and Mail, titled “B.C. MPs split on Death Penalty”. The death penalty deters murder by putting the fear of death into would be killers. A person is less likely to do something, if he or she thinks that harm will come to him. Another way the death penalty deters murder, is the fact that if the killer is dead, he will not be able to kill again. Most supporters of the death penalty feel that offenders should be punished for their crimes, and that it does not matter whether it will deter the crime rate. Supporters of the death penalty are in favour of making examples out of offenders, and that the threat of death will be enough to deter the crime rate, but the crime rate is irrelevant. According to Isaac Ehrlich’s study, published on April 16, 1976, eight murders are deterred for each execution that is carried out in the U.S.A. He goes on to say, “If one execution of a guilty capital murderer deters the murder of one innocent life, the execution is justified.” To most supporters of the death penalty, like Ehrlich, if even 1 life is saved, for countless executions of the guilty, it is a good reason for the death penalty. The theory that society engages in murder when executing the guilty, is considered invalid by most supporters, including Ehrlich. He feels that execution of convicted offenders expresses the great value society places on innocent life. Isaac Ehrlich goes on to state that racism is also a point used by death penalty advocates. We will use the U.S. as examples, since we can not look at the inmates on death row in Canada, because their are laws in Canada that state that crime statistics can not be based on race, also the fact that there are no inmates on death row in Canada. In the U.S. 16 out of 1000 whites arrested for murder are sentenced to death, while 12 of 1000 blacks arrested for murder were sentenced to death. 1.1% of black inmates on death row were executed, while 1.7% of white inmates will die. Another cry for racism, as according to Ehrlich, that is raised by advocates of the death penalty is based on the colour of the victim, for example “if the victim is white, it is more likely that the offender will get the death penalty than if the victim had been black”. This is true, if you look at the actual number of people who are murder. More people kill whites and get the death penalty, then people who kill blacks and get the death penalty. The reason for this is that more whites are killed, and the murders captured. Now if we look at the number of blacks killed it is a lot less, but you have to look at these numbers proportionately. Percent wise it is almost the same number for any race, so this is not the issue. In a 1986 study done by Professor Stephen K. Layson of the University of North Carolina, the conclusions made by Ehrilich were updated, and showed to be a little on the low side as far as the deterrence factor of capital punishment. Professor Layson found that 18 murders were deterred by each execution is the U.S. He also found that executions increases in probability of arrest, conviction, and other executions of heinous offenders. According to a statement issued by George C. Smith, Director of Litigation, Washington Legal Foundation, titled “In Support of the Death Penalty”, support for the death penalty has grown in the U.S., as the crime rate increased. In 1966, 42% of Americans were in favour of capital punishment while 47% were opposed to it. Since the crime rate United states has increased, support for the capital punishment has followed suit. In 1986, support for capital punishment was 80% for and only 17% against with 3% undecided, but most of the undecided votes said they were leaning toward a pro capital punishment stance, if they had to vote on it immediately. Let us now focus on Canada. The last two people to be executed, in Canada were Arthur Lucas and Ron Turpin. They were executed on December 11, 1962. The executions in Canada were carried out by hanging. 1 The death penalty was abolished in Canada in the latter part of 1976, after a debate that lasted 98 hours. The death penalty was only beaten by 6 votes. If we look back to 1976, the year the death penalty was abolished in Canada, threats of death, were being made to Members of Parliament and their immediate families from pro death penalty advocates. Most members of parliament, voted on their own personal feelings, as opposed to the views of their voters.2 The same was the case in British Colombia, where accepting of the death penalty, if it was reinstated 1987 , by the federal government was discussed. The M.P.s were split, 17 out of 29 were for the death penalty. This showed, that even the majority of the M.P.s were in favour of the death penalty in B.C. Support for the death penalty in British Columbia at the time was almost 70%, but the M.P.s felt that it was up to them to vote how they felt was right, and not to vote on which vote would give them the best chance for a second term.3 In 1987, the Progressive Conservative government wanted to hold a free vote on the reinstatement of Capital punishment, but Justice minister Ray Hnatyshyn, who was opposed to it, pressured the M.P.s, into voted against the bill. Ray Hnatyshyn, was the deciding factor, if not for him, it was widely believed that the reinstatement of capital punishment would have gone through, and the death penalty would be a reality today.4 Capital punishment is such a volatile issue, and both sides are so deeply rooted in their views that they are willing to do almost anything to sway all of the people they can to their side. We personally feel, and our views are backed up by proof, in the form of studies by the likes of Isaac Ehrlich’s 1975 and Prof. Stephen K. Layson’s, that was published in 1986, and polls that have been taken both in Canada and the United States over the past few years. All of these studies and surveys show that capital punishment is a valid deterrent to crime, and obviously the public, and society as a whole are in favour of it. The death penalty makes would be capital offenders think about weather committing a crime is really worth their lives. Even if capital punishment did not deter crime, the simple fact that it will allow society to “get even” with murders. Capital punishment also insures peace of mind because it insures that murders will never kill again. 1 From: Take Notice, (Copp Clarke Pitman Ltd., 1979) page 163 2 From: Article written by David Vienneau published in the March 24, 1987 edition of the “Toronto Star”, titled, Debate Agonizing for MPs. 3 From: Article written by Kirk Makir, published in March 26, 1987 edition of the “Globe and Mail”, titled, BC MPs Split on Death Penalty Debate. 4 From: Article written by Hugh Winsor, published in April 29, 1987 edition of the “Globe and Mail”, titled, Debate on Death Penalty placed on hold.

315