Category: Capital Punishment

Presumably Italy is a country wrought with problems, corruption, division and a struggling economy, however Italy is no doubt unified when it comes to upholding human rights. And this includes the human right to live without the threat of state sanctioned murder. Italy expresses firm opposition and wishes complete abolition of the Death penalty. The Italian government believes capital punishment is “unjustifiable under any circumstance” and has long been on the forefront of the fight against it. Italy has long been on the support the movement, has abolished The death penalty in 1947 and has stood firmly in opposition ever since. Repeatedly, Italy tried before to call for an International moratorium on the death penalty at the United Nations, in 1994 and again in 1997. This delegate hopes foreign governments can learn from our collective violent history with the international cessation of the barbaric practice of capital punishment.

Italy believes capital punishment is a violation of human rights, a threat on both ethical and constitutional grounds and a financially consuming prosecution. Moreover, methods of execution and death row conditions have been condemned as cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment and even torture. The very philosophical component of capital punishment itself contradicts with the moral of ethics, as executing criminals is never a morally defensible form of punishment. While ethical and legal objections are the most common reasons critics oppose the death penalty, the cost of capital punishment is growing as a reason some are citing to oppose the method of punishment. On average, due to the complexity of death penalty trials, it costs 2 to 3 times more than non-capital trials. If included the cost of incarceration, drugs for execution and appeals, the death penalty it is more financially consuming compared to life imprisonment.

At a minimum, impose a national moratorium on the use of capital punishment. Prosecutors that committed heinous crimes are given the chance to plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence which will sentence them years depending on the seriousness of their crime, perhaps even life imprisonment. Italy’s constitutional principle is to aim for rehabilitation during an inmate’s sentence so imprisonment with parole are commonly trialed. However heinous crimes such as criminal associations with the Mafia and murder, are trialed with with imprisonments without parole, which are also based on the progress of rehabilitation and presumption if the inmate is dangerous.

To reduce the risk of recidivism, rehabilitation institutions provide education whilst recovery programs reactivates the offender’s respect for the fundamental values of social life, benefiting the mental and physical health of prisoners.Whilst imprisonments provides long term isolation from society, rehabilitation programs ensures the inmates are able to bridge between jail context and the outside world, effectively prevent further prosecutions humanely.

While delivering his final judgement as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Kurian Joseph recently chose to disagree with his fellow judges and speak against the purpose and practice of capital punishment. He observed that death penalty has failed to achieve any constitutionally valid penological goals and that it was being arbitrarily and freakishly imposed.

Though the majority of the bench, while delivering judgment in Chhannu Lal Verma vs the State of Chhattisgarh, reiterated the 40 years old views of a constitutional bench in 1980 that approved of the state’s right to kill, the resounding dissidence from Justice Kurian Joseph has ensured a fresh debate on the contentious topic of death penalty in India.

Is the practice of capital punishment justifiable?

Punishment, being unnatural and a practice imposed by human authority, cannot be executed for its own sake and needs to be justified with reference to its consequences or intention.

In the historical evolution of the state, it has come to be the responsibility of the state to protect the legitimate interests of its citizens, life being the most important among them. In return, individuals subject themselves to the rule of law under the state. Under this arrangement, state and its instrumentalities are authorised to exercise violence in their efforts to protect the innocent against arbitrary violence by the violators of law. Capital punishment is arguably the highest form of violence that a state is authorised to perform.

It may be argued that the criminal, by committing or attempting to commit a heinous crime against an innocent person, murder for example, forfeits his own individual right to live as a rational moral agent. Hence, it is moral and justifiable for him to be killed by the attacked in defence or by the state to preserve the common good, the argument in favour of capital punishment says. This was the line of argument that Thomas Aquinas presented in saying that “… therefore to kill a man who retains his natural worthiness is intrinsically evil, although it may be justifiable to kill a sinner just as it is to kill a beast, for, as Aristotle points out, an evil man is worse than a beast and more harmful.”

This argument is in line with the retributive intention of punishment. The element of vengeance in capital punishment cannot be ignored as is often seen in the expression of a society’s desire to have someone executed. But, in awarding death penalty to a murderer, what difference exists between a state that claims to be modern and civilised and a criminal, violent and inhumane that the state doesn’t think deserves to be alive? – one can always ask.

It may be doubtful if capital punishment serves any other purpose of punishment like deterrence or reformation than retribution. Death penalty does away with the possibility of reformation for sure and there is no empirically proven data to argue for the deterrent effect of capital punishment. At best, it is unproven. A survey conducted for the UN in 1988, to find out the relation between death penalty and homicide rates, concluded that “research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming. The evidence as a whole still gives no positive support to the deterrent hypothesis.”

We could also ask the moral question as to if it is ethically acceptable for the state to force someone pay with life for the predicted crimes of others in the future.

Even when capital punishment is justified as an ethical practice on whatever account, we should ask another question as to what should be the burden of proof in cases of capital punishment and make sure that it is specified and always met. The burden of proof in case of capital punishment must be much higher than normal as death penalty is an irreversible form of punishment. The burden of proof must be objective and possible and the system must weigh the risk of executing an innocent person heavily. When that is not possible, it is better to abolish the practice for the possible tragedy of executing an innocent person.

What if death penalty is arbitrary?

As mentioned in the beginning of the article, Justice Kurian Joseph of the Supreme Court, termed the practice of capital punishment as arbitrary and inconsistent, re-enflaming an already existing debate on the sanctity and permissibility of capital punishment in a modern civilised state. This statement echoes with the observation of Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the US Supreme Court that “despite the effort of the states and courts to devise legal formulas and procedural rules to meet this daunting challenge, the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice and mistake.”

Not only in its very purpose, but also in its practice, capital punishment is flawed, Justice Joseph observed. Capital punishment is “arbitrarily and freakishly imposed”, in most cases to satisfy the public conscience. The decision making process as to what constitutes “the rarest of the rare” is too subjective to be depended upon in such significant matters as another human person’s life.

The judgment in discussion also questioned the application of psychological and psychiatric intervention made before unquestionably closing on a person’s capacity for reform or rehabilitation. What scientific measures do we take in particular cases, even if capital punishment was an unavoidable and constitutionally valid form of punishment? The practicality and implementation process of death penalty, at least, has to be immediately debated upon, if not the existence of the practice itself.

The senior Judge also lamented the unduly influence of public discourse on crimes and criminals, which are emotionally charged and are often legally incorrect, over the judgments made in the case. The judiciary’s efforts should be to be constitutionally correct, even if it is against the majority view of the public. But it is important to note that Justice Kurian Joseph was emphasising on the imposition of the biggest form of punishment in inconsistent ways and the judges’ inability to judge objectively as to what was a “rarest of the rare” case.

A basic research into factors like the social and economic status of persons granted death penalty and their victims may help to empirically establish if what the judge observed is true. The traditionally powerless and the vulnerable that can satisfy the public consciousness and imagination are often made subjects of capital punishment, it is alleged. The former President of India, APJ Abdul Kalam had also mentioned that as President of India he felt pain in deciding on death penalties as most of the cases had ‘social and economic bias’ in them.

The dissenting position of Justice Joseph should also be seen in the light of the admissions made by the apex court of its own past errors in imposing capital punishment in a number of cases. No possibility for such fatal errors as killing someone innocent using state machinery should exist, even if the mistakes occur only in isolated cases, since Capital punishment is irreversible and lethal.

If proven to be arbitrary and inconsistent, it violates a fundamental principle as far as capital punishment is concerned that death penalty must be imposed ‘fairly, and with reasonable consistency, or not at all.” There is an urgent need to conduct proper research about the histories and situations of the executed by the state so that the consistency or arbitrariness of capital punishment could be empirically established. If proven arbitrary, inconsistent, and fallible, that single factor should work as sufficient ground to abolish the institution of capital punishment, no matter if such form of punishment was morally permissible.

Alternative forms of punishment

Can evil be fought with evil might be a question too philosophical to merit a discussion in the legal circles. But an eye for an eye is the most primitive form of punishment that a civilised society can think of. The negative effects of capital punishment on the society are telling. It is commonsensical that violence, criminal or legal, leads to more violence. The FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that among the US states, more murders take place in states where death penalty is practiced.

Though capital punishment is not a degrading public spectacle in most of the civilised countries today, the dramatic presentation of capital punishment by the media makes sure that the public is aware of the horror and violence involved in death penalty, one that is imposed on their behalf. Death penalty may lower the moral tone of the society and lead to brutalisation of the society in such a way that it will have strong implications for the state’s relationship with the citizens.

As a matter of principle, a civilised state should aim to force least violence when this is unavoidable. If there are better alternatives to deter potential criminals, the highest form of violence/punishment should not be applied. More than death penalty, what might deter a potential offender is the higher likelihood of speedy detection, arrest and conviction.

There are only a few countries in the world today that allow death penalty. If the other countries have effective ways of punishing crime and appropriate ways of ensuring an orderly and legally satisfied society, such alternative practices should be emulated. And capital punishment has to be abolished as being overtly harmful.

Human life is too valuable to be snuffed out in a stroke. A civilised society should also seek to understand the circumstances that made a human person criminal – the role and responsibility of a society in the making of a criminal – and the possibility of bringing the culprit back to normal life and reforming the society.

Conclusion

Laws and policies are to be changed timely, in accordance with the new sensitivities that the society comes to realise, and capital punishment is no exception. The authority of the state to practice capital punishment or any other legislation stems also from the collective will of the people. If so, as a society moves forward to newer insights and values, the laws enforceable by the state should accordingly change too.

Justice Kurian Joseph’s judgement quoted extensively from the 262nd report of the Law Commission submitted in 2015, whereas the constitution bench while upholding the constitutional validity of capital punishment in the Bachan Singh case in 1980 had relied on the 35th report of the Law Commission, submitted in 1967. During the few decades in between, the sensitivities of the Indian and international societies have changed and the enthusiasm for blood thirsty forms of punishment has generally given way to more humane responses to crime in the society.

In the authors’ opinion, capital punishment in more ways fails the purposes of punishment than it serves and is not one without alternatives. It hinders a society’s journey toward sensitivity and civilisation. As opined by the dissenting Judge, it is time that we reviewed the practice in line with the march of jurisprudence and international trends and took a stand against capital punishment. It is hoped that the minority but convinced stand of Justice Kurian Joseph in the present case will initiate healthy discussion on the practice of capital punishment.

References

1. Jose Abraham, Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India
2. Dr. Bins Sebastian, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, St. Stephen’s College
3. Channu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2570
4. Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) (2 SCC 684)
5. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 2-2, q. 64, a. 2.
6. Amnesty International, The Death Penalty: Questions and Answers,
7. The New York Times, “Blackmun: ‘I . . . Concede That The Death Penalty Experiment Has Failed’”,
8. The Wire, “Kalam Wants Abolition of Death Penalty”,
9. The Telegraph, “You were wrong, My Lords”,
10. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982)
11. Death Penalty Information Centre, “FBI Crime Report Shows Murder Rates Remain Higher in Death Penalty States”,

As former president of the United States of America, George W. Bush once stated, I support the death penalty because I believe if administered swiftly and justly, capital punishment is a deterrent against future violence and will save other innocent lives.” To some the death penalty is the only just thing that will teach criminals that they have to pay for their actions, that they can not commit these hate crimes and think that they will live the rest of their life without a care in the world. While on the other hand, some are completely against this “immoral and cruel” way of punishment. The death penalty shows people that are willing to commit these heinous acts that if they decide to carry through with those acts, they will have to face the consequences of their actions with their own life. Which might discourage them from such behaviors, while also providing a sense of solace and afty to not only victims, but also the community.

For people to really learn their lesson and get the punishment they deserve for the crime they have decided to commit, the only just thing to do is give them a punishment that would keep them from recreating the awful crime they have committed. The death penalty is the only punishment that would nearly be fit for the crimes these people are convicting. Alex Kozinski explains the importance of people deserving what they have done to someone else, ‘Immanuel Kant said it best. He said a society that is not willing to demand a life of somebody who has taken somebody else’s life is simply immoral. So the question really… when the system works and when you manage to identify somebody who has done such heinous evil, do we as a society have a right to take his life? I think the answer’s plainly yes. And I would go with Kant and I would say it is immoral for us not to’ (“Death Penalty- Pro con”).

This quote supports my reason for the death penalty saying how its wrong for you to still have your life when you’ve taken someone else’s. Shruti Juneja says, “To believe in the death penalty, you have to believe two things, you must believe that there is a category of … murderers who, by virtue [of] their character and the crime they have committed, have no right to life.” (Juneja, Shruti) This supports the reason that no one who has taken the innocent life of someone else then you no longer deserve to live either. Any alternative punishments that people come up with just will not fit the crime of murder or rape or anything else that you deserve to lose your freedom and life for. Life in prison isn’t as awful as people make it out to be, prisoners still have freedoms, they are allowed to have time outside, free food, free health care, also they have no type of punishment and they have other freedoms that you have out of prison and even more in some ways. In an article by LII Staff they talk about all the rights prisoners have, “Federal and state laws govern the establishment and administration of prisons as well as the rights of the inmates. Although prisoners do not have full constitutional rights, they are protected by the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This protection also requires that prisoners be afforded a minimum standard of living.” (LII Staff). Another problem that factors into not giving people the death penalty is that people who are sentenced to life in prison do not always sever that time. Many prisoners get out of prison for good behavior and end up with having parole and sometimes they don’t even have that. Niall McCarthy states, “nearly 162,000 inmates are serving a life sentence, one out of every nine people in prison. A further 44,311 individuals are serving ‘virtual life’ sentences of 50 years or more, defined as any sentence where it’s likely the inmate will die in custody” (McCarthy, Niall). Meaning that only those one in every nine will serve their full life sentence and die in that prison. For the rest of them they normally can find a way to shorten their sentence and get out with parole and go on to live their life back in the world not having a care in the world what they have done. Even if they are sentenced to life, it isn’t as long as you think it is. This is stated, Parole-eligible offenders serving a life sentence for a serious violent felony (murder, rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation, aggravated sexual battery, armed robbery, or kidnapping) committed prior to July 1, 2006, are initially considered for parole after serving 14 years. Those offenders who committed such crimes on or after July 1, 2006, will not be considered for parole until they have served 30 years. Most life-sentenced offenders convicted of serious violent felonies before 1995 were eligible for parole after seven years and have already received their initial parole consideration (“Life Sentences”). Being said the death penalty is what can really install fear into people leaving the thought in peoples head that if they go through with any of the crimes stated, then they could face the punishment and really learn their lesson.

Throughout the Bible death is talked about multiple times, killing people was not an odd thing to occur, so if the Bible is okay with something along the same lines as the death penalty then shouldn’t we be along with it too? Like in the old testament, sites various times the need for capital punishment. The old testament law commanded capital punishment for various crimes including, murder “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.” Exodus 21:12, kidnapping “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.” Exodus 21:16, bestiality “Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal is to be put to death.” Exodus 22:19, adultery “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.” Leviticus 20:10, homosexuality “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Leviticus 20:13, being a false prophet “That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.” Deuteronomy 13:5, prostitution and rape “you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s life. You must purge the evil from among you.” Deuteronomy 22:24. The thing all those quotes have in common is that they are all in favor of taking one’s life if they are caught in the wrong doing, even though they don’t call that capital punishment it is basically the same thing. Seeing how the Bible supported it there is no reason why people now cannot support it or think that it is wrong because it is clearly stated multiple times in the Bible that its a just way of punishing someone for their wrong actions. This goes to show how it was around even in the past and how it is still around now.

The majority of Americans, in the past and present, still support capital punishment and believe that it is a good way to keep the community safe and help keep the crimes regulated and prevent them from occurring. This idea of a capital punishment has been prevalent in cultures across the world for longer than the United States has existed. “The death penalty has been around for a very long time, starting over in Europe and then spreading to America. The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes” (Part I: history of the death penalty). That was the first ever time recorded that someone was killed for a crime they commited. However during some time there had to be a time earlier that people were killed for a crime and it just wasn’t recorded as anything at the time. Although some U.S. states began abolishing the death penalty, most states held onto capital punishment. Some states made more crimes capital offenses, especially for offenses committed by slaves. After the Civil War a new focus was given to Capital Punishment due to the advances in technology which made it more accessible, including the electric chair. To make the death penalty more likeable by the common people states added ways for the judges to pick and choose what cases should be dealt with the death penalty and which shouldn’t rather than blanketly punishing all who committed a certain crime, “In 1838, in an effort to make the death penalty more palatable to the public, some states began passing laws against mandatory death sentencing instead enacting discretionary death penalty statutes” (Part I: history of the death penalty). Most states in the United States of America still are in favor for the death penalty today. “31 out of the 50 states employ capital punishment” (Why Americans Need To Rethink). A good reason of why all these states still allow it isn’t just because they actually do kill all the people convicted but because of the closure that it brings the victims that have suffered or had to be a part in any way of these dreadful crimes.

People say that the death penalty is immoral, cruel, and unusual but isnt raping or murdering an innocent person just as immoral? The biggest problem with the death penalty is that people can be wrongly convicted and then they have faced a punishment and lost their life and no one can ever give that back to them. One example of this is when, “Carlos DeLuna was put to death in December 1989 for a murder in Corpus Christi. But he didn’t commit the crime. Today, his case reminds us of the glaring flaws of capital punishment.” (Cohen, Andrew) That story is just one of the many times that someone has been wrongly convicted and found innocent after they have already been sent to death row and already had their life taken away from them. Statistics show that, “Gross and his colleagues calculated a 4.1 percent error rate among people who are sentenced to death.” (Hughes, Virginia). That is the very reason why the death penalty can be found as a default and why it should not be used or brought forward with anymore. People make mistakes all the time and so do these judges and people making the final decision to send someone to death row or not. Because you can always try to get your life back out of prison or even in there you still have your life, but if sentenced to death row and killed, then you can never get that person’s life back. Another thing that is just morally wrong and hypocritical is that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you’re punishing someone for killing someone by killing them then how exactly does that add up. This is shown through this quote, “We don’t like people who kill other people, so to show everyone how much we don’t like people who kill people, we are going to kill people who kill other people. It seems like capital punishment pretty much goes against everything it claims to be for. The death penalty answers violence with counter-violence” It is also said by the same site that, “Violence breeds violence. Acts of violence committed in ‘justice’ or in affirmation of ‘rights’ or in defense of ‘peace’ do not end violence. They prepare and justify its continuation” (psychology today). Which is why capital punishment is not is not an equal or fair punishment for any crime committed, because we’re using an act of violence by taking one’s life because of the violence that they have created. With all the defaults that are found in the death penalty, there is no reason that it should still be around and legal in any states, bringing more violence and hate to those who have made a mistake by acting on emotions and feeling rather than by thinking of what they are doing.

Letting these criminals just sit in a prison where they still have their life will not make them learn that what they did was wrong, their life is not an innocent life. When you sentence someone to death row, the life your about to take is not some innocent life. They have commited a crime that has hurt someone else and they should no longer be considered innocent. They are a felon and an awful human being that should not have the chance to go out and do the same thing again to someone else. It is proven that once you have worked up the nerve to kill once, you have no problem killing again. A similar thing is said, “There is no doubt that a murderer should be killed – it is the basic premises of an eye for an eye or a life for a life. People who believe this feel that someone who has taken a life should forfeit their own” (punishment for murder). If you took the life of one person, then you should then have your life taken from you is what this is saying. Which supports my reasoning for why capital punishment should be legal in all states and should be put into action more often. There is also just no other solution that will make a rapist or murder learn their lesson that what they have done is unexceptable. While some people this this, “Everyone thinks human life is valuable. Some of those against capital punishment believe that human life is so valuable that even the worst murderers should not be deprived of the value of their lives.They believe that the value of the offender’s life cannot be destroyed by the offender’s bad conduct – even if they have killed someone” (Ethics). While on the other hand people will never learn that what they have done was wrong. Another problem people have with the death penalty and try to use as an argument is seen through this quote where it talks about people being in their right mind, it says, “It’s generally accepted that people should not be punished for their actions unless they have a guilty mind – which requires them to know what they are doing and that it’s wrong. Therefore people who are insane should not be convicted, let alone executed. This doesn’t prevent insane people who have done terrible things being confined in secure mental institutions, but this is done for public safety, not to punish the insane person. To put it more formally: it is wrong to impose capital punishment on those who have at best a marginal capacity for deliberation and for moral agency. A more difficult moral problem arises in the case of offenders who were sane at the time of their crime and trial but who develop signs of insanity before execution” (Ethics).

One of people’s biggest arguments against the death penalty is that those that commit these crimes that deserve the death penalty is that they are mentally unstable. That in order to punish them they have to understand what they are doing is wrong, and that’s what the quote about summarizes so well. However everyone knows what they are doing, in your right mind or not, you have some knowledge of what’s going on and what you are about to do. Which is why unless that person has medical records showing that they are truly mentally ill or have a real disability then they should be tried and if found guilty then sentenced to the death row.

Capital punishment is practiced all over the world, even in places where it is not technically legal. It has been around for years and it is a subject that you either agree with or disagree, there is not much of an inbetween view. The death penalty has been around for years and probably will continue to be around for many more years to come, and will serve its good. Staying in the back of people’s heads as they go throughout their life deciding what to do and if those decisions are really worth it. The death penalty shows people that are willing to commit these heinous acts that if they decide to carry through with those acts, they will have to face the consequences of their actions with their own life. Which might discourage them from such behaviors, while also providing a sense of solace and afty to not only victims, but also the community.

The debate over capital punishment has affected millions of lives throughout all history and will affect many more in the coming future. Even though the severity of the crime should match the punishment, some argue that capital punishment is a cruel and unusual punishment; therefore, ruling it out as an available punishment all-together. The issue with capital punishment is the difference of opinions about if it imposes on human dignity and violates human rights (Evans, 2012). The opposing sides have not yet come to a conclusion and the Supreme Court has delegated executional power to the State legislation. By so doing, there is variance in the law from state to state and how the execution is laid out. Laws and Records of capital punishment date all the way back to the Eighteenth Century B.C. with King Hammurabi of Babylon. He first established a systematic law that stated the consequences of the death penalty for a set of twenty-five assorted crimes. ( © Death Penalty Information Center, 2019).

Throughout history others have followed the same path; many regulations and laws have been written, executed, and warped into similar laws. The most infamous would be the Romans. In the Fifth Century B.C. the Roman Empire wrote the “Twelve Tables” (Kreis, 2001), which established the manner of how to live peacefully with one another and the crimes deemed worthy of the death penalty. The conditions ranged widely from burning down a building to being guilty of bearing a false witness (Kreis, 2001), both of which are punishable by death. These codes and laws have been changed over time by the world, but some remain in our American culture today. “Britain influenced America’s use of the death penalty more than any other country” (© Death Penalty Information Center, 2019).).

Even though the Colonies united together, a difference remained; laws regarding the death penalty differed from colony to colony. For example, in New York, according to the Duke’s Laws of 1665 if one would strike their mother or father, or deny the “true God,” they were sentenced to death (© Death Penalty Information Center, 2019). On the other side, both Wisconsin and Rhode Island banned the death penalty from their states. In the mid Eighteenth Century there was a movement to abolish the Death Penalty. A group of European Theorists initiated this movement, but it was the “Cesare Beccaria’s 1767 essay, On Crimes and Punishment, that had an especially strong impact throughout the world” (© Death Penalty Information Center, 2019). This essay proposed that capital punishment should be reserved only for treason and crimes of murder. Though it was defeated by one vote it laid a solid foundation for the structure we see today. Today’s government still trifles over the ethics of the death penalty. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional only to reinstate the death penalty again in 1976. In June of 1972 cases, collectively known as Furman v. Georgia, were brought before the Supreme Court and struck down because the Court deemed that capital punishment was so arbitrarily applied to the case that it “violated the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against ‘cruel and unusual punishments’” (The Times Editorial Board, 2019).

The Supreme Court then declared the death penalty unconstitutional and suspended the practice throughout the Nation. An act in 1976, collectively known as the “Gregg decision”, made by the Supreme Court stated that “the new death penalty statutes [formed] in Florida, Georgia, and Texas were constitutional” (© Death Penalty Information Center, 2019) and the Court lifted the suspension on capital punishment saying that the law could be resumed on the condition that it be used only for “particularly atrocious crimes” (The Times Editorial Board, 2019). Since the reinstatement of the death penalty States have been revising or eliminating their laws on capital punishment. A few states have taken the latter step and have thrown capital punishment out the window. Others have kept it and made revisions as needed. As states began to rewrite their laws to be in harmony with the Supreme Court’s mandate, they try to reduce the arbitrariness found in the execution of a human being. Though the law is different in every state, each State is doing their best to find fair grounds upon which they should build for these punishments. The States have laws expressing their opinion of what is right, but the people also have a voice that has been expressed throughout history. “Capital punishment should be abolished” says Evans, a creditable writer for Gale, because of how much it negatively effects those involved. Stepping back and looking at such an action gives one a vivid perspective of who is affected.

As Evans states, “The death penalty creates additional victims,” the person being convicted, their family, and friends are all being affected by such a devastating penalty. The judge and jury who execute the punishment and the lawyers who have the obligation to persecute or defend such a person with death on the line are also affected by these cases. “If nearly every murder can be eligible for a death sentence, then the system has swung back to arbitrariness—leaving the decision whether to seek capital punishment up to the whims of prosecutors, and its application to juries” (The Times Editorial Board, 2019). Justice Stephen G. Breyer, a writer in for the Times Editorial Board, said “I would ask… whether the death penalty violates the Constitution… It’s a medieval system too fraught with human error to be relied upon for determining whether someone should live or die.” There have been countless people falsely accused and sentenced who have lost their lives due to human error. The Courts still use the old systems of life to govern the way they punish the people. Are those ways still justifiable? Have they not outgrown the barbarian ways of, an eye for an eye? For if they continue killing those who have murdered, then one is led to ask, why should we not consider the death penalty murder in and of itself and cause the executioners to be tried for their murders committed? Who then do we call the murderers and law enforcers? “I don’t want the state killing in my name” cries Kim Evans, a creditable writer for Gale. She also argues that our justice system is set up to help people, to “provide remedy to victims, not vengeance” (Evans, 2012).

Why then do we execute criminals like animals instead of improving the world by rehabilitating them? The justice system is set up in a way to provide change in those who accept it; in place of the death sentence there is life imprisonment without parole, thus fulfilling the punishment for the savage crimes committed. “At the end of the day the death penalty is not about those who kill, it is about us. We, as a society, become what we say we abhor, killers,” “[it is] revolting to our humanity” (Evans, 2012). Do we really want to become the very thing that we despise? Then why do we play God in our own hands to consider someone is worthily to still live or if they are so evil that they must die? In 1999 James Morgan was unfairly prosecuted and sentenced to death. His story is a good example of how the judicial system is humanly faulty. With only a few weeks of preparation and inadequate information presented, the judge decided to finish the trial and declare that he was fit for capital punishment.

The mental health experts never participated in the case, therefore the jury never heard about the traumatic brain injuries that Morgan had suffered growing up. “Morgan suffered from severe neurocognitive impairments” (Goldsmith, 2018). These damages done to his brain “left [Morgan] unable to control his impulses at the time of the crime” (Goldsmith, 2018). Had the judge and jury known these facts he never would have been on death row; these factors “almost always leads to a life sentence instead of death” (Goldsmith, 2018). June 29, 1972 marks history for America; the day the Supreme Court ruled Capital punishment unconstitutional “was lucky timing for Carl Reimann” (Chicago Tribune, 2018). “On the evening of Dec. 29, 1972, the 31-year-old ex-convict, [Carl Reimann,] accompanied by girlfriend Betty Piche, went into the Pine Village Steak House in Yorkville wielding a semiautomatic pistol. The pair took about $640 from the cash register and from the five people who were present at the outset and told a family that entered during the robbery to sit down.

Reimann and Piche then headed for the door. But he was not done. Before leaving, a state appeals court later recounted, ‘Reimann methodically, carefully and slowly shot the five original parties in the restaurant.’ All five died of their wounds, including 16-year-old Catherine Rekate, a part-time dishwasher, and George Pashade, the 75- year-old chef. The family that arrived during the holdup was spared, apparently because Reimann’s gun was empty” (Chicago Tribune, 2018). Shortly after both carl and Betty were found and prosecuted, both found worthy to be sentenced to a life sentence without parole. “Had it been available when Reimann carried out his massacre, he might well have been sent to death row” (Chicago Tribune, 2018). Carl would be dead or in jail for the massacre committed; instead he is now a free man. “On April 26, the Illinois Prisoner Review Board voted to release him from the Dixon Correctional Center, and he left that day. That’s a shame, because the only just outcome would have been for him to die in prison” (Chicago Tribune), since the death penalty wasn’t a valid option at the time.

We are not a cold, heartless humanity that wants vengeance for every murder that happens, but justice must be served. “Rehabilitation and parole are legitimate goals for many prison inmates. But for someone who cold-bloodedly murdered five people, there should be no possibility of freedom, ever” (Chicago tribune, 2018). On Dec. 29,1972 Reimann could have grabbed the $640 and left but instead he “cruelly slaughtered” (Chicago Tribune, 2018) many people. If Catherine Rekate were alive today, she’d be 61. “She didn’t get to live to the old age that Reimann has attained. She and the other victims will never be released from the place he sent them. Never would have been the right time to release him” (Chicago Tribune, 2018). Since then Illinois has recognized that when a person is convicted with “two or more murders [it most likely] lead[s] to a sentence of life without parole” (Chicago Tribune, 2018). Capital punishment is needed to get people like these off ofoff the streets and out of this world to make it a better place. With the States not being in unison and with the Supreme Court deciding not to get involved, how do the people truly feel about it? How can the people take a stance when their leaders haven’t taken a definite side? This debate has gone on since the Eighteenth Century B.C. and will continue for centuries to come.

The basis of the argument is centered on the value of a human life and when or if that human can give up their right to live. There will always be a difference of opinions between both sides, but how will we settle those differences? The respect both sides hold for each other while still debating over sensitive topics will govern if this country will be united or split farther away with time. This particular debate is one of the most sensitive of all because it involves the value of life itself. Though this debate has lasted for centuries, our nations have taken their stances and are adjusting according to circumstances. Opinions can change as time goes on and the world changes almost daily. Who knows what the world will hold in ten10-years? One day someone will ask you what your stance is on capital punishment and you will need to know. How will you respond to their inquiry?

Maintaining a moral and civilized society often comes with many struggles, one of which being the decision on how to deal with the punishment of criminals. All throughout history the different attempts at regulation of crime can be seen, because all that any society wants is to just protect its people and ensure justice. One pivotal example of this is capital punishment, better known as the death penalty. Capital punishment is when a person is executed for crimes they have committed, depending on the laws of where the person is. Countries all over the world have differing opinions on whether or not to use the death penalty based on its morality, among many other things. Capital punishment has caused a great divide among U.S citizens, particularly because of the argument that it may or may not violate the 8th Amendment, which protects Americans from cruel or unusual punishments from the government. It is the understanding of those who are against this that it is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and that the government cannot kill people for violating the law. Therefore, it is obvious that many people believe that the death penalty is both unconstitutional and a relevant and controversial issue in America today.

This controversy began in 18th century BC with the first ever recorded death penalty laws under the reign of King Hammurabi in Babylon (Reggio). This document was called “The Code of Hammurabi”, and it stated that a person could capital punishment for 25 crimes, but murder was not one of these crimes. Then, a man in 16th century BC Egypt was a accused of using magic, so he was ordered to commit suicide, and this was the first record of a person being sentenced the death penalty. As time went by more countries began to adopt this method of punishment, each one adding their own ‘flair’ to it. Some countries decided to burn people to death, some decided to add cutting the victim into 4 pieces after they are dead, and some even decided to add torture. For example, there was the famous philosopher Socrates who was made to drink poison in 399 BC, or the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in 29 AD, and under the reign of Henry VIII there was around 72,000 put to death. The world became obsessed with the use of the death penalty.

This trend continued for years to come, and traveled with the Europeans to the New World when the time came. The first time capital punishment could be seen in the colonies was in the Jamestown colony of Virginia, 1608, when Captain George Kendall was hung under the assumption that he had committed treason (“Early”). Then later, in 1612, the Governor of Virginia, Sir Thomas Dale, created the Divine, Moral, and Marital Laws, which had very harsh punishments for very minor crimes (Reggio). As time progressed, the other colonies began to make their own laws regarding capital punishment, typically having it be the reprecussions for things like murder or treason, with hanging being the main form of execution until the 1890’s. But, in 1846, Michigan was the first state to abolish the death penalty, except in the case of treason against the state, and in 1852, Pennsylvania followed soon after. The states were noticing that hanging wasn’t the most reliable or humane form of execution, so when Thomas Edison was publicly showing how alternating current electricity, a dangerous form of electricity created by George Westinghouse, could be used to kill animals. They then decided that it would be a wonderful idea to use it on people. New York became the first state to use it in 1888, and it killed its first victim, William Kemmler in 1890, which took 8 excruciating minutes. Another one of the 5 forms of capital punishment in the U.S today is gas inhalation. Cyanide gas inhalation was first used in Nevada, 1924, on Tong war gang murderer Gee Jon. One other less common method is a firing squad, which is when 5 people shoot at one spot on a person, and only 4 of the 5 have live bullets. This method has only been used 4 times since the 1960’s (“Capital”). Finally, the fifth and most common method today are lethal injections. The victim would be given 3 injections, one to put them in a coma-like state, one to stop movement and breathing, and one to stop the beating of their heart (“Historical”).

The 5 different forms of capital punishment in the U.S today show the lack of morality that its users have. To kill others is immoral, this is a fact known by people all over the world. The pure hypocrisy of the death penalty is laughable. The idea that to kill is wrong, but it is okay when the government does it. It’s important to note that capital punishment is not even applied fairly to people of all races, mental capabilities and socioeconomic status (“Senator”). According to a study conducted in 2005, Black and Latino people are 3 to 4 times more likely to get the death penalty than any white person (Newsom). People who are also at a disadvantage in regards to the death penalty are the people who can’t afford the lawyers it would take to be protected in court (“Senator”). Senator Kamala Harris of California has stated herself that the death penalty is “a waste of taxpayer money.”.She is very much against the death penalty and believes it to be unfialy applied as well as an irreversible punishment that shouldn’t be used. The money that is used for capital punishment could be going to things that are much more helpful towards America, like schools or health care (“Senator”). It’s important to remember that the effects of the death penalty cannot be reversed, once a person has been killed, you can’t bring them back to life. The 8th Amendment is supposed to protect people from punishments that are cruel and unusual, and an irreversible punishment like death is something cruel that Americans shouldn’t have to be afraid of. 164 people who were wrongfully convicted and placed on death row have been released since 1973 (Newsom). Statistics hae shown that 45% of people preferred life imprisonment over the death penalty in 2014, but since then that number has increasd to 60% (Jones). Though in the past people tend to lean towards being for the death penalty, for the first time since 1989 people favor a life sentence over capital punishment.

Although there is much to disagree with in regards to the death penalty, there are still reasons for its existence and constitutionality. In fact, 56% of people feel that, for convicted murderers, the death penalty is better than a life sentence (Jones). One reasoning is that people believe that by having capital punishment looming over people’s heads, it will help to reduce the amount of crime in the U.S (Schubert). But, this has been proven to be untrue, in fact, states without the death penalty have shown to have less crime than those that do (“Murder”). The current U.S president, Donald Trump, wishes for the death penalty to be stronger and he believes it to be an effective way to protect citizens (“President”). He also made a statement regarding this topic when speaking about 2 men who were sentenced to death for murdering 2 police officers, that the death penalty “may not be a deterrent but these 2 will not do anymore killing” (“President”). Though, yes, those murderers couldn’t commit any more crimes due to the fact that they are now dead, it does the same thing to them that they had done to the police officers, and the amount of crimes that they may have caused had they lived is not something that people can predict. It is understandable to want to protect others by getting rid of and killing those who kill or do other heinous crimes, but one must note how much unnecessary time and effort this consumes. California alone has spent 5 billion dollars on capital punishment, but they have only executed 13 people (Newsom).One could also argue that getting rid of the death penalty would show a lack of sympathy for the lives of victims, but it’s exactly the opposite. By not using capital punishment, a respect and appreciation for human life is shown, an acknowledgment that it’s not something to be taken lightly. Finally, the big argument that Capital punishment is in fact constitutional comes from the fact that the U.S Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional (“Gregg”). The Supreme Court has ruled that capital punishment is not in violation of the 8th Amendment, but killing one race more than another is cruel, sentencing innocent people to death due to ignorance is cruel, and murder, regardless of who is doing it, is cruel.

The debate on whether or not capital punishment is constitutional can be seen in the 2005 U.S Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons, but this case was only questioning whether its application towards minors was constitutional (“Roper”). In 1993, Christopher Simmons, a 17 year old in Missouri, planned to murder Shirley Nite Crook with Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer. They broke into her home, bound her, covered her eyes, and threw her over a bridge into a river (Associated). Christopher was given the death penalty, even though he was under 18, so he appealed, and when the Missouri Supreme Court heard his case they did not rule in his favor (“Roper”). They had tried to use the logic from Atkins v. Virginia that used public opinion to decide the constitutionality of something. He appealed again, and the U.S Supreme Court ruled 5 – 4 in favor of Simmons, the majority opinion being from Justice Anthony Kennedy, stating that executing minors violated the 8th Amendment and was unconstitutional. The precedent from this case was that from then on, minors could not receive the death penalty.

Another case that has to do with the constitutionality of capital punishment is the case of Penry v. Lynaugh case of 1989 (“Penry”). In October, 1979, Johnny Paul Penry broke into 22-year-old Pamela Moseley Carpenter’s Texas home, held a knife to her throat, raped her and fatally stabbed her with scissors. Penry was charged with capital murder and sentenced to death, even though he was moderately retarded and had the mental ability of a child around the age of 6. But, the jury wasn’t fully aware that they could take all of the special circumstances into consideration when making a decision, so Penry appealed. The question being asked was whether or not giving Penry the death penalty violated the 8th Amendment because he is mentally challenged and his jury wasn’t aware that they could take his circumstances into account. The lower courts did not rule in his favor, but the U.S Supreme Court ruled 5 – 4 in his favor, the majority from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, stating that the jury should have been told they could take his mental abilities into consideration, but being “retarded” doesn’t exempt one from the death penalty. The precedent set was that from then on, giving the death penalty to mentally retarded individuals was not a violation of the 8th Amendment.

In conclusion, the unconstitutionality and relevance of capital punishment is very apparent in the U.S today. It is clear that capital punishment is in violation of the 8th Amendment, which protects people from cruel and unusual punishments from the government, because it allows for racial bias and discrimination, it does basically nothing do deter crime, and it is, at its core, murder. Although the other side has understandable claims, there are better claims for arguing its unconstitutionality. Because there are so many differing ideas and opinions, it is very obviously a relevant and controversial topic today. Every person has a different take or view on it, even the president, and these differing opinions are what make a society better. It’s a matter of one listening to those around them and learning from them, to create a better, more moral society.

For many years in our country’s recent history, capital punishment is an area that becomes a heated topic. There are many different beliefs about this “system of justice”, and most people hold strong beliefs on their respective opinions about it. Some believe that capital punishment makes people afraid to commit a crime in fear of being put to death. Those who believe it as a “scare tactic” usually believe that it is an appropriate form of justice for the murderer. Then, there are people, like me, who know that the death penalty is a completely outdated system which no longer benefits society, but rather, creates more problems in it. Many signs are present around the world, and even in our own country, that show us capital punishment is not the answer to lowering murder rate and making a safer society.

To say that capital punishment is the only way to serve justice to the murderers is quite ignorant considering there are many more options that would bring justice to the situation in a much more ethical way. Improvements on lethal injections in order to lessen the pain one endures while being put to death have been made in recent years, but how are we to know what pain the person is truly going through? And, to those that say the suffering is part of the justice being served to them, that is not who we are as a country. To stoop down to the level of the criminal would be comparable to a school disciplinary system that beats up one of their students every time they get into a fight. Obviously, a murderer lacks simple humane qualities such as compassion and sympathy, but that does not constitute us as a nation to do the same in return. Also, there have been many cases in which people on death-row were wrongfully convicted. People have been found to be innocent after they were executed which should trigger an alarm to all. Even if it is just one person that had been found innocent after they were executed, the government still had put an innocent human being to death which goes against every American value.

With the death penalty in-effect for most states in the U.S., there are still a lot of people that commit the gruesome act of murder. The people committing the crime are aware that their actions could end in getting themselves legally killed by the government. When one is planning on or is committing a murder, they are full of anger and hatred to a point where they clearly do not care about the consequences of their actions. People who murder are obviously in a horrible state of mind and are not thinking clearly because they are blinded by their evil thoughts and do not care about repercussions, so why would a law stop them? Looking further into this, the murder rate in death penalty states continues to fluctuate while staying on an upwards trend as opposed to the murder rate in non-death penalty states which fluctuates with a downward trend. Statistics like these are examples of sheer evidence that proves the death penalty to be an ineffective system.

And if you really want the murderer to “suffer”, which sounds worse: being put to death or spending the rest of your life in a prison cell? I confidently believe that life in prison without parole is a much more sufferable sentence than the death penalty because, instead of the murderer being killed and all of their problems disappearing, they would have to sit in a prison cell all alone and live with what they did everyday for the rest of their lives. In addition the cost of capital punishment is much greater than if the criminal were to be put in jail for life. According to Kimberly Amadeo from “The Balance” website, a death row inmate costs “$1.2 million more than a general population inmate. In July 2018, there were 2,738 inmates on death row. That’s almost $3 billion additional expense than if they had all been sentenced to life in prison instead.” So, why do we still have a system that is supposed to “benefit” society when, in reality, it is more a burden to it?

Supporters and adversaries of capital punishment both hold firm beliefs to their respective sides. Those who support it find that it is the only way justice can be served to murderers, while those who are against it find the true flaws in the system by showing how it actually is worse for society. High price and wrongful executions are only a fraction of the issues that capital punishment brings to our society, and it is time to we bring death to the death penalty.

In this essay I am going to write about an issue that I believe affects the sanctity of life and that is Capital Punishment. Capital punishment is the practice of executing someone as punishment for a specific crime after a proper legal trial. This issue can only be used by a state which means any groups or organisations that aren’t at government level can not practice this and it is murder if they do so. This form of punishment is most commonly carried out to people who commit serious offences such as murder however, in some countries this can be the consequence for offences such as fraud, adultery and rape as they consider these capital offences. Many people believe the taking of someone’s life as a result of crime is not right and that it is not ethical. Along with that, as many as 106 countries do not permit or use the death penalty as a form of consequence for offences.

Out of the 53 countries that still carry out the death penalty, China executes the largest amount of people per year. Back in 2008 the estimated amount of people that were executed due to capital punishment in China was 1718 in just one year. Many countries in the Middle East have corrupt government systems that are unjust and as a result of this, the country coming in at the second highest death rate due to capital punishment is Iran with an estimated 346 deaths and third being the USA with 111 deaths. There are many ways these executions can be carried out including hanging, shooting, lethal injection, electrocution, gas inhalation and even gruesome methods such as beheading, stoning and even crucifixion. Out of all the forms listed above, hanging is the most common method of execution out of the few I listed above. One of the major issues with the death penalty is that at one stage the executions were carried out in public mainly to be used as a deterrent for civilians. This is unethical as no human being should be exposed to it, most modern executions are done behind four walls without being exposed to the public for that reason however, in some countries they are still done in public. In the Middle East people are executed publicly still to this day, imagine the damage this has done to civilians including young children.

Catholic Church teachings on the issue

Capital punishment is an act of retribution and is not morally right. Murder is the most common offence that is punishable by the death penalty so why is it committed as a consequence? It is not right and is putting up the wrong image. Some people believe everyone has the right to live, God put us here on this earth so why should someone feel as if it is right to take them out of it?

In Sacred texts it is said that death is a suitable punishment for serious offences. However The Catechism of the Catholic Church states ‘in the light of the Gospel’ the death penalty is ‘an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’ and advocates for capital punishment to be abolished worldwide. Modern church figures like St. John Paul II and Pope Francis have showed their view on capital punishment and both vouch for it to be abolished. Their view on this justifies the following Papal Encyclical as it shows the Churches reaction to the issue and how they have responded to it. “Every individual, precisely by reason of the mystery of the Word of God who was made flesh (cf. Jn 1:14), is entrusted to the maternal care of the Church. Therefore every threat to human dignity and life must necessarily be felt in the Church’s very heart; it cannot but affect her at the core of her faith in the Redemptive Incarnation of the Son of God, and engage her in her mission of proclaiming the Gospel of life in all the world and to every creature.” (cf. Mk 16:15).

The church says that there is no reason for the death penalty and that it is a violation to the sanctity of life. The death penalty doesn’t give the individuals the chance to repent on their sins or to reconcile with God which is why many Catholics are against it. The church permits capital punishment in some severe terrible cases, this is for the purpose of “defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

Romans 13:1-4, ‘Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.’

In the second verse we see the quote “He who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God”. This is saying that by committing crime and opposing authority you are doing this against God. Later in the passage in the 4th verse we see the words “for it does not bear the sword for nothing” this is saying that if you do all that is right and do not commit crimes or offences you will not be faced with death. The power to punish has been delegated by god to those who rule which means the authorities have the power to implement a sort of punishment such as the death penalty if it is needed.

Acts 25:10-11, ‘But Paul said, “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, where I ought to be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you very well know. 11 “If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.”

In this passage we see themes of acceptance. Paul says if he did commit crimes worthy of death he will not refuse to die. However if he did not commit crimes punishable by death he should not be sentenced to such a punishment. Paul’s does not denounce capital punishment and he believes the state has the authority to execute people.

Islamic teachings on the issue

Many of the scriptures in the Quran portray a similar perspective on Capital Punishment. People within the Islamic faith who support the use of the death penalty think that it acts as an effective deterrent from crime and that it can promote justice. The name they give to the types of offences that are punishable by the death penalty is “asaad fi al-ardh,” in English this translates to ‘spreading mischief throughout the land.’ This type of crime covers many offences in one including: rape, adultery, treason, apostasy, piracy, sodomy and homosexual behavior.

We can see Islam’s view on the Death penalty in Sura 5, ayat 33 & 34[3] within the Quran as it states- “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter, except for those who return representing before you apprehend them. And know that Allah is forgiving and Merciful”

Islam believes that capital punishment is suitable as a result to those who commit crimes. The punishment may vary from different offences, stealing could get your arms and fingers chopped off. These consequences are in place to teach the person to never repeat the crime and they also act as a deterrent and example for others as they will see what would happen if they did the same. The punishments for more serious offences consist of crucifixion or beheading. Another common consequence seen is “stoning,” these types of punishments aren’t only done by the Islamic authorities as the local community is allowed to join in to throw stones at the offenders while they have no way of defending themselves, the result of this could either leave them critically injured or dead.

Many people believe that capital punishment is a burden on society and that it has more of a negative impact than a positive ones for countries. It is said that countries that have abolished the death penalty have lower crime rates than others that still have it in place. The crime rate in the United States is almost triple the amount of countries like France, Italy and Sweden, who all don’t use it as a form of punishment for crime. An issue with capital punishment is that anyone could be accused and innocents could be placed on death row. For example, in Chicago twelve African American men were beaten and were tortured by a former Lieutenant during interrogations. Eleven out of the twelve that were accused of this crime were placed on death row. They were mistreated and were forced to submit to what was asked of them, they were also forced to sign confessions. This is only one example that shows what can happen with this type of punishment in place.

As we can see from the teachings of both religions they have their own beliefs and thoughts on the issue and they are different yet still similar in a way. The catholic faith has modernised their perspective on the issue and are against capital punishment for the reasons listed above however in some of the Old Testament teachings we see their view was quite similar to Islam’s current view on the issue. To conclude, we can see from this essay that capital punishment is an unethical form of punishment and it affects the sanctity of life for the individuals faced with it and for the people exposed to it in countries where it is legal.

1.0 Introduction

In this assignment, we have chosen the acceptance of capital punishment as our topic. As we fully support capital punishment, we will talk about the reasons behind why we support it and how capital punishment can benefit the Malaysian community. In layman terms, capital punishment is also known as death penalty, which a criminal is killed for commiting a serious crime.

In Malaysia, capital punishment is compulsory to be apply on any criminal who involves in crimes like kidnapping, murder, illegal drug trade, or owning any firearms. And it is obligatory or optional for other crimes depending on the level of violation of law. Capital punishment in Malaysia is practiced by hanging a weighted criminal to death. According to BBC News, in 2017 there are 106 countries have abolished capital punishment while 92 other countries still practicing capital punishment. The ethics of capital punishment has always been a hot topic ever since capital punishment was introduced. The opposition who do not support capital punishment states that it is morally incorrect to take people’s life under any circumstance even though they commit serious crime.

Malaysia is still one of the countries that still running capital punishment although Malaysia once planned to abolish capital punishment in October 2018, however, in the end still announced to remain practicing capital punishment in May 2019. While there are many arguments regarding whether to necessary to accept or reject capital punishment. We believe that capital punishment must be support and practice throughout Malaysia as it represents justice and reduce crime rates.

With the will of supporting the capital punishment in mind, we are going to propose different media strategies to accept and support capital punishment.

2.0 Media Strategies

2.1 Campaign

Campaign is one of the most popular choices among all media strategies, and it can be seen almost everywhere whenever people are raising public awareness. Campaigns such as public communications campaigns, public information campaigns, media campaigns, and public education campaigns are also commonly used to stimulate people’s way of thinking and behaviour change (Bloomfield, Bommarito and Kuhl, 2015). Public awareness campaign plays an important role when it comes to promoting changes in attitude and behaviour of an individual or a society. Organizing an awareness campaign can emphasize the importance and benefits of capital punishment to Malaysians, especially for those who disagree practicing capital punishment. For the campaign, the importance of capital punishment will be heavily stressed-out in television advertisements, billboards, brochures, social media, and cross media posts. A good campaign which effectively and efficiently changes people’s way of thinking is that campaigns comes with 3 important principles which is credibility, stories, and emotion (Bloomfield, Bommarito and Kuhl, 2015). For implementing the first principle, credibility, for our awareness campaign, we feature famous politicians to show the statistics of crime rates reduction with capital punishment in the television advertisements. The last 2 principle of stories and emotion will be carried out by inviting celebrities and social influencers to talk about the importance of capital punishment in social media and cross media posts. These awareness campaigns will make positive changes towards the public opinions towards the acceptance and support of capital punishment.

White propaganda will put into practice with the media strategy of campaign. We gain the public’s confidence as white propaganda stands for the public trusts towards a source for its truthiness, accuracy, and transparency. We deeply believe capital punishment will reduce crime rates in Malaysia. As the majority of people have the fear of death, Malaysians will have to consider twice before they are likely to perform any illegal actions when they realise that death is the only outcome that awaits them if they commit crime. Thus, capital punishment helps Malaysians to stay away from committing crimes such as performing drug trafficking and extreme violence. In the book of The Death Penalty In Malaysia: Public opinion on the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, murder and firearms offences, Robert states that the practice of capital punishment has benefited Malaysia by reducing very violent crimes from 25% to 9% and reduce trafficking illegal drugs cases from 24% to 16% (Hood, 2013). Agreeing to a famous quote from an Indian activist Mahatma Gandhi, he once said “an eye for an eye”, meaning that a criminal should be punished to an indistinguishable degree like how he had injured the victim. We deeply believe that justice is better served with capital punishment, as the most basic concept of justice is to serve equality and genuine respect to all people. It makes perfect sense that a criminal who committed murder to have death as his punishment.

All of these important points of practicing capital punishment will definitely be being presented in the campaign to make the public to be aware of the importance of capital punishment.

Media has the power to impact its targeted audiences emotionally and physically. Educational posters and videos will be posted in news websites and social media in order to create and strengthen the bond with the public. The contents of the posters and videos, are the necessity of capital punishment and also include how capital punishment can reduce crime, and eventually lead the country into a better environment to live in. The propaganda technique imply for this campaign is false connection, in specific, testimonial. Testimonial technique refers to the usage of a professional individual to amplify credibility and image towards the campaign, which lead to increase persuasiveness. An example of the video can be a short video of interviewing victims who suffer from losing a family member or friend in a murder case and talk about how capital punishment bring justice to them and their family members. In addition, videos like having the Inspector-General of Police, Abdul Hamid Bador, showing statistics of the reduction of crime rates year by year with the practice of capital punishment. Inspector Abdul Hamid Bador has solved multiple of crime cases before, and he is a policeman, a symbol of justice, his image can gain the public’s trust and admiration effortlessly. Thus, having Inspector Abdul Hamid Bador is our media strategy. Experiences of the victims and the claims from the police both obtain utmost credibility of influence the public to support capital punishment.

2.2 Talk Show

The second media strategy that we apply in supporting capital punishment in Malaysia is carrying out a talk show. Talk shows is usually presented in television programme which consist a group of audience listening to a conversation or discussion of a TV host and a guest. The guests are usually celebrities, political figures, or any social influencer. Talk show can also presented in the format of radio programming, where a radio dj interviewing any guests like in the television talk show and having similar content too. The reason we apply talk show as our media strategy is because majority of people are more likely to believe the contents discussed in a talk show. This is because in a talk show, the presence of the host, guest, and the fellow audience creates a ‘serious’ atmosphere which makes people feel the topics they discuss and conclude are safe and reliable. The audiences in the talk show also often show emotional facial expression as a feedback towards whatever the host and guest are talking about, this also provides a sense of realism in talk shows. Certain talk shows have a section for anyone to call in to share their opinion towards the topic as discussed by the host and the guests, call in feature a further step of interaction between the audience with the host and the topic discussed. According to Ilie (2016), the audiences who attend talk shows are mostly interested towards the topic about the talk show and are usually knowledgeable about it too, this shows the professionalism and credibility of the talk show for the television audiences. Having talk shows with professionals like politicians to discuss and persuade audiences towards supporting capital punishment will bring positive effects towards the audiences as we believe the audiences will have the words from the host and guest in their mind.

Furthermore, the information of topic discussed in talk shows have high credibility as all the content discuss are all established from true real-life stories and real-life happenings accompanied along with true genuine data from professionals. With the words from the professionals and accurate information, these combinations will generate potent persuasive force to create awareness towards the public regarding the support of capital punishment.

As for propaganda, we use white propaganda to power our media strategy. White propaganda stands for only truths will be told from the talk show, and information provided by the talk show consists only facts and statistics. In short, white propaganda reduces the risk of subjective opinions from the audiences. Capital punishment plays an important role of solving the issue of overpopulation of prisoners in Taiping prison, the largest prison in Malaysia. Some prisons in Malaysia are overpopulated and in a financial point of view, overpopulation is a big concern. The Malaysian Government have to spend lots of money supplying rooms, food, drinks, clothes, and other expenses for the prisoners. Rahim from TheStarOnline reports that the average prisoner costs 35 Ringgit on food and other requirements per day (2013). There is a total of 35 prisons in Malaysia that can occupy 50,950 prisoners, the daily spending on these prisoners are 1,783,250 Ringgit per day from multiplying 50,950 prisoners to 35 Ringgit. In a year, the government have to spend 650,886,250 Ringgit only on prisoners. Rahim (2013), also reports that the Deputy Home Minister Datuk Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar announced that the Malaysian government devotes 655.96 million Ringgits to the Prison Department in the year 2010, and that is more than what we calculated. So, capital punishment can help reduce the government’s spending on prisoners by avoiding overpopulation of prisoners, government then can use the remaining funds in a more useful way like developing the country. Hood (2013) mentions that capital punishment helps reduce 3% to 9% of cost spending in prison annually, and that little saving translates into approximately 39,357,600 Ringgit. With all these statistics, our talk show can feature the Deputy Home Minister and Inspector-General of Police as guests to have a discussion of how capital punishment can help reduce crime and reduce government’s annual spending on prisoners. Audiences with questions can also call in to ask the guests whatever they do not understand, and real time feedback will be provided by the Deputy Home Minister and Inspector-General of Police. With the accurate statistics presented by the most credible figures in the country, we believe out talk show can generate a big impact towards the audience to show more support to capital punishment.

The propaganda techniques used in this media strategy are testimonial and plain folks techniques. Testimonial technique can increase credibility and persuasiveness by inviting professional individuals to talk about something in a field which they are really good at. Testimonial technique can be seen as the invitation of Deputy Home Minister and Inspector-General of Police to discuss about capital punishment in our talk show. Plain folks technique is the technique of using a speaker voicing out his opinions or questions in the same status as a layman or like other audiences in the show. Plain folks technique can be seen in our talk show whenever a live audience asks questions directly or by calling into the studio. In the book Talk Shows, Ilie (2016) says that the interaction between the audience and the hosts or guests can stir up the atmosphere in the set and generate more curiosity of other audience and eventually lead to a more effective communication and understanding towards the topic discussed.

Our strategy is carried by the utilising magic bullet theory. Magic bullet theory describes how the media increases the audience’s knowledge by directly transit messages and information to the mind of the audience. The transmitted information are like bullets permanently stay inside the audience’s mind and causing “damage” which is actually the change in behaviour of the audience. In our talk show, the host and guests will talk about the benefits of practicing capital punishment, and how the Malaysian government did not abolish capital punishment in the end. In fact, the talk show mainly focused on the advantages of capital punishment and help build up the acknowledgement of the audience towards how capital punishment cut government’s cost and creates a safer society. The audience definitely will have brainstorm about capital punishment, and we are confident to convince the audience to support capital punishment with talk shows.

2.3 Short Clip

Finally, we have short film as our last media strategy. Like any movies, a short film projects sound effects and displays visual effects to fulfil the human’s sensory systems. Therefore, a short clip has high potential of gaining people’s attention and the public’s awareness.

We will film a short film showing the differences of 2 different countries, naming them Country A and Country B. Country A practices capital punishment while Country B does not implement capital punishment in their law system. The short film will then show how safe Country A is, as its citizens are living in a crime free society, and also living in an economically stronger country compare to Country B. Country B will show citizens living in an unsafe society which have high crime rates and serious crime issues like murder and drug trafficking.

The short film media strategy implies grey propaganda. Grey propaganda represents the transference of information and ideas which either be true or false. Because in reality, not all countries which practices capital punishment will have the same result as Country A in the short film due to many more possibilities and consequences. The outcome of Country A and Country B are presented just as what we are predicting on paper with the concept of the practice of capital punishment. The audiences who watched our short film will have the fear of having our country to end up like Country B. With that, the technique of Fear applies in our media strategy of short film. The technique of Fear reminds the audiences towards the fear factor in their minds, and that reminds them not to end up in the situation that they fear about. As a result, the audiences will always remember the outcome between Country A and Country B, this is also where our theory of Magic Bullet Theory kicks in. Magic Bullet Theory provides strong and effective message transmission towards people. Our short film utilises Magic Bullet Theory to display the outcome of practicing capital punishment and without practicing capital punishment.

3.0 Conclusion

In conclusion, we believe that our 3 media strategies of campaign, talk shows, and short film with the support of white and grey propaganda type and in addition with propaganda techniques like testimonial, plain folks, and magic bullet will help create public awareness towards the importance of capital punishment by stressing about strengthen justice, reduce crime rates, and cut down government’s cost on prison.

1. BBC News, 2018. Death penalty: How many countries still have it? BBC News. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45835584 [Accessed July 2, 2019].
2. Bloomfield, C., Bommarito, R. and Kuhl, M. (2015). Public Awareness Campaigns. Supporting Military Families through Research and Outreach Public Awareness Campaigns. [online] Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Supporting-Military-Families-through-Research-and-Bloomfield-Bommarito/74326da820ae48d452f08754e8b7d3cef0de969d [Accessed 3 Jul. 2019].
3. Hood, R.G., 2013. The death penalty in Malaysia: public opinion on the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking, murder and firearms offences, London: The Death Penalty Project.
4. Ilie, C., 2016. Talk Shows. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, pp.489–494.
5. Rahim, R., 2015. Parliament: It costs RM35 per prisoner per day – Nation: The Star Online. Nation | The Star Online. Available at: https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2013/10/24/parliament-it-costs-rm35-per-prisoner-per-day/ [Accessed July 3, 2019].
6. Williams, M.E., 2000. Capital punishment, San Diego: Greenhaven Press.

Immanuel Kant is the philosopher chosen for this paper for their philosophy on morals, what is right and wrong, whether the judgement of what is right or wrong, the right choice, and freedom to preserve one’s own happiness. His philosophy most likely has a part on whether it is still used today, whether it be with us, the people, or in political issues.

Immanuel Kant is a philosopher whose ideas revolved mostly around morality, that a person’s actions or a person’s judgement on said action determines if it is something to be judged with a “good will” or whether it interferes with a person’s rights depending on the action or judgement. Kant refers to this as the “Good Will”, because in Kant’s way of thinking, it does not refer to a person’s actions or even from an act of God but the good will itself. It Kant goes even further in his ideas or theories that it could even include a person’s humanity and desires. One of his theories that seemed fascinating to me is his thoughts on respect. He views respect as a feeling not being depended on an outer influence. Kant’s ideas are something that can really be thought upon that can and probably without a doubt, be still used today as said before.

One of the contentious issues that have been a big part of controversy in Texas, as well as other states, where the death penalty is legal and used as punishment for serious offences such as murder. In recent events for example, Rodney Reed, that is currently on death row, has gained millions of signatures on petitions even getting the attention of celebrities such as Kim Kardashian, Rihanna, and even one of the presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders, calling upon the Governor of Texas, Greg Abbot, to halt the execution. That all and current evidence must be looked over once again in order to make a decision on whether its right or wrong to truly decide a person’s life over a crime.

Capital Punishment or the death penalty, have been used for many years dating back in history for millennia. Being used as punishment for wrongdoings that seemed fit for criminals that have done inconceivable acts. Nowadays in the modern area, capital punishment is only reserved for certain specific crimes with the most common being murder and terrorism and in some countries, even extending the crimes ranging from adultery to drug trafficking. Throughout the years, public opinion about the death penalty seemed to be on the fence, probably depending on the situation or crime. For crimes that were too severe that it was felt that a sentence of life to jail wasn’t enough, it was assumed the best course of action would be the death penalty, however on the other hand, people have been questioning that if this punishment is a violation of a person’s right to life.

A person’s right to life is a moral belief that every person has the right to live and should not be killed by another person or in this case, the government. Such is the same mentality, for example, when it comes to another contentious issue being the abortion of an unborn baby. Whether it was right for a mother to abort her child if she was a victim of rape when the unborn baby has been gifted the chance of life. These issues have changed drastically over the years pertaining to public opinion and have garnered vast opinions changing different laws, how it should be performed, etc. Kant’s philosophy pertains to these issues, for Kant believes in equality in terms of crimes.

Kant exemplifies a pure retributivism about capital punishment: murderers must die for their offense, social consequences are wholly irrelevant, and the basis for linking the death penalty to the crime is “the Law of Retribution,” the ancient maxim, lex talionis, rooted in “the principle of equality .”

Kant’s view on capital punishment seems very ironic considering how his theories and views are mostly about a person’s character and actions, how well they could choose right over wrong, to know which is and in what scenario, but then it also makes sense for he believes in good morality that people must strive for it in order to attain that “good will”. That this is something that is attained by choosing the right thing, because it is the right thing to do. If you choose to do otherwise, you are basically walking in the wrong path and that your personality or what you chose is the main reason for doing so and because of this, follows consequences.

In terms of the present, as said before, the death penalty varies between person on what their opinion about it is. Again, the death penalty now, at least in the United States, is only considered for extreme cases such as murder and terrorism. When comparing Kant and own opinion, when it comes to these cases, as much as it does seem very cruel, it does seem like it would be the best form of punishment? Where the person did something so inconceivable such as taking a life or multiple lives, that the same type of action would be brought back to the person. Of course, this all depends on evidence and if it is clear, that the person who has done the act is clearly found guilty, but what about people who are accused of murder, yet do not have the full evidence to fully support the claim.

The death penalty is without a doubt, the last form of punishment to be given, so with that said, many steps must and should be taken to ensure whether the punishment is justified. First off, well did the person in question do the crime? Were there any witnesses? Was he the one that did the crime or did the person pay someone else, a hitman, to do the job? Many questions should be taken into consideration and all evidence looked over or seek even more evidence to ensure what the court and jury chooses is right. After all, the person in question is a living being that may or may not be falsely accused and doesn’t that person also have a right to life as well?

In the end, what it mainly comes down to, is the type of crime and the situation. If we were to have Kant be in the jury, I believe he would also do the common sense. He would ask the same questions said before, look at all the evidence and determine if its justified. Nothing would change from his views that he thought about many years ago, it still applies today even though it’s a hard pill to swallow, where the saying goes, “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

Plato’s view on capital punishment consists of his ideology that it shall only be used for the worst offenders, and in no other cases should it be imposed. Plato does not believe in the suffering of criminals as a price to pay for their crimes as he believed that the infliction of suffering, makes people worse than they already were. Plato holds the idea that capital punishment should be reserved for only the unrehabilitatable and should never be used with the “spirit of vengeance”. Those who are deemed curable should be held to alternative punishments for their crimes as to Plato, death is not considered to be an extreme penalty

Plato upholds that capital punishment should never be used with wrongful or vengeful intentions. Plato understands that “one cannot undo what has been done” meaning that with death one cannot take it back. If administered with the wrong intentions one may live to regret their decisions and will then have to live with the consequences and guilt of their misguided actions. Plato also believed that the decision to end one’s life should not only be looked at through the past inquires of a criminal. With a decision this big in the hands of a person or many, it is their responsibility to take all points into consideration so that there is no doubt in their final choice. If one acts too quickly on this choice and obtains a misguided judgment, then mistakes are made and wrongful executions occur. Plato acknowledges the difference between justice and revenge with the limits of anger. Revenge consists of intentionally causing hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands and the seeking of emotional satisfaction. With justice, there is a common struggle with retaliation since revenge put with anger is a reaction that tends to cause exaggerated suffering. With this Plato holds the belief that decisions holding this much power should be made by someone with a level head and no biases to ensure that the proper choice is made.

Plato believed that capital punishment should be reserved for the incurable and in no other way should it be administered. Plato states, “only when the criminal is deemed incurable and not anymore in a position to profit from reform, may he be used for deterrent purposes.” Plato understands that sometimes there are people who cannot be helped, especially if they do not wish it for themselves. He proceeds to say that in the case where someone is deemed incurable, it is in the best interests of everyone, themselves included, to no longer be able to live. Plato believed that in these cases where a person should be executed it would serve as a lesson to those around them to the consequences of these actions. That capital punishment would act as a deterrent from others acting in the same way as well as protecting society from these criminals. Plato knew that not all people could gain from rehabilitation, but also knew that there were some people who could, and believed those people should face alternative punishments for their crimes. However, those who could not be helped shall be executed in a just manner.

Plato believed that death was not to be considered an extreme penalty as alternative approaches could be worse in his eyes. Plato states, “Death, however, is not an extreme penalty: the sufferings said to be in store for these people in the world to come are much more extreme than that.” and, “I conclude, therefore, that the punishments men suffer for these crimes here on earth while they are alive should as far as possible equal the penalties beyond the grave.” This means that Plato considered death to be somewhat of an easy way out. It allows criminals to escape the sufferings of pain, guilt, regret, and more, that they would endure living with the consequences of their actions for the rest of their lives. However, he acknowledges that in cases where one is deemed incurable the path for them is clear within his eyes. The only answer for them is to no longer have the right to live. While Plato is opposed to retributive punishment, which is designed to make a criminal suffer for the price of their crimes, the suffering that he refers to here with being more extreme than death are those of a mental state. Meaning that internal pain of guilt, remorse, or any other emotions, could be all-consuming of one who is forced to live with the punishments of one’s actions. There is no extent of the feelings or emotions one feels within that correspond to the crime committed. They may feel nothing at all, they may feel it all too much. This to Plato is a distinguishing factor between the incurable and curable. Therefore, mental sufferings hold more penalty in Plato’s eyes than the sufferings of death, where one can escape what they would have had to come face to face with, with an escape route.

In conclusion, Plato believed that capital punishment should only be held within the hands of those who hold no vengeance, as that is the only way to assure just punishment. As well, he believed that there will always be criminals who simply cannot be helped with changing their violent tendencies and behaviors. In these cases, the only solution is for those criminals to no longer obtain the right to live. However, in the light of one being deemed curable through rehabilitation and education, alternative punishments should be administered. Finally, Plato acknowledges that in situations previously mentioned there is a need for capital punishment, yet he deems death to be insignificant compared to the sufferings that life has to offer for such criminals.