The Declining Efficacy of Capital Punishment in Modern Society

Historical Overview of the Death Penalty

The death penalty is the worst ultimate punishment for any human being in the world. There is indeed no harsher punishment than death itself. As per my knowledge, currently, more than fifty nations practice the death penalty.

Before I start to make an argument, I would like to provide some background information regarding the death penalty. The idea of death punishment was brought over from Britain when the founding fathers declared independence. Our ancestors loved the idea of the death penalty since it was a common part of our lives. During the nineteenth century, the death penalty changed dramatically. Around this time, the death penalty started to lose popularity. States changed the rules to no longer continue execution in public. All executions were conducted in private afterward.

Capital Punishment: Delays, Doubts, and the Question of Deterrence

As of today, if we talk about the death penalty, many nations still practice it, but there are some limitations. But in my opinion, the death penalty can no longer be claimed as an efficient form of retribution. There are huge delays in carrying out the executions of an inmate. Statistics show that there is an over eight to ten-year wait before an execution can take place. In such scenarios, most of the inmates die of natural causes before the execution sentence can be carried out. Such a case has happened in my life as one of my friends murdered his brother because his family issues took a hype. He was sentenced to 9 years life in prison before execution, and surprisingly, he died after four years because of a heart attack.

Since I, too, believe that the death penalty is no longer an effective punishment, I do support Amnesty International in its motto of not using the death penalty in any single case of life. Also, I do not believe the death penalty is deterrence because most offenders do not believe they would be caught. So, if the offender does not believe that a real risk is present, there will be no deterrence.

References

  1. Doe, J. (2023). The Declining Efficacy of Capital Punishment in Modern Society. John’s Thoughts Blog.

The Controversial Use of Capital Punishment

Society has been debating the controversial use of capital punishment to deter crime for decades, but to no avail. The death penalty has always been a touchy subject around the world because of its extreme nature and irreversable affects. Even so, most people have little understanding of all the drawbacks and consequences that come with this method of retributive justice. The concept goes against human rights, and can put innocent people at risk. The most common argument in favor of capital punishment is that is prevents crime, when in actuality, statistics show no correlation between the two. The use of the death penalty to reduce crime is an ineffective strategy because it denies human rights, can put innocent lives at risk and has no real effect on the deterrence of crime.

Whenever the death penalty is considered, there is no way to guarantee that an innocent person isn’t wrongfully executed. This risk is always present and hard to eliminate for various reasons. For example, in America alone, there have been one hundred fifty six innocent people released from death row since 1973. (aclu.org) A safer and more reliable solution would be giving those guilty of felonies, life without the chance of parole. This would ensure that innocent people aren’t killed and would give cases a chance to be revisited in the future. Since death is permanent, it is irresponsible to continue using capital punishment until we abolish the risk of innocent lives being lost.

Many people view the death penalty as a deterrent, but statistics conclude that capital punishment does not directly impact crime rates. There have been hundreds of studies done, but none of them have come to a consensus. About ten years ago, two professors at the University of Colorado performed a study that found that 88.2% of responding criminologists do not view the death penalty as an effective deterrent. (amnestyusa.org) Along with that, data shows that states with the death penalty actually have higher crime rates than non-death penalty states, suggesting that it does not reduce crime. (amnestyusa.org) Therefore, despite what many people think, the death penalty is not proven to be effective at lowering crime rates.

One of the most obvious reasons to oppose capital punishment is becasue it violates the rights of prisoners and is considered immoral. When we execute criminals, we are violating one of their most fundamental human rights, which is the right to live. (amnestyusa.org) It also violates the right to be free from torture and cruel or unusual punishment. (amnestyusa.org) No matter who you are, or what you’ve done, these rights remain standing, as they are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (amnestyusa.org) The death penalty is also immoral, because there is never justice in taking someones life no matter how you spin it. Capital punishment is an obvious form of revenge, and should not be considered anything more. For these reasons, using the death penalty in any circumstance is wrong because of all the violations that are made.

The use of capital punishment is not an effective deterrent because of all the risks and contoversy that come with it. While many believe that the death penalty reduces crime, statistics say otherwise about this questionable method. We must work to improve our knowledge on what justice really looks like while also displaying messages that support human rights, instead of contradicting them. Executing criminals for the benefit of society is pointless, morally wrong and should therefore be banned all across the globe.

Capital Punishment as a Controversial Issue in American Society

Every society has striven for justice, peace, and balance. To combat the descent into brutality, humans have created punishments. Ancient civilizations assigned certain punishments to specific crimes based on their severity, the worst being capital punishment, or the death penalty, the revocation of one’s life due to odious acts. While this punishment system may have worked in ancient simpler times, they do not apply to the modern United States climate. The Eighth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution protects citizens from “cruel and unusual punishment”, the promise of punishments only served when deserved and rightfully so. The death penalty goes directly against the Eight Amendment and its promise and reasons such as racial bias and lack of deference will reinforce this. Capital punishment remains a relevant and controversial issue in America today and should be seen as unconstitutional. Though this topic has been increasingly discussed more often, this controversy began 3,700 years ago in Babylon.

Since the beginning of time, the death penalty has been a controversial issue among humanity. Records of the punishment of death date back to King Hammurabi of Babylon in the 18th century B.C., when twenty-five death penalty worth crimes were listed. Through the 14th and 7th century B.C., ancient texts such as Hittie’s code and the Draconian Code of Athens listed crucifixion, drowning and being beaten alive as viable punishments for the most heinous crimes. In 10th century A.D. Britain, William the Conquerer ended the most common death penalty, hanging, only allowing it for war purposes. Under King Henry VIII in 16th century A.D., over 72, 000 were executed for crimes ranging from not confessing to a crime to marrying a Jewish individual by beheadings and being burned or boiled alive. This number continues to rise and by the 1700s, over 200 punishable offenses were in effect in Great Britain. Due to the severity of the death penalty, many juries often opted to give the accused a not guilty verdict to avoid the hefty repercussions of capital punishment for simple offenses. As a result, Britain began major reform and the 222 punishable offenses lowered by over 100. However, with the expansion to the New World, Europeans brought their culture and capital punishments along with them. The first recorded execution in America was in Jamestown, Virginia in 1608 to Captain George Kendall on the accusation that he was a spy for the Spanish. Four years after the execution of Kendall, the Governor of Virginia, Sir Thomas Dale created and enacted the Divine Mortal and Marital Laws which were well known for their strict punishments for small offenses such as stealing grapes or trading with the indigenous people of America (“Early”). Though, capital punishment laws and methods varied from each colony, by 1776 most colonies had many sodomy, murder, rape, burglary and more crimes punishable by death. In 1794, influenced by death penalty abolitionists一such as Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania stopped the use of the death penalty except for first-degree murder. Michigan became the first state to abolish capital punishment statewide in 1846 and was followed by Rhode Island in 1852 and Wisconsin in 1853. New York was the first state to build an electric chair following the Edison electricity company’s use of the electrocution of dogs, cats, and elephants in public demonstrations in the year 1888. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty to be a cruel and unusual punishment in Fruman v. Georgia, which began a 10-year moratorium for the death penalty (Baskin). Though capital punishment was reinstated in Gregg v. Georgia in 1976, the moratorium ended with the execution of Gary Gilmore on January 17, 1977 (“The”). As of 2020, due to Roper v. Simmons and Baze v Rees, minors cannot be executed and lethal injection remains one of six legal execution methods. The other methods being, the electric chair, gas chamber, hanging, and the firing squad (Baskin). Lethal injection has killed over 1300 individuals and is the most frequently used in death penalty states. Since 1976, the electric chair has been responsible for the deaths of 163 inmates and is in use in nine states. Legally used in six states, lethal gas chambers have claimed the lives of 11 people since its first use. Lastly, the hanging and firing squad methods are legal and in use in three states where they have claimed the lives of six convicts in total (“Methods”). As of 2019, only 56% of Americans believe the death penalty is the best punishment for those convicted of murder and agree with the use of legal execution methods (Jones). Capital punishment continues to be a controversial and relevant discussion that divides the country, however, it should be abolished for it its unconstitutional nature.

Although the death penalty is still in active use, there are many compelling and factual reasons against its use and constitutionality. The death penalty has always and continues to disproportionately target minorities and the economically disadvantaged. The current death row population is 41.7% Black, 43.1% White, and 12.6% Latino (Berman and Barnes). The death penalty sentencing system continues to repeat the cycle of racial bias and oppression by increasing the magnitude of Black and Brown bodies within mass incarceration. The United States General Accounting Office for Death Penalty Sentencing reported, “In 82% of the stud­ies [reviewed], race of the vic­tim was found to influ­ence the like­li­hood of being charged with cap­i­tal mur­der or receiv­ing the death penal­ty, i.e., those whom mur­dered whites were found more like­ly to be sen­tenced to death than those who mur­dered blacks” (“Executions”). These individuals, due to their socioeconomic status and other extenuating factors have been set back and unable to progress appropriately in society. In almost all cases involving convicts on death row, they were unable to afford their lawyer and receive adequate counsel. Kamala Harris, a junior Senator from California spoke on this issue, remarking, “Black and Latino defendants are far more likely to be executed than their white counterparts. Poor defendants without a team of lawyers are far more likely to enter death row than those with strong representation. Your race or your bank account shouldn’t determine your sentence ” (ProCon.org). The economically disadvantaged are unfairly executed because they lack the money and resources of their wealthy, rich counterparts. Harris is an outspoken opponent of capital punishment, a firm believer that it is discriminatory, a waste of taxpayer dollars, immoral, and ineffective. There is no accurate evidence of the death penalty being a proven form of deference for a crime. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, there is “no link between the presence or absence of the death penalty and murder rates” (“Deterrence”). Crimes are still committed despite capital punishment in effect and do not discourage criminals from committing heinous acts. Moreover, the quantity of death row inmates exoneration has steadily increased, especially in recent years. Between 1973 and 2014, over 140 inmates were exonerated (“Description”). Due to technological and modern advancements, new evidence is being uncovered that is exonerating an astonishing amount of death row inmates. There is an estimated 4.1% of current inmates awaiting execution that are wrongly convicted (Gross et al.). Capital punishment is an oppressive, unjust, unconstitutional system that has no place in our modern society despite the opposing side’s arguments.

The affirmative for the constitutionality and justification of capital punishment argue that it is humanity’s responsibility to act justly in the interest of moral balance and peace for victims’ families. One of the main justifications for the execution is justice and peace for the families of victims of murder or other brutal crimes. Before Connecticut abolished the death penalty, over 170 victims’ families wrote a letter against the death penalty to state legislators. In the letter, they spoke on how the death penalty does not bring any closure to the families and killing the convicted does not benefit them (“Victims”). This important sentiment displays how proponents for capital punishment has the interests of retribution rather than supporting the families of victims. Though one could say Capital punishment is reserved for criminals that commit most brutal and heinous crimes, it is not true. The Eighth Amendment protects Americans from having an unjust punishment for a crime. However, the death sentence is cruel and unusual, for death row inmates often spend seven to twelve years awaiting their execution (CNN). The waiting period between sentencing and the execution date is absurd. Not to mention the unreasonable costs of one death penalty trial and execution. In 2008, it was reported that Californians pay $117 million annually for capital punishment and 2.34 billion would be saved over the course of 20 years if the money allotted for the death penalty would be repurposed for life imprisonment. 60% say life imprisonment the better punishment, up from 45% in 2014 (Jones). A majority of American citizens agree that money that could be directed towards more dire needs and resources go to waste to execute one individual, the cons significantly outweigh the pros. President Donald Trump, a supporter of the death penalty especially for terrorists and drug dealers in the opioid crisis, believes the death penalty to be a deterrent because it removes murderers from society and protects American citizens. However, the Abdurrahman Boroumand Center found that when examining 11 countries in which the death penalty was abolished, there was a decline in crime and murder rates (“Study”). The death penalty is anything but a deterrent for a crime and is ineffective in lowering crime and murder rates. Each of the affirmative’s points proves relevant to the conversation, however, they are not factually backed and eventually lead back to the unconstitutionality of the death penalty in America.

The unconstitutionality of capital punishment has been refuted and unrefuted several times within the Supreme Court and remains significant and controversial within its walls. William Henry Furman burglarized a family member’s house. Upon being caught, he began to flee the scene but tripped and fell, shooting and killing his family member in the process. Jaramus Jackson also attempted to rob an individual while armed and in the process and raped the victim in the process, similar to Branch, another rapist. These three men were sentenced to death and appealed, eventually all under Fruman v. Georgia. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Fruman that the death penalty was a violation of the Eighth Amendment, a precedent which began a 10-year moratorium on capital punishment (‘Furman’). This monumental decision forced states to rework their arbitrary and racially biased system of death sentencing and voided 40 state death penalty statues. It would not be until Gregg v. Georgia in 1976 when the death penalty would be reinstated and 1977 for the moratorium to end (“The”). Though Fruman v. Georgia’s precedent was eventually overturned, its lasting effects can still be felt through declining execution rates. A case with similar lasting repercussions was argued 29 years after Fruman v. Georgia.

Roper v. Simmons was a relevant case that challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty altogether. In 1993, Christopher Simmons planned and murdered at age 17. At age 18, he was found guilty and sentenced to death but appealed numerous times up until 2002. Simmons used the claim that the Atkins ruling protects him from the death penalty due to committing the crime before 18. The Missouri Supreme Court offered to cast aside the death sentencing in exchange for life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court decided 5-4 in Simmons’s favor because they ruled states that the eighth and fourteenth amendment protects minors that committed a crime between 15 and 18 from being sentenced to death. After all, it was found to be a “disproportionate punishment” to those who were under 18, and hence a new precedent was set that no minor could be executed from 2005 on (“Roper”). The Roper v. Simmons precedent has been used countless times to protect minors against the unconstitutional nature of capital punishment.

To conclude, though capital punishment remains a relevant and controversial issue in America today, it should be seen as unconstitutional. The death penalty has been disproportionately oppressive and targeted towards the less financially endowed, black and brown bodies and individuals of low socioeconomic status. In most cases, death row inmates’ executions do not affect the national crime rate and is not an effective deference method. More inmates are being exonerated and found innocent with every year. Alternatives to the death penalty, like life imprisonment are more accepted by the public and cheaper. As long as the death penalty continues its activity, America will never find true justice or peace.

Is the Death Penalty Really Effective: Argumentative Essay

People do horrible things, that’s just a sad fact of life that will likely never change. Eliminating crimes of high caliber and establishing a world of peace is something many want but know is impossible to achieve. Thus, why they turn to methods to try and deter crime, things like jail, fines, and even capital punishment. The latter has been debated for many years as to the humanity behind it and if it is really necessary. I want to write about why I believe the death penalty is not only not necessary, but also not as effective as people are led to believe. I believe this topic is a justifiable one to write about because this matter isn’t a matter of issues that would inconvenience people, or ruin their days. This issue is a matter of taking a human life, an act that cannot be undone, and forcing everyone they left behind to live with the pain of knowing that person whom they loved is gone, never to return.

The death penalty was originally made to deter people from crimes as well as punish those who committed them. In ancient history, we also see glimpses of the death penalty as far back as before the time of Christ. Obviously, this form of punishment has evolved over the years to become more ‘humane’ and commonly acceptable in the eye of the public. Many people, however, still take issue with the death penalty, not necessarily questioning its reasoning, but rather its effectiveness. A recent study done by notable professors of the University of Colorado shows that approximately 88% of criminologists do not believe that the death penalty is an effective form of punishment as it seems to not deter crime in the mass quantities that people expect. I would like to expand on the ideas that are presented above as well as answer a few questions that I have posed for myself, such as: Why was the death penalty started? Does the original purpose of the death penalty align today with our purpose for it? I know a decent amount of approximated statistics regarding this topic, however, I would like to dive more in-depth into my research and discover many more statistics that have more accuracy than the ones I already know, as well as, gathering several sources from the UTA database containing the points of view that are linked in our canvas class.

In what I have researched so far and the opinions I have developed in my nineteen years of life, I would side with the group that opposes the death penalty. I do not believe it is as effective as we are led to believe. I also do not believe an eye for an eye has ever solved anything further than surface-level satisfaction. In this paragraph, I would like to establish my position and provide ample sources to help validate my point. Research that I could see supporting my point is that of studies that have been done regarding the number of crimes in states with and without the death penalty, as well as innocent lives lost on death row along with botched execution attempts. This, I feel, would target the audience in an emotional way, understanding how some people have lost their innocent lives due to a system that has corrupt policies in place designed not for effectiveness but rather for public approval.

As the above paragraphs will support and bring to a point, the death penalty is not as effective as it’s made out to be. In this paragraph, I am going to propose a few different alternatives to the death penalty that are either more effective, cost less, are more humane, or are a combination of one or more of those things. One of the options I plan to outline in this paragraph is the life sentence option. The life sentence is still used today, however, this idea I would be proposing would favor that the criminal be subject to life in prison without parole until they pass away inside the prison walls. Not very well known, but a life sentence in today’s society is actually closer to 25 years or so depending on your state, this is why we see judges hand out 3 or 4 life sentences to a single person. The proposal I would be making would ensure that the criminal would be adequately punished for his or her actions and would be forced to remain behind walls for the rest of their existence, but we would spare their life and the emotional well-being of those who care about this person. Family and friends would still be able to come to visit the incarcerated person and could still, in a sense, have them in their lives, however, if they were put to death, that would never be an option.

To conclude my paper, I will recap the points I made in all the above paragraphs, talking about why the death penalty was initially made, what its purpose is in today’s climate, as well as any possible alternatives to this cruel form of capital punishment. I also would like to end my paper with a call to action of sorts, challenging the reader to take an active stance for the abolition of the death penalty, I plan to leave this paragraph with some encouraging words and, hopefully, some inspirational ones to allow the reader to have their emotions touched and their heart moved toward a heart of peace. Sometimes an eye for an eye leaves both parties blind, putting someone to death because of a horrendous crime they have committed doesn’t make it right, and likely won’t make you feel any better, I imagine it would be better to know that they are behind the walls of a prison, and will never walk free ever again.

Why Australia should Bring Back Capital Punishment

We can all agree on one thing, crime is bad, and minimising it benefits society in all manners of life. This makes the upmost of sense and is logical in every way. So, it begs the question, does the death penalty need to be placed in modern day Australia? Globally human rights organizations campaigned to put an end to executions as a form of punishment in 1972, whilst some countries maintain the death penalty as a valid means of criminal justice. Australia abolished the death penalty in 1973 with the last person ever executed in 1967. There are a number of arguments that favor the death penalty, such as the belief that the only fair way to punish someone for taking another person’s life is to lose theirs. It can also be determined that by doing this it will, in turn, deter criminals from committing serious crimes like murder, thus making Australia a safer environment. As well as this, it also prevents criminals from reoffending out of fear. We need to be ‘tough on crime’ and if that means reinstating capital punishments to make day to day life safer, then it is a no brainer.

First and foremost, recent statistics have shown that over a quarter of Australians favor capital punishment as a means of criminal justice (aph.gov.au). The people studied in this poll that favored capital punishment believed that for someone to take an innocent souls’ life was for the criminal to face the same outcome. This makes the greatest of sense and can become a defined deterrence against reoffending criminals. Martin Bryant is a key example of a convicted criminal who remains alive and breathing in Hobart, Australia. He is convicted of 35 life sentences for causing the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania and murdering 35 innocent civilians and well as injuring 23 others. So why should people if you can even call them that, be allowed to sleep comfortably in a prison cell, eating, drinking and living of tax payer money not undergo capital punishment. For them to have the audacity to kill another innocent person without any true serious repercussions should really demonstrate to the Australian public that things need to change, and show offending and reoffending criminals that crime is no joke and will not be tolerated in Australia.

On the contrary, Australian taxpayers are also victims of convicted criminals. In Australia, the cost of placing one convicted criminal behind bars for one year, no matter the crime, costs tax payers around $110 000. In 2015 a study found that incarceration rates are growing rapidly with 36,000 prisoners in Australia, up from 39 per cent a decade ago (abc.net.au). This is an obscene amount of money that hard-working Australians earn, to be only used on socially degrading, dangerous criminals. There is no reason that we should contribute to this and allow for killers, rapists etc. to experience a place to sleep, eat and live every day without strong consequences. For instance, if a mother were to lose her son to a murderer for mere pleasure, then knowing that the killer had experienced capital punishment would give great amounts of closure to the mother and family of the victim. This in turn could reduce overpopulation in prisons, and from this require less money from society and tax payers.

Finally, we can refer to the Bible, Exodus 21:23-25. The principle of an ‘eye for an eye’ raises the idea that a person who has been injured by another person returns the offending action to the originator in compensation, or that an authority does so on behalf of the injured person (crosswalk.com). It is stated in the scripture that “But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe”. This has incredible historic significance and has been the leading relevance in our modern-day court systems. This concept is still practiced today, with many countries still abiding by the belief of “an eye for an eye”. Indonesia is a key example of a country that practices the ‘eye for an eye’ belief. The Bali Nine were a group of nine Australians who attempted to smuggle 8kg of heroin out of Indonesia in April 2005. It was estimated at a worth of 4 million and was bound for Australia. They were caught and trialed for drug smuggling under Indonesian law. Two of the ringleaders were sentenced to death with the others experiencing life behind bars. It sent a shockwave of fear into society and in turn has significantly helped reduce drug smuggling in Indonesia. Drugs are a leading cause of death and in Australia kills an Australian every five hours. So why should drug suppliers receive any less of a punishment.

To summarise, Australia must bring back the death penalty for convicted criminals. This should be applied to those who have done the upmost of crimes such as murder, rape, drug and pedophilia. It will reduce overpopulation in prisons, give closure to families, deter reoffenders, and punish someone for taking another person’s life. It will reduce taxpayers costs and make Australia a safer place to live in the future.

The Deterrence Perspective of Capital Punishment

Thesis: Singapore’s uncompromising stance on the death penalty for drug trafficking is justified as it is intended to (1) uphold societal order by (2) deterring individuals from committing crimes that is detrimental to the societal welfare. Additionally, it is an effective tool to (3) reinforce internal security by discouraging major drug syndicates from establishing themselves in Singapore.

Mr. K Shanmugam, Singapore’s Minter of Home Affairs and Law (2017), maintains that capital punishment is a practical tool against the prevention of drug trafficking. He presents that, in contrast to her regional neighbours, the supply of drugs within Singapore’s borders are significantly lower. He followed his statement by stating a comparison between the past and present, mentioning that, “If all things were equal between the 1990s and today, the [number of drug traffickers arrested] should… have doubled.” Similar views were also expressed by Mr. Vivian Balakrishnan (2016), Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a speech where he addresses that such an approach has played a key part in safeguarding the country, especially with the worsening regional drug situation.

South-east Asia persists to be a noteworthy market and manufacturer of unlawful drugs. Drug trafficking in the region has attracted many syndicates from all over the globe due to its lucrative nature. According to Jeremy Douglas (2018), a regional representative from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Singapore experiences a higher risk of drug penetration into her borders due to her geographical proximity to the Golden Triangle. This is further supported by the fact that there is a large proportion of drugs being seized in Singapore even though the country is not a narcotics producer, illustrating that they are “in transit” (Linsey & Nicholson, 2016).

Ms Tin Pei Ling (2017), a member of parliament in the MacPherson Single Member Constituency, also added that this problem is worsened with increased accessibility to drugs due to the interwebs. Online bootleg market destinations allow individuals to purchase without leaving a trace, making it problematic to track. With Singapore’s densely populated city-state, the repercussions of narcotics abuse are unimaginable. Loosening stance against drugs pose to be extremely detrimental.

Shanmugam (2017) also stresses anti-death penalty activists to take a gander at the more comprehensive view of the situation, instead of focusing on the individual that is being sentenced. In this case, the probable surge in drug-related crimes, the large number of individuals whose lives would be destroyed, whose family relationships would be ruined, and the indiscriminate loss of lives that will occur, thus, disrupting social order. As a Letter to an Amnesty International member from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Singapore (1997) elaborates, “… [drug traffickers] are no better than murderers and serial killers.”

Similar sentiments were echoed in regions beyond Singapore. A 2017 New York Times article that provided insights towards the opioid crisis in the United States mentioned that, the surge in accessibility of heroin resulted in the deaths of more than 33,000 individuals, due to gun-related violence linked to drugs. The consequences of illicit drug consumption were further elaborated as they claim that babies were born with drug dependency and entire neighbourhoods were adversely affected.

Singapore’s reliance on this approach to maintain law and order has not been without heavy criticism. The Amnesty International (2017) raised concerns that, Singapore operates an institutionalized system of unfair trials with automatic presumption of guilt and a mandatory death penalty. They alerted that this increases the probability of executing an innocent individual. This was correspondingly indicated in Section 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act whereby any individual demonstrated to have, in their possession, more than specified quantities of drugs allowed, will be presumed involved in ‘trafficking’ unless proven otherwise. This conflicts with the universally guaranteed right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. A case often brought up was off Prabagaran Srivijayan, a Malaysian, who was hanged under mere circumstantial evidence. As the toll of executions continue to rise, a question often raised is whether such a strategy is effective at keeping the true perpetrators at bay.

Nonetheless, despite such alarming allegations, the Central Narcotics Bureau continues to assert that Singapore’s iron fist approach is required especially with the rapid changing of attitudes amongst youngsters towards drugs. They recognized that this has been perpetuated by the media, which has formulated the impression that drugs are harmless. Mr. K Shanmugam (2019) posits that, with young and impressionable Singaporeans becoming increasingly swayed to engage in illicit drug usage, in combination with the reality that they are becoming more easily attainable, it will lead to the worsening of crime rates fueled by the need for money to support their practice. Additionally, the likelihood of being exposed to situations that encourage violence also magnifies. Data from the Singapore Prison Service illustrated that 70% of the current 10,809 inmates in Singapore Prison are incarcerated for drug-related offences. Drug-related crimes disrupts the operations of society and the ability for people to function efficiently.

Bibliography

  1. Amnesty International. (2017, October 11). Singapore: Executions continue in flawed attempt to tackle drug crime, despite limited reforms. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/10/singapore-executions-continue-in-flawed-attempt-to-tackle-drug-crime/.
  2. Bosman, J. (2017, January 6). Inside a Killer Drug Epidemic: A Look at America’s Opioid Crisis. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/06/us/opioid-crisis-epidemic.html.
  3. Chia, L. (2017, April 17). Singapore to make fight against drugs a ‘national priority’: Shanmugam. Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-to-make-fight-against-drugs-a-national-priority-shanmu-8710276.
  4. Elangovan, N. (2019, June 29). Substantial evidence drug abusers have higher tendency to commit crimes: Shanmugam. Retrieved from https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/substantial-evidence-drug-abusers-have-higher-tendency-commit-crimes-shanmugam.
  5. Hermesauto. (2018, May 21). Tackle graft, governance to stem Golden Triangle meth trade: UN Office on Drug and Crime. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/tackle-graft-governance-to-stem-golden-triangle-meth-trade-unodc.
  6. Lindsey, T., & Nicholson, P. (2016). Drugs law and legal practice in Southeast Asia: Indonesia, Singapore and Vietnam. London: Hart Publishing.
  7. LLP, I. R. B. L. (2019, September 30). Misuse of Drugs Act Singapore – Possession, Trafficking & Punishments. Retrieved from https://irblaw.com.sg/learning-centre/misuse-of-drugs-act-singapore/.
  8. Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2016, September 21). MFA Press Release Transcript of Minister Vivian Balakrishnans Intervention at the High-Level Side Eve. Retrieved from https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2016/09/MFA-Press-Release-Transcript-of-Minister-Vivian-Balakrishnans-Intervention-at-the-HighLevel-Side-Eve.
  9. Ministry of Home Affairs. (2019, April 16). Parliamentary Debate on the Motion on Drugs ‘Strengthening Singapore’s Fight Against Drugs’ – Speech by Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law. Retrieved from https://www.mha.gov.sg/newsroom/speeches/news/parliamentary-debate-on-the-motion-on-drugs-strengthening-singapore-s-fight-against-drugs—speech-by-mr-k-shanmugam-minister-for-home-affairs-and-minister-for-law.
  10. Refworld. (2004, January 15). Singapore: The Death Penalty – A Hidden Toll of Executions. Singapore: The Death Penalty – A Hidden Toll of Executions. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/402f8e974.pdf
  11. Singapore Prison Service. (2013, January 30). 2013 Singapore Prison Service Annual Statistics Release. Retrieved from https://www.sps.gov.sg/news-about-us/in-the-news/2013-singapore-prison-service-annual-statistics-release.
  12. Wham, J. (2016, October 25). An innocent man may soon be hanged under mere circumstantial evidence. Retrieved from https://singaporeantideathpenaltycampaign.wordpress.com/2016/10/25/an-innocent-man-may-soon-be-hanged-under-mere-circumstantial-evidence/.
  13. Yong, J. A. (2016, September 22). Take more balanced view on death penalty, Singapore’s Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan urges world leaders. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/world/take-more-balanced-view-on-death-penalty-vivian-urges-world-leaders.

The Meaning of Capital Punishment in the United States

The meaning of Capital Punishment can be infered as multiple ideologies; however, the legal definition implies that an individual who commits a serious enough crime is liable to the death penalty. When an individual commits a serious enough crime they will be held under the due process of law where they will be innocent until proven guilty. In the cases where an individual is proven guilty they may be appointed to death row where they will wait for further trials on the case. The United States legal system as well as the Constitution is imposed to promote a fair trial for every human being and does not consider Capital Punishment a violation of the 8th Amendment, allows repeated trials for an inmate to plead his/her innocence to live or receive the Death Penalty, allows the use of lethal injections and does not demonstrate them as a violation of rights and finally, legal cases allowing the Death Punishment were composed by the Supreme Court based on the Constitution which all proves that Capital Punishment is constitutionally justifiable.

An example of why the use of Capital Punishment is constitutionally supported would be the neutral viewpoint that the Eighth Amendment has on the Death Penalty, no cruel or unusual punishments. Even though the Constitution does not specifically mention this punishment, there is still an implied meaning which suggests that the constitution does allow Capital Punishment but does not require it in any way. In order for a punishment to be cruel or unfair, a person’s rights would have to be violated in a way where they would feel “degraded”, “clearly rejected by society” or even contain the feeling of “arbitrary” (Evailat). According to Evaiat, the basis of the Eighth Amendment is not violated due to the fact that the due process of law within the Fifth Amendment promotes a fair trial and is not intended to be cynical punishment on the inmate. Since the inmate is allowed an infinite number of fair trials, it is evident that the inmate is not going to be executed for little to nothing but instead he/she will be executed for a cause decided by numerous judges, officials, and peers that have covered the inmate’s case.

Another similar yet quite different example of why Capital Punishment is considered constitutional would be the granting of inmates to plead as many times as he/she may like before being sentenced to death. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, only “23 of 2797” prisoners on death row were actually sentenced to death in 2017. Not only is it very occasional for an inamte to be executed, but each of the 23 inmates that did recieve the death penalty had on average “243 months” (20.25 years) of pleading and abiding by the Constitution and it’s Fifth Amendment before they were actually executed. For this punishment to pass in the court system, an inmate has to be denied life for 20.25 years as well as have a .008% chance for survival once on death row. Each inmate is given more than enough time to plead their case with government costs reaching “$2.16 million” per individual over those 243 months of pleading. Some may say that no living being deserves to die; however, it is not illegal to kill another person in self defense. This act of self defense was stripped from the victim(s) and the jury decides whether or not a person should have the will to live which is in complete support by the constitution and it’s due process of law.

Another reason why Capital Punishment is constitutionally justifiable is due to the Gregg v. Georgia, Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida legal Supreme Court cases. In the court case of Gregg v. Georgia, the state government as well as the US government both noted that the Civil Punishment was “not unconstitutional” because it allows the families of victims involved to feel “retribution” and may act as a “deterrence” for crimes similar to the one represented in this case in the future (Legal Information Institute). It was proven in text and written documentation that the Capital Punishment is in support by the Constitution and does not violate it in any way. A common misconception people may have about the death penalty would be the rules and regulations on who can receive the punishment. According to Cornell University and the legal documentation of Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida, a person who is “intellectually disabled” will not recieve the Capital Punishment because a “mental handicap lessons the severity of the crime” rendering the trial at a less severe outcome. If an individual cannot defend themselves in court with a clear and conscious mindset then they should not receive a punishment they cannot defend themselves.

Another common misconception about legal executions, the most humane method of execution in the United States as of 2019, would be the use of lethal injections and their association with an inmates rights. The use of lethal injections are not unconstitutional in any way. According to the Reflections on Capital Punishment, written by Rob Warden, patientes are first given a perscribed amount of “Sodium Pentathol” which “anesthetizes” the inmate rendering the execution pain free for the inmate which suggests that the Eighth Amendment is not violated in any way. In a few instances, it has taken “over 30 minutes” for inmates to pass on to the afterlife once injected with these lethal doses; however, this is all natural when euthanizing a living being (Evailat). For most inmates, the majority of the time that it takes to execute a prisoner would be the time it takes to fully anesthetize a patient which is where the 30 minute time to kill came into existence. Although the majority of time is spent allowing patients to sleep, there have been numerous reports of the inmates “gasping and convulsing” as described by Rob Warden. This may sound like the inmate is being tortured and is struggling for every last breath but this is simple anatomy. If a carcass is not receiving a sufficient amount of oxygen, then nerves within the body start rapidly pulsing causing the dead being to twitch, tense up or even mumble. Since lethal injections are intended to promote an honor inducing and non painful dismissal to the inmates, then it is true that lethal injections are more than constitutional.

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished Essay?

Martin Luther King, Jr once said, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” So why does the Death Penalty exist? According to CNN, since Capital Punishment was reinstated in the US in 1976, over 1500 people have been executed. This number is substantial, and yet, many citizens aren’t informed about its risks and effects. The Death Penalty is degrading the American legal system and should be abolished immediately to protect civilians, whether innocent or not. No one deserves to suffer the cruel and unusual punishments that we consider typical for first-degree murder in today’s society.

The number of people exonerated after their executions are tragic. A study featured in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences claims that one in every 25, or 4.1% of people on death row are innocent. Since 1973, CNN states that only 144 death row inmates have been exonerated. 1.6%. Unfortunately, this leaves a whopping estimated number of undiscovered, innocent victims trapped in the legal system, awaiting death. These statistics prove the unreliability of American courts’ hearings. It is simply logically inept to allow such a permanent punishment as death, to be forced onto so many of those who are innocent. One life lost, one botched execution, one wrongly convicted victim, and Americans should have stood in outrage to demand change. The Death Penalty should have been outlawed a long time ago. How can we continue to support this method of punishment when it has undeniably caused suffering to innocent citizens and families? We can’t. The Death Penalty is not only cruel but proves time and time again that its tragic costs outweigh its few benefits by vast quantities.

Executions are not only terribly tragic for those who are wrongly convicted, but they are often a terrifying, uncomfortable experience for guilty inmates as well. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, lethal injections are by far the most common form of execution in the US. However, they often cause the inmate, “unnecessary pain and indignity,” according to Britannica. In 2014, an inmate named Joseph Wood was executed by lethal injection. After the IV was inserted, it took him one hour and forty minutes to die. According to witnesses, he appeared to suffer and gasped 640 times before he was pronounced dead (Death Penalty Information Center). Countless other cases have occurred where prisoners are forced to endure extreme pain before their deaths. It is estimated that 3.15% of all US executions are botched, or failed in some way (Death Penalty Information Center). This evidence unquestionably proves that Capital Punishment violates the eighth amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, defined as “torture, deliberately degrading punishment, or punishment that is too severe for the crime”(Dictionary.com). We cannot continue to allow this to be sanctioned; it is inhumane and inefficient. Jeanne Woodford said, “There comes a time when you have to ask yourself if a penalty that is so permanent can be available in such an imperfect system.” No person, guilty or innocent, deserves to go through the dreadful executions that have become so common today. Although most people on death row have committed terribly heinous crimes, I think that there are much more efficient, practical, and humane ways to deal with their behaviors.

Finally, despite the fact that 33% of Americans support Capital Punishment (Death Penalty Information Center), it is clear that much of the population is uninformed about its consequences on our economy and society. Despite the common belief that it is cheaper to execute a prisoner and remove them from the legal system, this actually costs much more than alternatives. Florida spends $51 million per year on Capital Punishment above what it would cost the state to punish first-degree murders with life in prison without parole. It is estimated that each execution costs the state about $24 million (Death Penalty Information Center). Perhaps the reason most people support the Death Penalty is that it discourages violent crimes. However, this is not true. Despite the Southern US being responsible for 80% of nationwide Capital Punishment, its murder rates are also the highest. And the Northeast, responsible for a mere 1% of executions, has the lowest murder rate (Death Penalty Information Center). In addition to this, according to statistical and anecdotal evidence collected by the Death Penalty Information Center, it has been concluded that Capital Punishment does not discourage citizens from committing first-degree murder, or cause murder rates to drop. A 2009 poll by DPIC also found that police officers considered the Death Penalty the least effective crime deterrent, saying that it was generally a waste of taxpayers’ money (Death Penalty Information Center). This proves that Capital Punishment is profitless and harmful towards the population, and needs to be outlawed immediately to protect citizens’ lives and discontinue the misuse of our country’s tax-money, which could be alternatively be funneled into rehabilitation programs or used to improve the quality of prisons.

Overall, the Death Penalty benefits no one. It causes an irreversible loss for families whose members are wrongly convicted. It causes suffering and fear for the many inmates that become victims of botched executions. It causes no decrease in murder rates, and it causes us to waste our tax money on a practice that is not only inhumane, but unconstitutional. We must abolish Capital Punishment and prevent it from causing further loss in this country. If we don’t, we are only encouraging suffering to continue as a legal, ethical practice when in reality, the Death Punishment is undeniably inefficient and terribly cruel. As Robert A. Heinlein once asked, “Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?” It is never humane to kill people to show that killing is wrong. Those who support the death penalty are going against their own policies. We must speak up and show them that there are other ways to deal with murder. Albert Einstein said, “The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything.”

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished Essay

Capital punishment is a very cruel and unusual punishment used to be justified as humane. When speaking of cruel and unusual punishment the death penalty ties within this saying as far as how these actions are carried out. The death penalty is a very cruel type of punishment in its self. The definition of cruel is anything which inflicts pain, or suffering, or causes injury to another. Along with this type of punishment and cruel actions are the obvious mental pain and psychological problems the guilty or accused face on death row while waiting for their death sentence to be carried out and completed. Physical pain is also actually being inflicted during these procedures as well. Lethal injections, which are seen as being the most effective and humane way to complete these sentences has their flaws when it comes to being humane to the convicted. If the needle is being penetrated inside the muscle instead of the vein, or it becomes clogged, extreme pain can be inflicted and will result. Since doctors cannot become involved in executions, problems like this do occur from inexperienced staff or technicians following through with these orders and committing these in inhumane actions toward individuals.

The Death penalty has been employed from the earliest of times by the British, and there has now been more than roughly 15,000 invested execution style murders and perhaps as many as 22,500 authorized executions-in America. These figures do not include the approximately 5,000 people lynched, many of them in the late 19th and 20th centuries (Vila, Morris, & Bedau, 1998). Throughout history, death has been the ultimate weapon of disorder. Many different countries imposed the death penalty and the main offense was murder. Executions were often gruesome. Flaying alive, boiling in oil, hurling from a tower, sawing asunder, crucifying, drawing, and questioning. Burnings at the stake, dismembering on the wheel, and decapitating are only some of the modes of execution used around the world (Laurence, 1950). There were eight capital crimes in the English common law: treason, petty treason, murder, larceny, robberies, burglaries, and arsons. The number increase dramatically between the 17th and 19th centuries. In 1688, there were 50 capital crimes. By 1820, there were more than 200 capital crimes. More of them were property crimes, which included minor offenses such as forgery of a note and theft of a handkerchief. In the last quarter of the 18th century the death penalty was exclusively for economic crimes (Radzinowicz, 1948). In the middle of the 18 century, more than two-thirds of those sentenced to death was executed, yet in the last decade of the century the proportion dropped to less than one-third. In the 19th century there were dramatic changes in English criminal law. By 1833, they had limited capital punishment to relatively serious offenses. After 1863, murder was the only crime that people would have been executed for. Treason and piracy remained capital crimes until 1965. Then England abolished the death penalty (Radzinowicz, 1948).

In the early colonies, the English settlers carried the death penalty to America. The crime that was punished by death varied among the colonies. The first capital laws of Massachusetts had twelve crimes, obtained from the Bible. They were doings such as witchcraft, killings, manslaughter, poisoning, sodomy, adultery, stealing, false statements by a witness in a capital jury and rebellion (including attempts and conspiracies) (Radzinowicz, 1948). In the time period of 1692, the hanging of convicted witches in Salem, Massachusetts graphically illustrated the use of capital punishment (Vila, Morris, & Bedau, 1998). In 1700, rape, arson, treason and third offense of theft of goods over a certain value were added. By 1780 the list of capital crimes were reduced to seven secular crimes: murder, sodomy, burglary, buggery, arson, rape and treason. Other colonies were more lenient in the beginning with their criminal codes. Pennsylvania’s act limited the death penalty to murder and treason, while in South Jersey original act did not authorize capital punishment (Id.). In the 18th century population of the colonies grew rapidly with the continuing immigration (Vila & Morris, 1998). One way to maintain public order in the middle of an increasing social and cultural diversity, this was to imply an expanded capital punishment laws. England required several colonies to adopt harsher codes in its attempt to retain political control. While the War of Independence, northern colonies imposed the death penalty for murdering, treason, rape, piracy, burglary, robbery, and even sodomy. In other places, committing counterfeiting and horse theft were capital crimes (Bedau, 1982).

Because of the European Enlightenment of the 18th century inspired calls for legal and penal reforms. Theories of crime prevention through education, rehabilitation of criminals, and proportionality between crimes and punishments entered public discussion. The ideas of Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria, who argued that capital punishment was extremely cruel and did not discourage crime. Also it should be replaced with life imprisonment and servitude as the penalty for murder, gained currency in the United States after the War of Independence (Bowers, 1984). Thomas Jefferson was not in favor of total abolishing the death penalty, but repeatedly introduced legislation in Virginia to substitute more proportionate sentences for capital offenses. In 1787, a man named Benjamin Rush, a physician and also a cosigner on the Declaration of Independence launched the first movement to ban the death penalty throughout the United States and transform prisons into reform penitentiaries where solitary remorse was to lead to rehabilitation. In the early 19th century, the penal reform movement lost momentum without having realized its goals (Bowers, 1984).

In Pennsylvania they divided murder into first and second degrees. First degree consisted of murdering by toxics, poisoning, or any other kind of willful, and premeditated murders. Any killing that is carried out or attempted to be carried out: arson, rape, robbery, or burglary, and all other murders were second degree. Capital punishment was still the mandatory penalty and was limited to first degree murders (Vila & Morris, 1998). Over the next 40 years, most states adopted the distinction between first and second degree murder. Without being affected by criticisms of the distinction was still uncertain and difficult to understand, and some states limited the death penalty to first degree murders. It gave the jury the authority to decide that a defendant, although guilty of murder, had not acted with sufficient calculation to warrant execution (Vila & Morris, 1998).

In the southern states capital punishment played a different part throughout history. It was a huge part in history dealing around slavery. In the south it was not limited to common law felonies. It was a powerful and unique approach for keeping the slave population in submission. Anything that deterred with the owning of slaves was punished and carried out by death. In 1837, North Carolina, which didn’t have a penitentiary, had about twenty-six capital punishment which included stealing of slaves, concealing slaves with intentions of freeing them, second conviction of encouraging slaves to have a violent uprising, and second conviction of giving slaves books to read (Paternoster, 1991). The death penalty was also imposed for taking a slave or mulatto that was freed to another state with the intent to sell him/her into slavery. In North Carolina the death penalty extended pass slavery. It also included stealing bank notes, crimes against nature (buggery, sodomy, bestiality); burning a public building, second offense of forgery and statutory rape (Bowers, 1984). In addition, the Black codes inside many south bound states where different between black slaves and Caucasian people. In the 1830s Virginia implied five capital crimes for white people, and seventy capital crimes for those of color. In the late1800’s Virginia passed several laws demanding the death penalty for black slaves for any offense broken, punishable by three or more year’s imprisonment for white folk. Discrimination racially codified the rape statues inside the state of Georgia (Bedau, 1982). In the year of 1816, the death penalty affected a slave or a “person of color” who has or attempted to rape a white female. At this time the state reduced the sentence from seven to a minimum two years and removed the hard labor requirement for a white man found guilty of rape. A white man convicted of raping slave women or free woman of color was punished only by a fine or imprisoned at the court’s discretion (Banner, 2002).

In the second quarter of the 19th century, the death penalty was used more than ever. They replaced public executions with executions inside prison walls. Anti-gallows societies were organized in the Northeast mostly. The first abolitionist activity occurred in the setting of the reform movements for abstinence of alcoholic drinks, women’s rights, the abolition movement of slavery, and better treatment of poor, imprisoned, and mentally ill people. Moral and religious arguments, rather than practical philosophy, often dominated the public debate (Haines, 1996). During this period, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island abolished the death penalty and there was in fact abolition in Maine. The campaign lost its momentum as slavery grew to have a commanding influence over the agenda, and the anti-gallows movement that was halted by the Civil War. The impact was clearly visible by the beginning of the Civil War. Crimes such as burglary and robberies been committed were no longer capital crimes in three-fourths of the states (Vila & Morris, 1996).

By the end of the 19th century, discretionary sentencing in capital cases came about as a somewhat established feature of the criminal justice system in America. Under the English and early American law, the death penalty was mandatory upon conviction of capital crime. Juries would free a guilty person or spare a sympathetic defendant from a death sentence. This problem of “jury nullification” led states to abolish mandatory death penalties in favor of discretionary sentencing statues that directly gave juries the option to impose the death penalty or lesser punishment (Bedau, 1982). As early as 1642, Massachusetts had an alternative penalty for some of the capital crimes but by 1780 had reverted to a mandatory death penalty. Tennessee, Maryland, Alabama, and Louisiana adopted discretionary capital punishment laws before the Civil War. Between 1860 and 1900, twenty other states and the federal government joined them and the trend continued into the 20th century (Vila & Morris, 1998).

After the Civil war the executions of convicted offenders was not important to most Americans. Abolitionist activities were happening in a few places in the first post-war decades. Maine and Iowa abolished the death penalty in 1870s and the reinstated in the 1880s (Bowers, 1984). Then Maine finally abandoned capital punishment in 1887. In the last years of the 19th century arguments against capital punishment was more focused on practical issues such as deterrence, religion, and morality (Vila & Morris, 1998). By World War I, Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, and Wisconsin had abolished death penalties, except for murdering a police officer, murdering a prisoner, rape, and treason (Bowers, 1984).

The Black Codes were abolished in the south. All people would be punished accordingly to the laws of the free white man. Because of black peoples little involvement in the criminal justice system, the laws tended to be applied in a way that mimicked the old laws. In the 20th century lynching declined steadily each decade, particularly after the congress was going to enact an anti-lynching law (Bedau, 1982).

Death Penalty: Pros and Cons Essay

Introduction

A death sentence is capital punishment in the USA, and it applies to both the federal government and the military. The capital offenses include treason and espionage. However, various other reasons including murder for hire and genocide can lead to a death sentence. Some terrorists become remorseful about their actions while others never regret them. Once the court finds the law offender guilty of the charge, it sentences them to death by hanging or execution by lethal injection. This paper will analyze whether the death penalty should be unconstitutional, as well as its pros and cons.

Constitutionality of Death Penalty

Various studies have established that the death penalty is constitutional because most criminals are not remorseful of their actions. Some criminals even write letters to the media mocking the family members and the survivors of how the deaths of their loved ones are collateral damage (Madeira 78). Therefore, they feel like it is okay for other people to be in the attacks and they do not feel sorry for their wrongdoings. Such acts of terror have a significant impact on society but the criminals see it as a regular thing. The criminals have an idea of even posting on social media and other websites on how to assemble bombs and other illegal explosives (Stephen, 65). According to the press, most terror attacks are happening, and innocent people are losing their lives because the criminals do not have anything to lose in life in case they get caught. In this case, some criminals have accomplices who get life imprisonment that knows about the bombing, the inmates meet with other terrorists while in prison and confide in cellmates concerning an additional cache of explosives intended to be in other attacks (Patti & Hesterman, 36). As a result, more terror attacks and bombs will continue occurring because of the criminals who are still alive even after knowing how to make explosives. Research shows that many other gangs of criminals look for ways to get in touch with the inmates to teach them about the explosives used when they attack specific buildings. that way, there are still high cases of terror attacks even after death penalties.

According to social media and other ways of getting information through the internet like the media, if all the criminals get the death penalty, other attacks will not take place. considering that no one will know where they are hiding or storing the other remaining explosives. The media also has a way of making the criminals do unthinkable things by sharing every detail concerning the terror attacks on the country. According to the family members of the victims, the press impresses specific terror-related ideas on other criminals instantly. It is essential to realize that such a magnitude of dispersion of news through the media has increased the scale and severity of bombing attacks. In this century, there are different methods of spreading the story that way people learn different things through social media, and learning how to make explosives and bombs can be such an easy task through the internet. Some adults train their children about grenades and other terror attack instruments that they use. Therefore, when the adult is either sentenced to life imprisonment or the death penalty the children take over the terror attacks trying to revenge for their family members.

Dealing with terror and avoiding the continuation of other terror attacks is crucial. When it comes to attacks, terrorists can post videos of how the explosive come to be and how other criminals can bomb buildings (Madeira, 126). An example of such a case is when Karla Faye Tucker, the first-ever female terrorist, was sentenced to death for murdering two people. Later on, media coverage consistently covered her history of how she was under the influence of drugs, and she was also a prostitute. The media always finds a way to put down all the information about the criminal. Therefore, making the death penalty constitutional will make other criminals afraid of their fate if found guilty and get death convictions. According to law enforcement, if the media stops broadcasting everything terror attacks will reduce, and no innocent person will lose his or her life mercilessly.

Pros of the Death Penalty

Death sentences can be hard for both the family members of the terrorist and for the family members of the people who lost their lives in a terror attack. research shows that the family members of the victims and the survivors of such attacks have negative thoughts about the lives of the criminals that are still alive (Madeira, 14). The family members of the victims, both survivors and the deceased, feel that criminals should be held accountable for the bombing, explosions, and other terror attacks, and they should get charged for their wrongdoings. According to courts, most criminals never express regret for their actions, some of the criminals discuss how the deaths were collateral damage to the family members of the victims that lost their lives. Some of them are usually children who had a great future ahead of them and end up losing their lives in cold blood. The survivors and family members of the victims perceive the death sentence as an affirmative action using it as a closure on the impact the bombing has on their lives and how they can move on adjusting and heal from the traumatizing event that took the lives of their loved ones.

Thinking about the survivors and the media houses broadcasts has a significant impact on the family members, their well-being, and the consequences of the capital punishments many people ask questions about how they move on with their lives. Various researches and interviews that take place with the family members of the victims reveal that such cases prompt redefinition of the closure to the family members. Media institutions conduct interviews with those who were in the attack and other legal proceedings in the courts. Moreover, reporting and interviewing the survivors have a significant impact on the family members of those who lost their lives in such a way. As such, they have a chance to talk about how they feel about the demise of their loved ones and how the survivors are lucky to have survived the attack (Madeira, 111). Interventions help in building the hearts of the family member of the victims and the city regarding the expansion of awareness and readiness to reencounter relationships among the survivors and the city affected by terror. An example of such a traumatizing case is Daniel Rollings’ case has similar consequences where he murdered five university students by mutilating their bodies. Rollings was not remorseful and neither did he apologize for his action, he was only talking about how he wanted to be a superstar in criminal offenses and how people will get to know about his tremendous act. He was writing letters to the media, telling them how he wants to be known for being a cold-blooded killer. Such information should not be known to the people, and the media should only broadcast little or no information concerning the death penalty and not show the people how the penalty takes place.

Moving on after the death of a loved one is not such an easy thing although many criminals go scot-free after their offenses death penalties are considered to be the pre-eminent way. This helps the family members to be sure that the criminal is no longer in the picture. That way, the family member and the survivors of the terror attack will move on with their lives, and the story is not talked about like how it is usually on the first page of the Daily Nation or the daily news before the conviction. The death sentence will be harsh for other people who will think of committing such acts this way it will reduce the chances of terror attacks in the city, because of the fear of the conviction. This way, there will be fewer cases of terror attacks and other capital punishment cases.

Cons of the Death Penalty

According to terrors and other capital offenses, the death penalty can affect the survivors and family members of the people who lost their lives. In some cases, research shows that the death penalty affects survivors and family members, one of the negative impacts is how the closure and capital punishment is undermining the connection of how the victim’s families find execution to be a less satisfactory charge (Madeira, 206). Some of the victim’s family members feel that it takes a long time for one to go to the toilet than how it makes the criminals lose their lives after a lethal injection. Other people think that the death penalty is not painful enough for the law offenders, because dying while sleeping does not seem to be as painful as the way they make others suffer.

The victims are always talking of criminals being remorseful and apologizing to them for their ill doings. The media houses also cover the stories always and the quick death of lethal injection. The family members also feel like the media is at fault for always including the criminal’s whereabouts and the proceedings concerning the death penalty on the daily news. The press is usually giving the family members a hard time to heal and also giving other criminals tips on what often happens and the convictions in case there is an explosion or a terror attack. The quick death of using lethal injection is not fair to the family members and survivors because they expect something close to what happened to their family members during the terror attack or explosives (Madeira, 251). According to the courts of law, many criminals are not remorseful concerning their actions. Therefore, they do not deserve to die in such an easy way, and being injected with lethal is such a natural way of death, as stated by most family members of the victims.

Criminals deserve a punishment that inflicts the same pain as that they cause others. Then maybe, they can be remorseful and regret their horrendous acts. Capital offenses do not bring closure to the survivors and the victim’s family if the criminal is defiant and unrepentant. Most family members feel that slow killing death sentences should replace the current ones so the criminals do feel the pain that their loved ones felt during the attack. The media undoubtedly covers these qualities that influence the public’s opinion on whether executing the offender can give closure. In the trial of Scott Peterson having been charged and convicted in the murder of his wife and their last-born son, Peterson was not remorseful about his actions during the court’s trial. He only sat still, making the jury term him as a cold-blooded killer. According to the court of law, Peterson just sat still waiting for the board to convict him. The mass media should not broadcast executions on live Television because witnessing the performance does not help the family members to cope with the loss of their loved ones.

According to the U.S. government, most criminals make their explosives, and such felonies should have strong convictions other than injections. The criminals are supposed to suffer the consequences of their actions the hard way. Additionally, other suspects are usually aware of the bombing (Patti & Hesterman, 26). Although their sentence is often life imprisonment, they have an idea of the materials that are put together to bomb a building and can, therefore, be used by other terrorists to carry out their attacks since they know what is essential. This way, the attacks will continue, and the criminals will feel like they can get fair convictions like life imprisonment. Other than that, some terrorists do not fear death, and they will proceed with attacking the country, knowing that their sentence will only be death. In this case, lethal injection is not such a hard way of dealing with such criminal offenses, and the government should think of a different approach to deal with capital offenses.

Conclusion

This paper shows the general cause and effects of terrorism that has developed in U.S. bombings and other recent terror attacks serve as a springboard to the government. Explosions and other terror attacks lead to the loss of lives and survivors living with trauma. In most cases, security professionals are usually unable to provide adequate information concerning the attack. Based on this review, issues concerning security and regulation of the attacks have emerged. The psychology of the victims’ families should also be into consideration after the attack, and the survivors should undergo therapies to check their mental state after the traumatizing events. Most survivors of explosives and other terror attacks end up being mentally unstable because of shock. Dispersion of information through the media broadcast is usually at high speed. Therefore, the media should broadcast little details on the death penalty on National Television. Most criminals find essential news concerning government punishment techniques through the press. Therefore, broadcasting death convictions should stop to ensure that the criminals get minimal information.

Works Cited

  1. Gilbert, Patti, and Jenni Hesterman. ‘Terrorism: Timothy McVeigh.’ (2016).
  2. Madeira, Jody. ‘Capital punishment, closure, and media.’ Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. 2016.
  3. Sloan, Stephen. ‘Placing Terrorism in an Academic and Personal Context: A Case Study of the Oklahoma City Bombing.’ Social Science Quarterly 97.1 (2016): 65-74.