Death penalty should NOT be an acceptable form of punishment - Essay Example

Sebastian Death penalty should not be an acceptable form of punishment In many parts of the world, the death penalty is in steep decline. Most European countries have abolished the death penalty because it is considered a barbaric legacy of the past and has no place in modern society. Countries like Great Britain, France and Canada are some of the countries which have recently abolished the death penalty. However, countries like the United States, Japan, Iran, China and some Asian countries still use this practice. In the United States of America, the death penalty is used almost exclusively for the crime of murder. In 2010, a total of 46 people in the U.S. were executed and since 1976, the number of people who were executed is 1,234 (Facts ..- NCADP – The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty). Does society have the right to take the life of one of its citizens? Does the government have the right to pass a law that seeks to kill a person? While the worldwide trend is toward the complete abolition of the death penalty, the U.S. is one of the few nations where the death penalty is still in use as a method of crime control. Today, the death penalty is prevalent in China, Iran and South Africa, countries that are known for their disregard of the human rights of their citizens. It is both ironic and embarrassing that the U.S. which claims to be a champion of human rights issues be linked with the governments of these countries in retaining the death penalty to control crime. The death penalty should not be an acceptable form of punishment because it costs our taxpayers more money and time, is not as effective as the life sentence and it fosters a culture of violence. In the first place, the death penalty should be banned because it causes too much financial stress on American taxpayers. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the “average cost of defending a trial in a federal death case is $620,932, about 8 times that of a federal murder case in which the death penalty is not sought” (Cost of the Death Penalty / Death Penalty Sebastian 2 Information Center). This shows that the death penalty is an enormously expensive and wasteful program. Not only is it expensive at every step, it also takes a much longer time, often lasting for a few years. The huge cost it entails includes legal costs, pre-trial costs, trial costs, costs involved in jury selection, appeals cost and others. Since, guilty pleas are rarely heard of in cases where the death penalty is involved, the state pays for the whole trial.The convicted person can spend as many as fifteen to twenty years on the death row. In his article, The Case Against the Death Penalty, Hugo Adam Bedau asserts that “A murder trial normally takes much longer when the death penalty is at issue than when it is not. Litigation costs – including the time of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and court reporters, and the high costs of briefs – are all borne by the taxpayer” (Bedau). The death penalty will not lessen the pain borne by the family members of the victim or the convict. By prolonging the time for the convict on the death row, we are also prolonging the agony of the families. Would it not be better for the funds that are currently used for the costly execution procedures be diverted to help the families of the victims? Moreover, the money spent for the execution of one defendant could be used for effective crime reduction programs or for drug rehabilitation programs. With the possibility of a recession looming in the background and at a time when many states are facing budget cutbacks, the time is now right to consider whether maintaining the death penalty system is practical or whether it is a wasteful practice with no real benefit. Proponents of the death penalty maintain that society has a moral obligation to use the most severe punishment to deter crimes, especially heinous crimes like murder. They contend that the the death penalty will serve this purpose. Their argument is that if murderers are sentenced to death, then it will make potential murderers think twice before killing. This argument does not Sebastian 3 hold water because in countries where the death penalty is in force, there has been no significant reduction in the number of murder cases. The death penalty is not effective because the convict does not suffer for a long time. Neither, will he experience much pain. Therefore, the punishment becomes too easy for the prisoner. A life sentence without parole, on the other hand, will ensure that the condemnned person will have plenty of time to think over what he has done. Imposing the death penalty will, no doubt, guarantee that the convict will commit no further crimes but he will not have the time to think over what he has done. As we are all aware, the death penalty can be carried out in several ways – electrocution, lethal injection, death on the gallows and death by firing squad. In all these methods of execution, the prisoner suffers for only a short while before his life is taken away. It does not give him enough time to reflect upon his actions and make his peace with God. The life sentence will ensure that the prisoner will suffer for the remaining days of his life. In the article, Life Without Parole, America’s Other Death Penalty, Robert Johnson and Sandra McGunigall-Smith assert that “these prisoners [those serving life sentence] are physically alive, of course, but they live only in prison. It might be better to say that they ‘exist’ in prison …… . Their lives are steeped in suffering. The prison is their cemetery, a cell their tomb” (Johnson). Once prisoners are given life sentences without parole, they should do productive work in prison to pay for thier own upkeep and to make financial restitution to the families of their victims. In addition, if a crime like murder is premeditated, then, even the threat of invoking the death penalty will not deter the criminal. Often, such crimes are committed during moments of extreme stress and tensions or when under the influence of drugs. Whether or not the crime is premedidated, long term imprisonment is more effective than the death penalty in detering violent crimes. The purpose of punishment is to make the convict suffer for Sebastian 4 the crime he has committed. Only life imprisonment without the possibility of parole will ensure that the prisoner suffers for the remaining days of his life. It will also ensure that the prisoner will not walk the streets again to commit another crime. As Robert Johnson and Sandra McGunigall-Smith observe, “If our goal is to make prisoners suffer greatly for the rest of their lives, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole offers itself as perhaps the ultimate punishment we can inflict” (Johnson). The death penalty fosters a culture of violence. The death penalty is based on the concept of retribution – “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. This is a simplistic notion which society has never endorsed. In a civilised society, we should not be doing to criminals what they do to their victims. Taking a human life to show that killing others is a crime simply does not make sense. Just as the penalty for rape cannot be rape, the penalty for murder should not involve taking the murderer’s life. That is revenge and not punishment for a crime. According to H.A. Bedau, “If this principle [that criminals should be punished according to their crimes] is understood to require that punishments are unjust unless they are like the crime itself, then the principle is unacceptable. It would require us to rape rapists, torture torturers and inflict other horrible and degrading punishments on offenders”(Bedau). He, then concludes that “we cannot reasonably aim to punish all crimes according to this principle, …..” (Bedau). When the law makers mete out the death penalty in the name of justice, they are no different from the criminals who have no value for human life. Violence breeds violence. The death penalty fosters a culture of violence and teaches our children that the best way to settle scores is through violence even if it means taking someone’s life. It reinforces in them the idea that killing the person who has wronged them is the right thing to do. Killing someone is always wrong and two wrongs can Sebastian 5 never make a right. How can the courts send the message that killing people is wrong if they kill the person who commits the crime? The death penalty not only devalues human life, it also violates the belief in the rehabilitation of the criminal and his capacity to reform. Capital punishment is in fact a pre-medidated murder. It lowers the value and dignity of life. It teaches society to cultivate the notion that revenge is not only essential but also fair. Such an attitute pepertuates violence. Recent polls indicate that a majority of Americans continue to believe that the capital punishment is the best way to deliver proportional justice to a murderer. Many people believe that the death penalty is the only way to ensure that murderers will not be out on the streets again to claim the lives of more innocent people. It is also their belief that a person who murders another human being must be made to pay for his actions by forfeiting his own life. Unfortunately, DNA testing has revealed that in the past many people have been sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit. When someone we love is killed, we owe it to ourselves to avenge the death of our loved one. However, capital punishment is not the answer. By taking a human life, we are guilty of the same crime committed by the accused. Besides, it does not give the criminal a chance to reform and change over a new leaf. Taking the killer’s life does not bring his victim back, nor does it make the world we live in a better place. Crimes like murder occur every day and we cannot go around killing the people who commit them. Punishment that allows criminals to reflect upon their deeds and reform themselves is more appropriate than the death penalty. The death penalty not only increases the time and cost of administering justice, it does not deter criminals more than would life imprisonment and it perpetuates violence in society. For these reasons, the death penalty should not be an acceptable form of punishment. Sebastian 6 Works Cited Facts ..- NCADP – The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. www.ncadp.org/index.cfm?content=5 Cost of the Death Penalty / Death Penalty Information Center. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty Bedau ,Hugo Adam. The Case Against the Death Penalty. Web. 1 Dec. 2011 users.rcn.com/mwood/deathpen.html Johnson, Robert., Sandra McGunigall, Life Without Parole, America’s Other Death Penalty. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. www.realcostofprisons.org/.../americas_other_death_penalty.pdf Facts ..- NCADP – The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty www.ncadp.org/index.cfm?content=5 Read More