Death Penalty Essay, Research Paper

Society, in general, agrees that the taking of an innocent life is an

unforgivable act, and that the rape of children is particularly heinous. I will

argue that all persons convicted of the crime of murder or the rape of a child

under ten years of age should be given a manditory death penalty. Capital

punishment is not only justifiable but is morally correct and should be the

mandatory sentence for such crimes once an individual is found guilty. It would

be neither unjust nor immoral to execute such an individual. It is not logical

or rational to believe that a person raised in our society does not know that

the crimes of murder or the rape of a child will not be tolerated. Regardless of

an individual?s background or socio-economic status, individual choices lead

to results that carry personal responsibility. It is inappropriate to make

excuses for these criminals simply because they were not reared in well-to-do

circumstances. neglected, or perhaps suffered abuse as a child. None of these

forced them to make the choice to commit the crime. As stated by Ernest van den

Haag, "by committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the

risk." (1)If an individual commits the crime of murder, or rapes a child,

that person has forfeited any moral right to continue to live, even if

imprisoned for life. Their victim had no choice and no chance to live a

fruitful, productive life. Why should society be required to pay the costs

associated with imprisonment? A society, which values the lives of its citizens,

has the right to exercise capital punishment for those who have been convicted

after due process of law. The U.S. Constitution provides for punishment of

capital crimes so there is certainly no trouble with it in the law. However,

some of the most impassioned arguments against capital punishment are the

possibility of convicting the wrong person, and discriminatory application of

the law. Abolitionists also argue that we should base on justice system on

reform and rehabilitation. First, the possibility of convicting an innocent

person is often cited as an argument that the death penalty is unjust. One

Internet source indicates that 350 people were wrongly convicted of homicide or

capital rape from 1900- 1985. (2) (It should be noted that the article does not

specify how many of these individuals were later released.) In our text, Ernest

van den Haag refers to a study conducted by Hugo Bedau that found that of 7000

executions during that same period, only 25 were purportedly innocent. (Ibid.

p.286) The execution of an innocent person appears much less a risk than the

risk that a person guilty of this type of violence would repeat the crime.

Criminals kill people knowing that they will live and either spend the rest of

their lives in prison or get out in 10 to 20 years. Consistent application of

the capital punishment laws would have a deterrent effect on some potential

murderers if not all. While states that do carry death penalty provisions

significantly outnumber those that do not, there appears to be a certain

reluctance to apply the laws. As a result, many violent criminals no longer fear

the court system. Further, capital punishment laws have undergone many decades

of review by the highest courts in the country and are anything but capriciously

imposed. A further argument against the "innocent are convicted" is

found in a review of the extensive appeal system that has been mandated by the

courts that may take as much as fourteen years to complete. Even if this were a

legitimate concern, the chances of an innocent person being wrongly convicted

are very slim. The second argument, discriminatory application holds that a

disproportional number of non-whites receive the death penalty upon conviction,

in particular, a black convicted of murdering a white. This is really an

argument against a flawed justice system that favors one class of citizen?s

over another. Unequal distribution among the guilty is irrelevant to the

morality of the punishment. The system is far from perfect but can be improved.

In the past, women were much less likely to be executed than men, and we are all

aware that if you have enough money to hire good lawyers, you have a better

chance to evade punishment. Haag (ibid.) argues that recent data indicates that

the discriminatory aspect against blacks was primarily due to capital punishment

for rape. Additionally, in recent years, the once prevalent trend of more

non-whites than whites being executed, and more men than women, seems to be

reversing. For example, in recent months I recall reading about four persons

executed in the United States, two were women, and one was a white male. Working

to improve the criminal justice system so that everyone who deserves the death

penalty gets it, would ensure justice and equality. Lastly, some would argue

against the death penalty by claiming that our criminal justice system should be

based on reform rather than punishment. Even without arguing specifically

opposite this point, it is almost self-evident that the criminal who can be

reformed is not the problem. The real problem is the criminal you cannot reform.

It becomes simple to say, "just give him a life sentence". However,

the problem is more complicated. Long prison terms mean large and costly

institutions that must, sooner or later, be paid for by all of us. Some may

argue that killing such a murderer violates his human rights and would suggest

life imprisonment as a better alternative. Even from the point of view of the

individual, natural life imprisonment as an alternative to capital punishment is

apt to be no better than the substitution of a slow death for a quick one. In

both cases, a convicted murderer?s only way of paying his debt to society is

through dying. In this paper, I have argued that the death penalty is a

necessary form of retribution–the only adequate means of expressing society’s

condemnation of a particular crime–and a necessary deterrent against this same

crime. Furthermore, it is necessary for a just and effective system of criminal

justice. The justification for capital punishment is based on retribution as

well as deterrence. It is a just penalty for a set of horrid crimes as well as

being a demonstrably effective means of protecting potential victims.

1 "The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense", Ernest van den Haag, p.287

ETHICS: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Barbara MacKinnon, Wadsworth Publishing

Co., 1995 "Capital Punishment: Our Duty or Our Doom?"