Death Penalty Essay, Research Paper

A Permanent Death – Capital Punishment

Essay written by Unknown

There are five basic reasons that society uses when imposing “punishment” that

I’ve been able to conclude from my readings. I will discuss these societal concepts

and show that the death penalty does not serve to further them. As a result William

Smith should not be subject to the death penalty and in fact the same should be

abolished from our system of “punishment”.

Deterrence

Deterrence is basically defined as “the punishment should fit the crime.” Under this

concept, the individual committing the crime and society are prevented from

committing this action again. In the case of the death penalty, an individual kills

another human and he is “punished” for it by death. Punishment is supposed to be

a temporary penalization for a wrongful action. Death is far from temporary. One is

to learn from one’s mistakes. How can the person learn if they are paying for their

mistake with their life? In Ernest van den Haag’s article, “The Ultimate Punishment:

A Defense” he states, “The death penalty is our harshest punishment. It is

irrevocable: it ends the existence of those punished, instead of temporarily

imprisoning them.” (Haag, 251). By imposing the death penalty the individual does

not learn from their mistakes and neither does society.

Economy

Under this concept, punishment should be economical. As Haag points out, “…the

monetary cost of appealing a capital sentence is excessive.” (Haag, 253). Further,

“…actual monetary costs are trumped by the importance of doing justice.” (Haag,

253). Additionally there are specific costs associated with keeping an inmate on

death row, (i.e. the cost of the specially built prison blocks, the need for maximum

security, etc.) and more. These costs clearly out weigh the regular costs incurred to

house a regular inmate. Deterrence is clearly not served by imposing the death

penalty and society aims for justice are thwarted.

Restitution

Society demands that the punishment should fix the harm it has done. By

sentencing a person to death no harm has been fixed. You can not bring the

murdered person back by taking the prisoner’s life. “Punishment-regardless of the

motivation is not intended to revenge, offset, or compensate for the victims

suffering or to be measured by it.” (Haag, 253).

Retribution

The community demands that justice be served. Would justice not equally be

served and in fact may be better served by life imprisonment? I believe it would be

a worse punishment to endure a life sentence in prison. The individual is deprived

of his liberty. He will then suffer and live the rest of his or her life within three lonely

walls and a set of bars. It gives the individual time to think and wallow in his own

guilt.

Someone kills another. The State then proceeds to kill him for doing so. This is not

punishment but revenge. Revenge is inconsistent with society’s demands that

justice be served because the punishment has to fit the crime. Justice Brennan has

insisted that the death penalty is “uncivilized, ” “inhuman,” inconsistent with

“human dignity” and with the “dignity of life.” (Haag, 254). Brennan speaks of

moral imperatives. It is morally wrong for someone to kill someone. If so, then the

state is committing a morally wrongful act. As they say, “two wrongs don’t make a

right.”

Rehabilitation

Society desires for its members to reintegrate themselves into society. Punishment

includes preparing the person to reenter society and lead a productive life. Without

doubt, if you impose the death penalty there is no opportunity for rehabilitation.

Overview of the William Alvin Smith case

William Alvin Smith robbed and killed the owner of a grocery store in Georgia when

he was 20 years old. He turned himself to the police and signed a confession. The

local jury condemned Smith to the electric chair but a federal judge ordered a new

sentencing hearing for Smith on the grounds that he lacked the ability to

understand the significance of waiving his rights to remain silent and to have an

attorney present. Smith has the mental capacity of a ten-year-old.

Analysis of the William Alvin Smith Case in Relation to Society’s Expectations of

Punishment

William Smith stands before you guilty but guilty of what? That is the question. I

propose to you that the only thing we can condemn William Smith for is being guilty

of being a child and acting the way a child would. Let us examine his actions.

William Smith in whatever state of mind he was at the time he committed this act

fully acknowledged that he did in fact do something wrong. I propose that he did

that in exactly the manner that a child would go to a parent and admit their

wrongdoing in order to obtain the parent’s forgiveness or perhaps their help.

The State now stands in the role of parent in this case. Let us examine the position

the State has taken when dealing with children that have committed violent crimes.

I have but one question to ask: Do we kill our children? Let me give you a recent

example – the teenage girl in New Jersey who knowingly and premeditatedly

murdered her newborn baby at the prom and then went back to the prom dance.

Another case comes to mind of the teenagers who conspired and did murder the

girlfriend’s “competition.” An even better example would be the rash of murders

committed in the nation by children in schools. In all these cases these children

knowingly committed the heinous crime of murder.

Once again I ask you: Do we kill our children? Has the State, exercising its

discretion decided to impose the death penalty on any child? In every single case

that I have just cited, these children have not been condemned to murder but their

ability to comprehend the seriousness of their actions and other factors related to

their youth have been taken into account. All have been sentenced to prison terms

to be served in a youth facility.

Another legal fact comes to mind in that some teenagers that have committed

murders have petitioned the Court to treat the minor as an adult. The law allows a

juvenile to be treated as an adult if it is determined that the juvenile in fact is a

juvenile in age only yet has the mental capacity of an adult and should be treated

like one. It stands to reason that there is room in the law for the inverse to apply.

Why should this man die? He can not think, act or feel like a “normal” 20 year-old

man. In this case, we have a situation of a person who has been adjudicated to

have the mental capacity of a ten-year-old. How can we then shut our eyes to this

basic fact of William Smith’s mental capacity and just look at age as the overriding

factor to consider when punishing him for his crime?

Society demands that the punishment fit the crime. I have outlined above what

society expects from punishment and the punishment that the State decides to

give out to children in these matters. On both accounts it is clear that society is not

served. Can you examine your conscience and decide to give a child, maybe your

child, the death penalty? If so, go ahead and sentence William Smith to death and

in doing so, that’s exactly what you will be doing. You will be deciding – let’s kill our

children.