Capitol Punishment

There has been many controversies in the history of the United States, ranging

from abortion to gun control, but capital punishment has been one of the most hotly

contested issues in recent decades. Capital punishment is the legal infliction of the death

penalty on persons convicted of a crime (Cox). It is not intended to inflict any physical

pain or any torture; it is only another form of punishment. It is irrevocable because it

removes those punished from society permanently, instead of temporarily imprisoning

them. The usual alternative to the death penalty is life-long imprisonment.

Capital punishment is a method of retributive punishment as old as civilization

itself. The death penalty has been imposed throughout history for many crimes, ranging

from blasphemy and treason to petty theft and murder. Many ancient societies accepted

the idea that certain crimes deserved capital punishment. Ancient Roman and Mosaic law

endorsed the notion of retaliation; they believed in the rule of "an eye for an eye."

Similarly, the ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, and Greeks all executed citizens for a variety

of crimes. The most famous people to be executed are Socrates and Jesus. Only in

England, during the reigns of King Canute (1016-1035) and William the Conqueror

(1066-1087) was the death penalty not used, although the results of interrogation and

torture were often fatal (Kronenwetter 12). Later, Britain reinstated the death penalty and

brought it to its American colonies. Although the death was widely accepted throughout

the early United States, not everyone approved of it. In the late-eighteen century,

opposition to the death penalty gathered enough strength to lead to important restrictions

on the use of the death penalty in several northern states, while in the United States,

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island abandoned the practice altogether (Kronenwetter

15). In 1794, Pennsylvania adopted a law to distinguish the degrees of murder and only

used the death penalty for premeditated first-degree murder. Another reform took place in

1846 in Louisiana. This state abolished the mandatory death penalty and authorized the

option of sentencing a capital offender to life imprisonment rather than to death. After the

1830s, public executions ceased to be demonstrated but did not completely stop until after

1936.

Throughout history, governments have been extremely inventive in devising ways

to execute people. Executions inflicted in the past are now regarded today as ghastly,

barbaric, and unthinkable and are forbidden by law almost everywhere. Common historical

methods of execution included: stoning, crucifixion, burning, breaking on the wheel,

drawing and quartering, peine forte et dure, garroting, beheading or decapitation, shooting

and hanging (Kronenwetter 171). These types of punishments today are considered cruel

and unusual. In the United States, the death penalty is currently authorized in one of five

ways: firing squad, hanging, gas chamber, electrocution, and lethal injection. These

methods of execution compared to those of the past are not meant for torture, but meant

for punishment for the crime.

For the past decades capital punishment has been one of the most hotly contested

political issues in America. This debate is a complicated one. Capital punishment is a legal,

practical, philosophical, social, political, and moral question. The notion of deterrence has

been at the very center of the practical debate over the question of capital punishment.

Most of us assume that we execute murderers primarily because we believe it will

discourage others from becoming murderers. Retentionists have long asserted the

deterrent power of capital punishment as an obvious fact. The fear of death deters people

from committing crimes.

Still, abolitionists (people against capital punishment) believe that deterrence is

little more than an assumption-and a naive assumption at that. Abolitionists claim that

capital punishment does not deter murderers from killing or killing again. They base most

of their argument against deterrence on statistics. States that use it extensively show a

higher murder rate than those that have abolished the death penalty. Also, states that have

abolished the death penalty and then reinstituted it show no significant change in the

murder rate. They say adjacent states with the death penalty and those without show no

long term differences in the number of murders that occur in that state. And finally, there

has been no record of change in the rate of homicides in a given city or state following a

local execution. Any attempts at deterring a would-be murderer from killing has little

effect.

Most retentionists (people for capital punishment) argue that none of this statistical

evidence proves that capital punishment does not deter potential criminals. There is

absolutely no way to prove, with any certainty, how many would-be murderers were in

fact deterred from killing (Carrington 82). They point out that the murder rate in any given

state depends on many things besides whether or not that state has capital punishment.

They cite such factors as the proportion of urban residents in the state, the level of

economic prosperity, and the social and racial makeup of the population. But a small

minority is ready to believe in these statistics and to abandon the deterrence argument. But

they defend the death penalty base on other arguments, relying primarily on the need to

protect society from killers who are considered high risks for killing again. Incapacitation

is another controversial aspect of the death penalty. Abolitionists say condemning a person

to death removes any possibility of rehabilitation. They are confident in the life-sentence

presenting the possibility of rehabilitating the convict. But rehabilitation is a myth. The

state does not know how to rehabilitate people because there are plenty of convicted

murderers who kill again. The life-sentence is also a myth because of overcrowding in the

prisons. Early parole has released convicted murderers and they still continue murder.

Some escape and murder again, while others have murdered someone in prison. There are

countless stories in prisons where a violent inmate kills another for his dinner.

Incapacitation is not solely meant as deterrence but is meant to maximize public safety by

remove any possibility of a convict murderer to murder again.

The issue of execution of an innocent person is troubling to both abolitionists and

retentionists alike. Some people are frightened of this possibility enough to be convinced

that capital punishment should be abolished. This is not true at all. The execution of

innocent people is very rare because there are many safeguards guaranteeing protection of

the rights of those facing the death penalty. There is legal assistance provided and an

automatic appeal for persons convicted of capital crimes. Persons under the age of

eighteen, pregnant women, new mothers or persons who have become insane can not be

sentenced to death. Retentionists argue almost all human activities, ranging from trucking

to construction, costs the lives of some innocent bystanders. These activities can not be

simply abandoned, because the advantages outweigh the losses. Capital punishment saves

lives as well as takes them. We must accept the few risks of wrongful deaths for the sake

of defending public safety.

Abolitionists say the cost of execution has become increasingly expensive and that

life sentence is more economical. A study of the Texas criminal system estimated the cost

of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. This high cost includes $265,640 for the trial;

$294,240 for the state appeals; $113,608 for federal appeals (over six years); and

$135,875 for death row housing. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas

maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000. This is a huge

amount of taxpayer money but the public looks at it as an investment in safety since these

murders will never kill again. Retentionists argue that these high costs are due to "the

lengthy time and the high expense result from innumerable appeals, many over

'technicalities' which have little or nothing to do with the question of guilt or innocence,

and do little more than jam up the nation's court system. If these 'frivolous' appeals were

eliminated, the procedure would neither take so long nor cost so much" (Kronenwetter

29).

The moral issues concerning the legitimacy of the death have been brought by

many abolitionists. They think that respect for life forbids the use of the death penalty,

while retentionists believe that respect for life requires it. Retentionists says the bible

(Genesis 9:6) says, "Whosoever sheds man's blood, by man may his blood be shed." This

classic argument in favor of the death penalty has usually been interpreted as a proper and

moral reason for putting a murderer to death. "Let the punishment fit the crime" is its

secondary counterpart (Cox). Both quotes imply that the murderer deserves to die and it

was his own fault for putting himself on death row. Supporters of capital punishment say

that society has the right to kill in defense of its members, just as an individual has the

right to kill in self defense for his or her own personal safety. This analogy is somewhat

doubtful, however, as long as the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent to

violent crimes has yet to be proven.

In the United States, the main objection to capital punishment has been that it was

always used unfairly, in at least three major ways. First, females are rarely sentenced to

death and executed, even though 20 percent of all murders that have occurred in recent

years were committed by women. Second, a disproportionate number of nonwhites are

sentenced to death and executed. A black man who kills a white person is 11 times more

likely to receive the death penalty than a white man who kills a black person. In Texas in

1991, blacks made up 12 percent of the population, but 48 percent of the prison

population and 55.5 percent of those on death row are black (Baker 127). Before the

1970s, when the death penalty for rape was still used in many states, no white men were

guilty of raping nonwhite women, whereas most black offenders found guilty of raping a

white woman were executed. This data shows how the death penalty can discriminate and

be used on certain races rather than equally as punishment for severe crimes. And third,

poor and friendless defendants, those who are inexperienced or of court-appointed

counsel, are most likely to be sentenced to death and executed. Defenders of the death

penalty, however, argue that, because nothing found in the laws of capital punishment

causes sexist, racist, or class bias in its use, these kinds of discrimination are not a

sufficient reason for abolishing the death penalty on the idea that it discriminates or

violates the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Opponents of capital

punishment have replied to this by saying that the death penalty is subject to miscarriage of

justice and that it would be impossible to administer fairly.

In the 1970s, a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions made the death penalty in

the U.S. unconstitutional, if it is mandatory, if it is imposed without providing courts with

adequate guidance to make the right decision in the severity of the sentence, or if it is

imposed for a crime that does not take or threaten the life of another human being. The

death penalty was also confined to crimes of murder, including felony murder. A felony

murder is any homicide committed in the course of committing another felony, such as

rape or robbery. After the 1972 court ruling that all but a few capital statutes were

unconstitutional, thirty-seven states revised and reenacted their death penalty laws. In

1989 the Supreme Court decided that the death penalty could be used on those who were

mentally retarded or underage (but 16 years and over) at the time of the killing. A trend

that the Supreme Court is following is making a cut back on the appeals that death row

inmates could make to the federal courts.

I feel strongly toward using the death penalty as punishment for unspeakable

crimes. I feel that it is a deterrent for criminal activity because of its severity and it will

never allow a murder to kill again and destroy another family. The death penalty is not a

problem if all avenues have been investigated and nothing is questionable. I do, however,

feel that restrictions should be put on its uses. Not all crimes deserve the death penalty.

Let the punishment fit the crime. If a criminal performs a premeditated heinous murder he

should be put to death. It is that simple. If the convicted offender shows no remorse for

his actions, then the decision should be even easier. Repeat offenders and people who

enjoy killing do not deserve to walk our street. I feel that it is important to send a message

to all future "thrill-killers" that taking the life of another human is wrong and if they decide

to try it, they must face the consequences-Death.

Bibliography

Works Cited

Amnesty International, "List of Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries,"

Report ACT 50/01/99, April 1999D.

Baker: "A Descriptive Profile and Socio-Historical Analysis of Female Executions

in the United States: 1632-1997"; 10(3) Women and Criminal Justice 57

(1999)R.

Carrington, "Deathquest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital

Punishment in the United States," Anderson Publishing, 1999.

Cox,"The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies," H. Bedau, editor,

Oxford University Press, 1997.

Kronenwetter, "Women and the Death Penalty in the United States, 1900-1998,"

Praeger 1999.

W. Schabas "The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law,"

Cambridge University Press, second edition, 1997.

“Society's Final Solution: A History and Discussion of the Death Penalty," L.

Randa, editor, University Press of America, 1997.

V. Streib, "Death Penalty For Female Offenders

Word Count: 2137