Category: Capital Punishment

INTRODUCTION

Deterrence is probably the most commonly expressed reason for maintaining death penalty but in fact, studies shows there is no connection between the presence or absence of the death penalty and murder rates (Deterrence and the Death Penalty,2012). Deters is to prevent someone from doing something or to make someone less enthusiastic about doing something by making it difficult for that person to do it. There are at least 690 executions in 20 countries in 2018, raise up a question whether this is the right method for those felonies. This essay will look into how much of a deterrent the death penalty is and what else contributes to minimising criminal behaviour. It will also outline some of the discussion about the actual effect of this punishment, other factors causing crime and how the death penalty changing from its original purpose. Moreover, it will suggest some solutions including co-operating with Amnesty International to remove and replace it with a more appropriate punishment and deterrent. Furthermore, this essay will also evaluate other solutions where The criminal justice approach refers to various programs delivered by police, the courts and corrections that aim to prevent recidivism among people.

SITUATION

Studies show that capital punishment have no deterrent affect to criminal or at least only a part of it actually work, create and large controversy on whether should people use this type of biblical punishment on people when it doesn’t show any good affect. There are at least 19.336 people under death sentence and 690 executions in 20 countries in 2018 but there were about 4% of the death row were wrongfully convicted which is lead to more than 200 people died for a wrong condemn. This involved lots of different types of people and organisation from the prisoner, their family and relatives, the justice system of government and people that standing up for the right things. Since july 1961, amnesty international organisation had been founded in order to fight for the right thing and against the law of capital punishment. At the same time, human rights organisation around the world also stand up to take part in this campaign.

PROBLEM

Firstly, the actual effect of deterrent for death penalty doesnt seem like it have a positive result on criminal behaviour and help to reduce the rate of crime showing the myth of there purpose. Secondly, as research, the behaviour of committing crime were affected like lots of different other factors around them, this shows that it doesn’t mean there are no ways other than death penalty as the only way to being punishment. Thirdly, the government and justice system giving out those types of punishment like death penalty to cover different factors for certain punishment and the result of capital punishment serve non of them.

As victorian supreme court judge Lex Lasry (Fact check, 2015) states that untill today, no one can make sure that death penalty has a real deterrent value. Because of that, it shows the effect of death penalty is still seem like a myth to people where deterrent is giving out to stop people committing crime but then for capital punishment, it seem like so against it. There are a lot of different data can show that this believe if right where from 1973 to 1984 the murder rate in the USA actually lower than after the punishment of death penalty were giving out with a different of 63% compare to nowday (Lamperti, 2010). And when the capital punishment were giving out, it help japan to decline their ciminal rate down about 80% but at the same time criminal rate in Korea have not much different from before. All of this data raise the question about the ability of control crime of death penalty.

Normally, crime was effect by others factors from population density, welfare equality, level of education and even from religion (Sulhin, 2018). Because of that, Dow (2012) believe that by giving them a death sentence always assume that they are wrong, to look at a more positive side of what is causing them to be a human who they are right now, what factors. By that the death penalty is not the only way to punish those type of people. By treating them better can actually give more effect to the people rather than death penalty.

Punishment were made to cover 4 factors from deterrence, incapacitation, retribution and rehabilitation but then capital punishment couldn’t reach to the expectation of people when giving out this punishment. Supporting, Jeffrey Fagan (2015) there are no observable change in crime since it only satisfy the want of vengeance and punishment bad people for what they had done but this retribute last only until the next crime appear. This shows that capital punishment actually did not deter crime. Where 88% of criminologists around the world didn’t believe that the death penalty deter murders. At the same time they believe that death penalty has been cause of homicide rather than prevention where it encoutage criminal to comnit crime by seeing to legitmize killing of enemies. Therefore, purpose of death penalty seem like it has gone wrong.

SOLUTION

There are different ways to help to solve the problems of the deterrent effect of capital punishment like reach up to differences organisation in order to help raise up the awareness of capital ppunishment. We can also change capital punishment into others punishment that seem to be more appropiate. Last but not least is communicate and delivery programs to criminal and people use to commit crime for the aim of preventing recidivism. This not only help to fix the deterrent of capital punishment but it can also help to minimise criminal behaviour.

Founded in 1961, Amnesty International working their best to delivery message to countries and people around the world when it help to raise the number of countries abolished death penalty from 16 to 106 countries by 2018. It also helps to reduce the execute rate down by 31% compared to 2017 (Amnesty International). Overall, this gives out a really positive outcome in order to stop capital punishment.

Changing the punishment to make it more humane is also a way to help to solve this problem. As criminal behaviour were affected by many more factors, change the societies is the first and easiest step to help fix this where the government and justice system can help to decrease the time in prison and re-educated for providing education to everyone, help them to integrate into society. This helps to solve the problem of covering the purpose of punishment.

Last but not least, is to approach various programs by police and the court to criminal or people used to commit crime in order to influence the behaviour of individual (Tonry & Farrington 1995). Where everyone has an inalienable right to life and we can support to change a person and make them become better. As Dow (2012) states that when we devote our attention to an earlier chapter of a criminal life, start to support them from the beginning, we will never have to write the first sentence of the begin of death penalty story.

EVALUATION

These solutions can be evaluated through the lens of economics and social cohesion. Lots of countries and organisation suggest to have different method to replace the moral of capital punishment and one of the suggestion is imprision without parole. But then, this doesn’t meet up to people and social cohesion and it doesn’t make them happy. As Quandt (2018) believed, when those prisoners get removed from the sociality, it affects their family members, causing stress. Not only that, it most of them will have trauma and financial problems; children couldn’t build up the relationship parent where the prison visiting room is the only place they can see and talk to each other. This problem also give some disagreement through the perspective of economics where each year, the government has to give in millions and even billions of dollars just to take care of those prisoners. Secondly, even though Amnesty International and other organisations give a positive result on continue to raise their voice, reduce and abolish the number of capital punishment of possible. But they still couldn’t reach up to lots of countries that have high rate of executes for example like Vietnam and Indonesia. Not only that, it is still limits to a large amount of people where not everyone know that capital punishment is a problem rightnow. Last but not least is delivery different program to criminal and I believe this is the best solution so far when looking at both of the economics and social cohesion perspective. As Crime prevention approaches, theory and mechanisms (2017) states that everyone has a right to be treated better as they are human too and influence behaviour of criminal is one of them. To support that idea, the Australia government has been deployed this and taken back some very positive results. This not only help the prisoner themselves to get on well with the society but also help others people around them to be more open to them. Even though this method might now work for everyone but as Brisman and South (2015) believed, people still deserves a second chance to be better.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, giving out different program to approach criminal is the best solution so far even though it might not work for everyone but it is suitable and easy to develop in every country around the world. This help to solve the problem of the myth of the death penalty effects to criminal and also help to minimising criminal behaviour. It is unfair and against the human right when you apply death sentence on them; this also against the original purpose and the reason why people giving out punishment. After all,this type of biblical punishment of showing people that killing is bad by killing is unacceptable.

Do you think Iowa would be a safer place if the death penalty was reinstated? The death penalty affects more people than you would think, it is not a simple operation nor is it easy on the victim’s family or the to-be-executed’s family. The death penalty may help to ease pain in people’s lives but there are often many perspectives left out of decisions like these, such as children, families, the workers involved, and all who are affected by executing someone. Even such there are plenty of reasons to reinstate the death penalty and plenty of reasons not to, people may feel safer having the assurance that there is a deterrent and they can get justice for crimes, but is it still worth it if they are innocent or they go through pain while being executed?

Iowa first abolished the death penalty in 1872 but after citizens began to take justice into their own hands, it was reinstated in 1878. It was again abolished in 1965 and remains so today. According to Iowans Against the Death Penalty, there have been attempts at reinstatement documented in 1876, 1963, 1975, 1976, 1993, 1994, 1997, and 1998. (Iowans Against the Death Penalty 2008-2021). Among these years of many important executions votes and changes, 1874 was a very important year as Charles Howard was lynched by a mob in Des Moines after his sentence and conviction in 1214 for first-degree murder. “In sentencing, Howard, a passionate Judge Hugh Maxwell had expressed regret that the death penalty had been abolished and had virtually recommended lynching, calling Howard “a fiend” and lynch mobs “our best citizens” (Acton, p. 141; ISR 12151874). Later that night at the jail Howard was lynched by a mob of over 100 masked men, and as terrible as this event was there were two more lynchings like this in 1875 and 1877. These lynchings were widely blamed on the inability to have legal executions. As much as society has progressed from a time like this and seemingly there are no public mass mob lynchings of people who are seen as needing to be executed this still shows a perspective. Whether or not it is a belief that is held by many the viewpoint that without the legalization of the death penalty, these people are simply getting off easy and need to be executed is sure to be had by some and this reinforces a possible necessity for Iowa to reinstate a form of the death penalty, be it more modernized executions such as lethal injection compared to hanging.

While all eyes are on the person being executed and the victim or victims’ kids are often overlooked, whether that be of the person being executed or the kids of families being executed. Now on one hand this may be for the best for the kids whose parents may be getting executed so they are not prosecuted by their peers and seen differently because of their family’s mistakes which would be unfair to them. But at the same time, they are still losing a parent or family member, and a lot of times that is simply overlooked, and when the kids are brought into the news they are seen with a sense of fear that they may follow the same path. Now should a child follow the path of malice they may too end up facing the death penalty. According to ACLU “Since 1973, the death penalty has been imposed on 228 children under 18 in the United States. Of these, 21 have been executed and 80 remain on death row” (ACLU). Now the question is not only is this constitutional but is it constitutional to execute someone who is simply 16 or 17 years old. Relying on the 2005 Roper V. Simmons case and the Atkins v. Virginia opinion in 2002 which dealt with mentally handicapped death row people, the court believes that it is unconstitutional to execute juvenile offenders, though the Atkins opinion executions of mentally handicapped people were struck down in Missouri and widespread public opinion agrees, but yet no changes to juvenile executions despite the court stating it is unconstitutional. “The court noted that 30 states, along with the federal government and the District of Columbia, already barred execution of mentally retarded offenders. The court also considered the fact that public opinion – both here and abroad — was firmly against executing mentally retarded offenders as demonstrated by public opinion polls, the positions of dozens of professional organizations, religious institutions, and the laws of other countries” (ACLU). It is surprising to hear that in most states being under the age of 18 has so many restrictions, not being able to vote, drink, smoke, leave home, serve in the military, etc, but yet they can face the death penalty, this is seemingly just unjustified. The reasoning behind these prohibitions being put on people under the age of 18 is that minors are seen as developing and not having the full capability to make mature decisions, but again despite this being the widespread understanding they can still face the harshest punishment offered in the United States. To focus on one of the main reasons for the death penalty, retribution, and deterrence, it was ruled these made no sense in the executions of mentally handicapped individuals, as in the study their limitations leave them less likely to act with premeditation in their crimes and this means they would be affected very minimally by the deterrence of the death penalty. Also if they are in a lesser mental capacity this would make them less culpable compared to someone who does not have a mental handicap from a retribution standpoint. This does not simply let them skip out on punishment or get them out of their crimes, as they do still face the same punishments from jail time to life without parole, it is just simply unconstitutional to put them up to the death penalty. The reasoning behind putting juveniles and mentally handicapped people together is in the eyes of a court they are both seen as not being in a mind state to make the correct decisions and in turn do not deserve the full punishment to be offered. Just as it is ruled for mentally handicapped people, juveniles are also less likely to be deterred by the death penalty as they are not yet capable of making fully responsible choices and may not fully understand the concept of the death penalty, but just as mentally handicapped offenders they can be tried as adults in court and be sentenced to the same prison sentences as anyone else. The executions of juveniles and mentally handicapped people have become unusual in recent years as since 1989 only 5 mentally handicapped people have been executed and only seven states Missouri, Texas, Virginia, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Louisiana have executed a juvenile offender since 1989. Since 2000 the United States now remains the only country to have not renounced the practice of juvenile executions.

The world we live in now is quite different from the time of public beheadings and witch burnings. Not that those practices have been carried over into society now or even that they are popular beliefs in our culture now, but as a society we are very centered around the so-called “pop culture” and the internet that has come to be a staple in life. If something does not necessarily fit into what is normal or is not easily loved in pop culture it simply is rejected and forgotten about. Pop culture is truly fueled by how well something is marketed, if your toy is branded well on tik tok then you will sell a lot, if you have a cool Nerf gun on TV kids will want it, if the death penalty is broadcasted on tv people will love it, wait maybe not that one. See the death penalty is not exactly a very flashy and easy to talk about topic it is very controversial among people in Iowa and the US. So along with the hard facts of why it should or should not be reinstated in Iowa or anywhere else a very important point left out is how it will be marketed and talked about. It’s not something to be marketed and toys made or talked about in TV shows, the death penalty is its being that does not have a place in today’s pop culture. Because of this no matter which side of belief you are on for the death penalty, it would become very apparent very quickly who is in support of it simply by putting it in the media, not hidden behind closed doors and only talked about on pen and paper. But despite how people feel on the topic the death penalty would most likely not succeed in being reinstated simply based on pop culture, just as it was said previously, “If something does not necessarily fit into what is normal or is not easily loved in pop culture it simply is rejected and forgotten about.”, and this statement holds. Everyone knows what the death penalty is and has their opinions on whether it is good or bad or necessary or not, but when was the last time you heard someone talk about it instead of some new TikTok or skin care product they saw? The world simply moves too fast for serious conversations to be had anymore.

A large reason the death penalty has remained a thought in people’s minds as well as having the popularity it does is because of deterrence, in the hope that having the death penalty in place will deter other people from committing similar crimes. Though the evidence is inconclusive on whether or not the death penalty and executions do work towards bringing down extreme crimes it is seen this way. It is used as a way to justify death, that by killing the few to save the many they can execute a few very bad people to deter the rest and in turn save the lives of many more people. The death penalty is a way for families or certain people to get a little closure in their lives. In very serious cases where the person is executed the family or people close to the victim may feel a sense of closure or comfort in the fact that this person can no longer repeat history, or that their fate was justified for their crime. By the time you learn to drive, go through high school, and start making decisions for your future, you have gained enough skills through life to make good decisions in most capacities. Along with k-12 drugs, assault, murder, and sexual assault are being taught about and that it is wrong and the punishments to accompany them. So to say at the age of 16 or 17 after going through all of this an individual is still in a capacity to not make any decisions in a full capacity simply cannot be accurate, individuals at this age should be able to face the same penalties as those that are simply a year or two older than them. By this time in their life, they have been given the tools and decision-making skills they need, though maybe not 100% mentally developed they understand the actions as they do them along with the consequences that follow them.

As stated previously, in the face of using the death penalty as a deterrent it raises the question of is the idea of killing the few to save the many is the right way to look at it. By having this viewpoint it simply devalues the lives of people imprisoned, condemning them and only viewing them as a means to save other people’s lives. People who support this claim of killing the few for the many rationalize it by saying that because they are guilty they are deserving and this is their fate. Even taking this viewpoint there is still room for error in the system, where since the 21st century there has been an “innocent revolution” where many people have walked off death row and been exonerated. And though it may seem like a farfetched occurrence, “The Equal Justice Initiative for every 9 people executed, one person on death row is exonerated” (Delaney Logan, 2021). This practice simply has too high a rate of error for it to be deemed fair, the possibility for it to result in the execution of an innocent individual is simply too high and immoral. It also remains immoral to execute someone simply to give a feeling of closure or happiness to a family or individual, someone’s life should not be seen simply as a means to an end or their life executions do work towards bringing down the extreme crimes it is seen this way. It is used as a way to justify death, that by killing the few to save the many they can execute a few very bad people to deter the rest and in turn save the lives of many more people. The death penalty is a way for families or certain people to get a little closure in their lives. In very serious cases where the person is executed the family or people close to the victim may feel a sense of closure or comfort in the fact that this person can no longer repeat history, or that their fate was justified for their crime. A life is more precious than that whether they are good or bad, and a lot of times that is overlooked. If the government has decided based on scientific facts and cognitive tests on minors that things like voting and drinking should not be legal until you are more developed in your early 20s as you cannot make the best decisions as your brain is directly used for making decisions is not yet fully developed, can they be judged the same as an adult for the same crimes. Though the individual whether they are a minor or mentally handicapped may understand what they did and their crime, they simply do not have the mental capacity or are not yet developed enough to make the decisions with a full conscious and cannot be judged the same, this simply makes it unconstitutional not only to execute someone due to all the inconsistencies but especially not someone of a lesser mental capacity.

It is hard to say whether reinstating the death penalty in Iowa would make it a safer place, it may give a sense of safety as a deterrent and retribution, but it is hard to feel safe if you can be wrongfully convicted. The era of public executions has ended but the society we live in surprisingly still promotes the executions of minors despite our pop culture-oriented society where everything lives and dies by the click of a finger. The death penalty is simply a wild beast that can allow people’s pain to be eased but can just as easily be a bucking animal simply only creating more pain and suffering for others. The question is would these hills of corn and beans be safer with that bucking animal or left worse than they started?

Imagine you are walking through the corridors of a jail with a guard on both sides. For your last minute of life, the only things that are going through your mind is your family and what led to this painful end. You walk into the execution room; it is dark and there is this bad feeling emerging from your body. You are being strapped to a gurney, while the executioner is filling the syringes with lethal poison. The needles pierce your skin one by one, and you feel the poison entering your body. Your family crosses your mind one last time, then everything goes dark. In the 21st century, there are still many prisoners that are on death row waiting to be put to death. Many countries have ceased the death; however, 58% of America’s states have yet to abolish the death penalty. Should the death penalty be abolished or not? A close look at this controversy shows three valid points why the death penalty should be abolished: there are racial disparities, innocent people are killed, and it is more expensive than imprisonment.

John Whitehead, an attorney, author, and founder of the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties and human rights organization, argues that the death penalty should be abolished. In the United States of America, blacks are more likely to receive a more severe punishment than any other ethnic group. According to Whitehead, “There are 1,371 blacks on death row […] despite the fact that blacks make up 12% of the U.S. population” (Whitehead 3). There is likewise a 40% possibility that blacks are more likely to be given the death penalty than a white individual who has been accused of the same crime. This shows that the legal system judges people by the color of their skin, and not the crime they have committed. Additionally, most individuals who face the death penalty are often brought up in poor and oppressed communities. As such, they are often the result of extraordinary maltreatment or poverty (3). Whitehead states that “In the US the overwhelming majority of those executed are psychotic, alcoholic, drug addicted or mentally unstable” (3). Class and wealth also contribute to those who are executed. Most death row prisoners are unable to afford their own lawyer and as such, they are usually appointed a lawyer by the court. Due to this, it has been proven that there are disparities in riches between murderers who live and those who die (3).

Whitehead continues the argument when he points out that innocent people are killed due to the continuation of the death penalty. Capital punishment permits government authorities, who are frequently corrupt to convict others without enough evidence (3). Studies have shown that “Since 1973, 139 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence was brought to light” (4). This shows that each person has spent almost 10 years in jail, which adds up to 10% of prisoners wrongfully convicted. Furthermore, states have found that in 70% of death penalty cases there have been errors, such as suppressing evidence in court and one-sided juries and judges. This proves that the capital punishment system is crumbling under the heaviness of its own errors. Whitehead emphasizes that the framework is inefficient and broken and must be transformed (3).

Whitehead adds to his argument by giving an example of a case where an innocent man was put to death. Cameron Todd Willingham was sentenced for starting a fire that murdered his children. Even though he tried to save his children’s lives, he was still charged with the death penalty and executed. However, since his demise, new evidence has shown that he was innocent (4). According to Governor George Ryan, “Our capital system is haunted by the demon of error. Error in determining guilt and error in determining who among the guilty deserves to die” (4). Whitehead stresses that even if only a single innocent person is mistakenly executed, it is still too many. Despite what our individual views on capital punishment are, it is clear that the process merits examination (4).

Whitehead concludes his argument by showing readers that the death penalty is more expensive than imprisonment. Whitehead explains that discontinuing the death penalty would save states a lot of money. This money can be used to fund more important projects such as building more schools, reducing taxes so that Americans can save more money, and subsidizing open work programs to decrease destitution and kid misuse (3). According to Whitehead, “States spend 48% to 300% more prosecuting cases in which the death penalty is an option versus cases in which it is not”(3). Additionally, in North Carolina, it costs the state over 2 million dollars to execute each individual on death row. Whitehead ends by stating that states should use the money that is spent on the death penalty in a way that benefits Americans.

Conversely, David Muhlhausen, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis, believes that the death penalty should not be abolished. Muhlhausen reports that although others believe there is racial discrimination in the legal system research has shown that the system is free of it. Muhlhausen reveals that by the end of 2005, 37 inmates were set to be executed, “43.5 percent were white, while 54.1 percent were African American” (Muhlhausen 2). Since African Americans amount for most prisoners facing the death penalty, yet they are a minority of the United States’ population, others might conclude that there is racial discrimination in the legal system.

As such, to prove that racial discrimination is not a part of the system the National Institute of Justice entrusted the RAND Corporation with deciding if racial differences existed in the government’s capital punishment framework. The subsequent 2006 RAND study was devised to figure out what factors “including the defendant’s race, victim’s race, and crime characteristics” influenced the reason to seek the death penalty (2). Three separate groups of specialists were entrusted with developing their own procedures to investigate the information. Only after each group reached their own inferences did they share their discoveries with one another (2). After examining the study RAND found that the death penalty was sought when the details of the crime were considered. The data obtained from the RAND study proves that the death penalty is sought based on the characteristics of the crime and not the defendant’s race.

Muhlhausen also points out that the death penalty deters crime. He explains this through the general deterrence theory. “The general deterrence theory […] supposes that increasing the risk of apprehension and punishment for crimes deters individuals from committing crime.” Muhlhausen believes that criminals are the same as upstanding citizens. Offenders sanely boost their very own personal circumstance (utility) subject to imperatives (costs, livelihoods) that they face in the commercial center and other places. People make their choices based on the advantages of every option (2).

A study conducted from 1977 to 1999 by Joanna M. Shepherd accessed the connection among executions and murders previously, during, and after the U.S. Supreme Court’s capital punishment ban (3). She found that “Each execution, on average, is associated with three murders.” Second, each execution deters the manslaughter “of one white individual, 1.5 African Americans, and 0.5 people of other races.” Finally, the sooner a person who is on death row is executed the more it deters crime. Muhlhausen concludes that the death penalty helps to deter crime as individuals assess the consequences before they act (3).

Although both sides make valid points, all states should make their way towards abolishing the death penalty. Dr. Kim Schnurbush believes that many people support the death penalty because they fail to put the facts over their emotions, as such justice might not be served. Schnurbush states that “Approximately 4.1 percent of people who are convicted and sentenced to death in the U.S. are actually innocent” (Schnurbush 1). One such case was Kirk Bloodsworth, the first person to be proven innocent while he was on death row. Bloodsworth was charged with raping a 9-year-old girl and as such he was set to be executed. After spending nearly nine years in jail Bloodworth asked for a DNA test, and the test revealed that he was innocent (1). He was then released from prison after spending nine years of his life behind bars, due to a system that wrongfully convicted him (1).

Arthur Rizer and Marc Hyden conclude that the United States’ legal system is set up in a biased fashion. A study conducted by the Justice Department between 1930 and 1972 shows in rape cases “89 percent of the defendants put to death were black men” (Rizer and Hyden 47). In every rape case, with a white victim and a black defendant, the defendant received the death penalty. Whereas, when it came to raping a black woman no one was sentenced (47). “The Innocence Project has estimated that […] 2 to 5 percent of currently incarcerated Americans are innocent.” Since there are about two million people in jail, that means 20,000 are innocent (48). An example of a case where a defendant was wrongfully convicted was the Ray Krone’s case. Krone was charged with murdering a young lady, although he was in his home at that appointed time. An expert linked Krone’s bite-mark to the bite-mark that was found on the victim. Krone was eventually convicted of murder and put on death row. After spending 10 years of his life behind bars he was found innocent (49). Rizer and Hyden emphasize that the resistance to capital punishment should come down to an absence of confidence in a mistake inclined government. Humans are not perfect therefore they will always make errors.

The death penalty is barbaric and profound, defined through killing being a more economically and socially understandable ruling to those who commit heinous crimes. “The application of the death penalty is so arbitrary that it violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (Cornell Law)”. The judicial system should not have the right to hand these sentences to individuals, it is basically giving them the right to kill human beings. Capital punishment is a direct loophole to the civil liberties, and fundamental values of our Federal Republic government. There have always been convictions and executions of innocent civilians in America. No matter, how advanced a judicial system is, it will always falter and remain susceptible to human error. Far from prison sentences, the death penalty is permanent. Capital Punishment in the United States is applied in an unregulated and preferential manner against civilians, largely dependent on how much wealth they may have, the skill and/or reputation of their attorneys, and the nationality of the victim and where the crime may have taken place. While some may argue that the death penalty is ethical, this paper asserts the acts of capital punishment are unjust and horrid.

The death penalty is an excessive waste of the taxpayer’s money and has no public safety benefit. The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU), states, “a survey of police chiefs nationwide found they rank the death penalty lowest among ways to reduce violent crime.” They determined that increasing the number of black and whites (Police officers), reducing and controlling the uses of drugs, and creating a better economy with more jobs higher than the death penalty as the best way to reduce violence. Is it worth the risk? It is a ruthless and unorthodox punishment, which goes against our own amendments in the United States Constitution. Crime will always be a piece of the world and there will be and are better ways to handle it. The death penalty disregards the rights to life which is the most basic of all our human rights. It infringes our right to not be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.

The death penalty should be eradicated. Every year, countless people are put on death row for a heinous crime they did not commit. There’s no way of knowing if they committed the crime or not. As recently stated by the General Assembly of the United Nations (UNGA), “there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty” (UNGA). In many detention states, the successfulness of capital punishment is needed in order to prevent criminal acts, is questioned by a continuously increasing number of law enforcement professionals. Not only that but the injection method is the most severe way to do it compared to other methods, it collapses your lungs before the individual has a chance to yell in excruciating pain. In the ACLU article, it declares that “The injection chemicals are becoming more and more rare, thus making it more expensive with each injection. In fact, it is cheaper to keep an inmate in prison for life without parole than it is to kill them.” It isn’t wise to spend more taxpayer dollars on a morally questionable act that has shown little to no signs of determent. We are just wasting our limited tax dollars on non-useful elements that make no dent to the increasing crime rates.

The Eighth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, clearly expresses that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Though some may say that the death penalty is pure justice, it is just revenge for the victims. With capital punishment, you are purposefully deciding punishment by death for a criminal. This is the same conceptualization as eye for an eye and body for a body. It disregards human rights by our government enforcing the death of a human. The death penalty is essentially killing the killer. If we exchange an eye for an eye the whole world will be blind. Countless people in the history of the United States have been exonerated after receiving the death penalty. Even for one innocent to have to die is one too many. The death sentence is an incredibly costly and waste of information on murders and how they function as well. Supporters of capital punishment seem to tend to appeal to the emotions, but at the end of the day this type of revenge that seems so mainstream is never truly satisfying, it’s just another death.

On the other hand, some may argue that capital punishment is not vicious and is certainly not uncommon. Capital punishment is only a vicious punishment if it is a too hard punishment for the criminal act. For example, should littering be execution worthy? No, unnecessary. Should mass killers and sex offenders who are mentally unstable and cannot offer anything positive to society and threaten other individuals be executed? Absolutely. It should be used to suppress criminals who cannot be law-abiding members of society, and we should not have to use our tax dollars for them to stay in jail/prison/mental asylum where they will and can cause more problems. Consider mass-murderers, serial rapists and other transgressors. These lawbreakers are often punished with life-sentences or stay at psychiatric wards (which are infamous for almost never releasing ‘patients’). How is capital punishment crueler than the fantasy of living in a cell for the remainder of your life? Capital punishment, when used in synchronous with rehabilitation and other forms of methods of dealing with criminals, can be a successful deterrent, and can also bring a sense of relief to victims’ families. Capital punishment holds a vital role in the criminal judicial system. It is cheaper for the government to kill murderers than to keep them in prison for the duration of their lives. The few mistakes that are made in carrying out the death penalty are offset by its crime prevention and economic benefits. Society has a moral right to punish the most violent criminals by taking their lives. Some violent criminals are vile, wicked persons who deserve to die. Though, it is an easy way out for criminals. It would be more humane to rather have them suffer in jail for the rest of their life without parole. It is not uncommon for murders to not fear death, so this form of punishment is not a deterrent, more of a get out of jail free card.

In conclusion, the death penalty is a very controversial topic in society. An author, Timm Bruch, from Global News Canada, recalls, “In 2008, a man by the name of Vince Lee was on a Greyhound bus in Canada, had a psychotic episode, took out a knife and decapitated the man next to him, a man by the name of Tim Maclean.” Yes; beheaded. “He took the guy’s head off, and if that wasn’t enough, he started eating parts of the man, and when police arrived, he tauntingly held up the head to the bus window.” This young man was found, ”not criminally responsible” by the judicial system, who said he was a schizophrenic and not aware of what he was doing was wrong, and he was then jailed in a mental institution (Bruch 1). In 2012, only four years later, he is now allowed to venture on ”short, supervised outings” into the community. There are many cases where you cannot be entirely sure; there are no witnesses, but the evidence points to it possibly being this one person guilty of murder, or it was sort of accident, or it’s kind of justifiable even though it’s still illegal. So, they go to jail for the rest of their lives. But, when you have a bus full of witnesses, when you have an individual who is so insane that he did not realize that removing a guy’s head off and eating parts of him was inhumane, why would you not just suppress the man? This occurs with dogs all the time, like when a dog thinks a child’s face would make a good entree, and proceeds to devour it. Somehow, we have chosen that human lives are valued more even when the human is a twisted, sick, and warped shadow of one. A man who snapped, was mentally ill and did not know what he was doing, should not be compared to a dog who did not know what it was doing. We may be animals but we should not stoop to their level.

Is there really a right or wrong answer when it comes to choosing a side for capital punishment? After reading that question, you may have asked yourself what capital punishment means. According to www.dictionary.com capital punishment is legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. Any crime that makes one face capital punishment or the death penalty is what is referred to as a capital crime or a capital offense. Over several years there have been different methods of executing someone who’s found guilty of capital offenses. Shooting, beheading, hanging, lynching and many others were and are still commonly used in many places where the death penalty is practiced. Today, the most common methods of execution are either the electric chair or lethal injection. Capital punishment is not legal all over the United States. Texas is one of many states who actually legalize capital punishment. In 2019 there were 9 executions in the state of Texas. According to TDCJ, there are 214 people currently on death row waiting to be executed, six of which are women. I am all for the death penalty because it cuts down on costs of housing these criminals, allows a possibility of deterring additional crimes, and gives the victim’s family closure. Later on in this essay I will explain in great detail why I am for capital punishment. First, let’s explore the process of coming to a capital punishment conviction, the states where it is legal and the different routes for capital punishment.

For starters let’s talk about the process of getting a death penalty conviction in the United States. It involves four very critical steps, such as: sentencing, direct review, state collateral review and federal habeas corpus. In a very recent Wikipedia article, it is said that of the 29 states with the death penalty, 27 require the sentence to be decided by a jury and 26 require a unanimous decision by that jury. The only state which does not require a unanimous jury decision is Alabama. In Alabama, at least 10 jurors must concur. A retrial happens if the jury deadlocks. If a defendant is sentenced to death at the trial level, the case then goes into a direct review. In direct review one must decide if any legal errors occurred during the trial. After a death sentence is affirmed in state collateral review, the prisoner may file for federal habeas corpus, which is a unique type of lawsuit that can be brought in federal courts. Federal habeas corpus is a type of collateral review, and it is the only way that state prisoners may attack a death sentence in federal court. The purpose of this is to ensure that prisoner’s constitutional rights are upheld. There are currently 29 states that capital punishment are legal in: Montana, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisianan, Mississippi, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgie, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Florida. There are several routes for the death penalty. There’s the lethal injection by a drug or a group of drugs, electrocution via the electric chair (last used in Virginia in 2013), a firing squad (last used in Utah in 2010), and hanging (last used in Delaware in 1996). Capital punishment can be imposed for treason, espionage, murder, large-scale drug trafficking, or attempted murder of a witness, juror, or court officer in certain cases. One may ask why it takes so long for a person to be executed from the time of conviction. According to Doctor Robert Lytle, an assistant professor in UA Little Rock’s Department of Criminal Justice, there are steps that the government has to take in order to ensure that they are executing the worst of the worst and they are not executing innocent people. According to the Bureau of Justice and Death Penalty Information Center, the average time from sentencing to execution for was just around 16 years. If no appeals are raised, that process can happen as soon as six months, but that rarely happens.

There are so many pros and cons to the capital punishment but there is no right or wrong answer. It just depends on one’s views and beliefs regarding the issue. The death penalty allows a much deserved punishment for the most heinous crimes ever done. Graphic and cruel murderers need to be punished with the death penalty conviction. Those people who commit those crimes are far too gone for any rehabilitation to occur. This means that the person is cruel, heartless and has no regard for human life. Why would someone like that deserve to live amongst society, even if it is inside prison walls? The death penalty conviction helps to prevent that person from committing another heinous crime and reduces their influence on the prison population if convicted for life or an extremely long sentence.

The capital punishment conviction can also help prevent prisons from becoming over-populated. According to Natalie Regoli, in the United States, there are more than 2.3 million people being held in state and federal prisons, local jails, juvenile correction facilities, immigration detention centers, military prisons, and civil commitment centers. It will help cut down on costs. Let’s be honest here, it’s very expensive to imprison criminals because of the fact that the state will have to feed, shelter, clothe and provide the basic things needed for the prisoners to live humanely. Therefore, this means that society’s tax dollars will be paying to house a violent criminal until the day he or she dies. Just imagine if the system keeps those violent criminals imprisoned for the rest of their lives. This would mean that it would end up costing taxpayers a lot more money, but if such person were executed it would cut down the overall cost drastically. More inmates being incarcerated will mean that more staff will have to be employed and bigger facilities will need to be built.

The capital punishment conviction also offers closure for the victim’s families that were affected. Some of the criminals who committed these heinous and cruel crimes were against children or elderly. They may have committed these crimes for some of the stupidest reasons, such as: money, greed, jealousy, high on drugs, mental illness or just pure boredom. None of the reasons mentioned above justify a reason for taking another person’s life. Families already have to worry about losing loved ones to freak accidents, illnesses, and or suicide. So, to have some stranger or friend take one’s life is wrong. In order to give the family peace and closure, the death penalty would be a perfect solution. It allows the families of the victim’s know that the defendant is being held accountable for their actions and will pay for what they have done. It doesn’t give the defendant an opportunity to keep on living life while the other person is dead for no reason at all.

Finally, capital punishment may possibly help deter criminals from committing such terrible crimes. Generally, people are scared to die, which will make it easier for some to deter from committing any crimes. A 2008 extensive review of capital punishment research since 1975 by Drexel University economist Bijou Yang and psychologist David Lester of Richard Stockton College concluded that the majority of studies that track effects over many years and across countries find a deterrent effect. According to researchers in 2009, who found that adopting state laws allowing defendants in child murder cases to be eligible for the death penalty was associated with an almost 20% reduction in rates of these crimes. In turn, capital punishment does save lives!

I know that there are a lot of people who oppose the death penalty. Some may take religion into consideration and may feel that another death will not make the crime any better. Remember that opposing the death penalty would make taxpayers dish out more money to house these criminals, overpopulate our prison systems, allow room for more crimes to be committed while that person is in prison and it doesn’t place any real accountability for their actions. I know that killing another individual won’t bring the victim back. However, it will definitely ensure that the person never gets the chance to hurt another family, kill an innocent individual or continue to put society in danger by their cruel and thoughtless actions. Its very important that we consider all the variables when deciding to agree or disagree with capital punishment. Use your mind and not your heart to come up with a decision. Remember the goal is to ensure that everyone inside and outside the walls of prison remain safe from any additional harm that could be avoided. I do hope that after reading this you will make a smart decision by choosing to continue to uphold the law in Texas to legalize capital punishment for heinous crimes. Your family could one day be affected by a terrible crime so think about what kind of justice you would want for your family!

According to Wikipedia the term capital punishment is also referred to as death penalty which is done through execution and is a state form of punishment to serious crimes committed by someone. This form of punishment is done after passing all the due processes of the law. Debates among various interest groups on the abolishing the capital punishment has been going on. There are those who have argued for and against on its morality, practicality and usefulness have been raised allover

There are those who believe that is a form of murder thus one’s life is ended thus life being sacred then the right to life has been violated. Furthermore, there is that belief that when such form of punishment is instilled, then it is a way of punishing someone for a wrong done hence way of reinforcing morality in general to the society. Opponents of capital punishment in contrary argue that, when such very behavior is legitimized then we have the scenario of the law repressing its citizen through killings and moreover when used in petty offences it becomes immoral because it is not in comparison to the damage that has been done. They argue that this form of punishment violates the rights of life to an individual which then makes it inhumane.

Although historically death was a way of dealing with criminal acts and even supported among some religious groups it remains sacred. There is an increase in campaigns against it by a number of religious institutions leadership in particularly within Judaism and Roman Catholics. In some states like Israel it was abolished with the catholic head, Pope John Paul II condemning its practice and referring it to as a form of cruelty and not really necessary form of punishment to humanity.

One can be punished due to errors since judgment is done through proofs and evidence. Sometimes we find people are fraudulently accused for what they did not commit hence be punished for what they did not do. Judges are just as human who can make mistakes and even with corrupt court systems then they can be bribed and innocent person punished in adverse situations.

It is a morally just action which can be practiced in the world today. This sis a way of expressing moral outrage in our society towards conducts among individuals that are offensive. This form of punishment acts as a way of discouraging bad behavior among citizens of a country to follow legal ways in doing activities. There are argument that it si not morally right to live someone who has killed another one to live, since they too need not to.

It is a way of preventing activities that are criminal in nature in the society today. Data from countries which hold death sentences against criminals indicate that we have few cases of the number of crimes in those countries. This is because criminal activities are more unlikely to engaged by people due to death penalty hence lowers the cases. With this then people will be able to follow the law and reduce the rate of criminal activities being done.

Many people are in prisons due to appeals done against their judgment. This has congested our prisons hence a burden to the state in funding or running the correction facilities. Most of the cases could have been dealt with and cleared for purposes of justice to prevail. With capital punishment then the cases in our courts could have been finished and the loads of cases congesting our judicial systems dealt with and concentration channeled somewhere else. There are a lot of other development programs that the huge chunk of money could be diverted too for the growth of the economy.

Why do we need Capital punishment in this world? Capital punishment or capital offence is an execution that kills someone committees an unforgivable or inhumane crime according to the country´s law. Nowadays, there are 56 countries still practicing this penalty, such as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. I am agree with capital punishment, because it is a fair system for everyone, beneficial to reduce crime percentage and advantageous to reform the society order. My purpose is to declare and explain why capital punishment is necessary to carry out into country judicial system.

From the beginning of the human´s history, ancient age until contemporary era, death penalty always exists, it sometimes consider a part of culture in somewhere. The first impression comes in mind when some people know about this penalty is cruel. Actually it is, for example, during the ancient Tang dynasty, there was strangulation, the breaking wheel in middle ages and the famous Guillotine in modern era. However, they had one thing in common, every execution based on their justice system, even though we do not agree with their moral standard or society ethical measure of that time. But it indicated something also, that our ethical measure is changing by the time, at the same time as capital punishment. At present, it becomes a fair system and completing gradually, it also is a synonym of retribution. Every individual has to be responsible for what they do, people will be punished just because they are guilty.

As Hammurabi said: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Our society is acting in this way, people are looking for justice, but sometimes it disappoints us. For example, according to a research that there are 14000 murders happened in the United States, but only 35 executions, it means that the rest life of that guilty people will spend in jail by the money of public, including victims’ family. And then the society will consider the law never be served with the criminal. This is a little ridiculous, many people say capital punishment deprives criminal´s reform chance, however, who gives chance to those innocent deceased? Therefore, capital punishment is a way to give a fair solution to those victims’ families.

Capital punishment creates deterrence, one of the human’s weakness could be death, only people afraid and that could deter them. A society is advancing based on the rules, without this, the situation will be a disaster. If capital punishment disappears from this world, then nothing can stop the brutal criminal. In this way, capital punishment is a powerful standard to restrict the human´s action, it can let people know that kill one´s life, they need to pay for it by their life. Not just get into jail as simple as this. Jail can not never be criminal´s shelter.

In conclusion, capital punishment could be optional or even essential for a country justice system, because it is a way to prevent crime, make the society running in an orderly manner and refers to a fair answer for the victims. I consider that capital punishment is the only way to restrict people, this complex world always need to be balanced, punishment and rewards are enough to do this. Even though that many people are still against this execution, this is always a controversy issue, but I believe this system will be better and trustworthy through time.

First to enter in the world of a capital punishment we need to know what is a crime, a crime is an action that offense, that may be prosecuted by the state and broke the laws, when it comes to capital punishment, it is about executing a person who has committed a serious crime enough as murder and a way that use to punish a person that do this ilegal thing. This term comes from the Latin of cutting the head. In the past this method was use to punish people and don´t exist jail that allows people to stay in that place for some years and pay for the crime commited.

In adition this method is used in many countries nowadays such as Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea.,there are many regions that are against and in favor of this some of the reasons are because: in some countries, by using this penalty method, crime has been reduced by a considerable percentage. The executions and capital punishments decrease in all the world this is because is a very exaggerated and inhuman way to kill a person, and some campaigns think that people can have a second opportunity.

Many institutions said that this method need to stop and made investigations for example the capital punishment is reducing in a 31% in a global executions but this is reducing because people have fear to be executed or because they don´t want to use the capital punishment. I think that this a way that allow us to live in a more safe country because if we have a law that said if you kill someone you are going to be executed, is obviously that anyone want to be killed and with this is going to be less crime in the world but for do this we have to be certainly sure that this person commited this crime.

We have to know that exits differents types of capital punishment like the followings: the execution, the shot in the neck, death by strangulation, the decapitation with the ax, electrocution through the electric chair, this are the most used in the actually, but in the past they use unkind types of execution a person like stoning and crushing ( of the whole body or head), the dismembrement. Imagine is we used that in the present, no one would commit a crime for fear of suffering one of these consequences.

Capital punishment in Panama, Article 139 of the constitution of 1904 provided: “the law may only impose the death penalty for the crime of homicide when it reviews atrocious characters”. (Article of www.prensa.com). This means that a momento in the history or our country if the capital punishment existed, time later 1941 it was eliminated by another law. An international agreement was made in which it is confirmed that in Panama this type of acts cannot be performed and that the country also agrees not to reinstate the capital punishment and therefore is bound by what Court of Human Rights dictates.

In conclusión the capital punishment is a rather cruel way to make someone pay for what he did, but if we want to stop this, and of acts would not be repeated and that the murderers continue increase every year, we must use extreme methods to keep that porcentaje low, it is advisable for countries with high crime to use this method to avoid further assasination of innocent people and psychopaths or any other person to rape children or traffic them. There are many people against the capital punishment but we must think about what is best for the world if we make a comparison with past and the present is going to be very noticed the differents quantity we will realice that before there were not so many murders per year. And in that age was very strict laws and that´s why crimes were not committed so if that make a change in the past it could make a change in the present and we could have a better world for our children.

Introduction

In the article “Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life” written by Edward I. Koch he argues that the death penalty should be legal, he said he was a “democrat with common sense”. Before the electric chair, people were hung or burned, but we have evolved since then. The death penalty has been abolished and reinstated in New York many times, there is currently no death penalty in New York. Edward I. Mr. Koch was a Democratic mayor of New York, he served three terms from 1978 to 1989. He was the mayor during the time that New York had a high murder rate and helped bring it down a bit. In the article, Mr. Koch uses many forms of rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos.

Ethos

Mr. Koch does not use the rhetorical device ethos as much as logos and pathos. When Mr. Kock states, “During my twenty-two years in public service,… As a district leader, councilman, congressman, and mayor,…”,(Koch 1) which establishes his credibility with the reader. Koch also establishes his credibility to the reader by giving facts such as, “…murder rate has climbed 122 percent between 1963 and 1980.”(Koch 2) or “…1970 homicide rates a person who lived in a large American city [such as New York] ran a greater risk of being murdered than an American soldier in World War II…”(Koch 2), by doing this research it shows the reader that he cares about the subject and that he is knowledgeable on the topic. He, later on, uses the Kitty Genovese case to back up what he said about murder rates in large cities. Mr. Koch uses the case of Richard Beigenwald where after eighteen years of being locked up for a murder, he was released and committed four more murders, and Lemuel Smith is serving life in prison for murder, but while in prison he mutilated and dismembered a prison officer as evidence(Koch 2). The use of ethos gives the reader a sense of credibility, but pathos appeals to the readers’ emotional sense to persuade them to see his side.

Pathos

On his fourth point, Mr. Koch compares the penalty of rape being lowered with the death penalty being lowered. Mr. Koch says, “If the penalty for rape were lowed, clearly it would signal a lessened regard for the victims suffering, humiliation, and personal integrity…When we lower the death penalty for murder, it signals a lessened regard for the value of the victim’s life.”(Koch 2), he adds that quote to make the reader feel sympathy towards the victim if the penalty for murder were to be lowered. At the end of the article, he says “When those same neighbors shrink back from justly punishing the murder, the victim dies twice.”(Koch 3), he wants the reader to feel guilty and again sympathy towards the victim, Mr. Koch pushes it when he says, “…the victim dies twice.” The use of the rhetorical device logos is also used effectively throughout the article.

References

1. Koch, E.K. (1985, April 15). Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life. The New Republic.

Mr. Mark DeWine,

This letter is a request for the discontinuation of capital punishment in the state of Ohio. This argument will focus on three key themes including the human rights perspective, cost analysis, and deterrence. The main argument revolves around the question of whether individuals should have the right to debate about the lives of other people.

Capital punishment is one of the most controversial contemporary issues in the world. This type of punishment still exists in modern America due to various reasons. The debate about the morality of the death penalty has been around for a long time. The central question remains on whether capital punishment should be legal. Various issues always feature in this debate despite the position that one chooses to adopt in this argument (Torin, 2016). The Eighth Amendment in the United States Constitution highlights that each American Citizen has the protection against unusual and cruel punishment in the criminal justice system. American history also shows multiple cases where judges ruled against the death penalty leading to the question of the morality of capital punishment.

The basis of this type of punishment was that it could deter criminals and prevent citizens from committing violent crimes. It is also viewed as a cheap financial way of punishing wrongdoers in a manner that provides retribution to crime victims and their families while at the same time affirming righteous life. Edward Koch originally refuted this argument supporting capital punishment claiming that it was intentional, hypocritical, and government-approved murder in a society that frowns upon taking away human life. The Supreme Court Case of Furman V. Georgia was able to abolish the death penalty in 1972 because all the available methods of capital punishment including electrocution, hanging, and the gas chamber were forms of unusual and cruel punishment.

Edward Koch supports this understanding, pointing out that the seizure of any human life cheapens the value of life as a concept, and mankind should never put a price on it. Many people, however, view this type of punishment as an economical way of dealing with criminals as opposed to spending funds taking care of them in prison. States around the world also carry out a cost analysis of each policy to gauge its impact on the budget. Capital punishment is one of the policies considered in this setting. The way an individual defines the cost of the death penalty, however, is relative depending on their analysis. One could choose to take into account each step taken during a death penalty case, inclusive of the investigations, trials, and appeals. One might also choose to analyze the extra costs that states could use after capital punishment (Peter, Et al, 2016). The most common perception is that capital punishment saves money because the state no longer has to take care of the criminal. Contrary to this belief, a study conducted by the Death Penalty Information Centre revealed that states pay up to $1 million more for each death penalty trial as compared to non-death penalty cases. New York and New Jersey are some of the states that chose to abandon the death penalty due to the high costs of prosecution (Peter, Et al, 2016). The argument that the death penalty saves money is shallow and inaccurate.

The question of capital punishment as a form of deterrence is also a major theme. The basis of this argument is whether or not the death penalty can prevent individuals from committing murder crimes. In the 18th century, this understanding was the most crucial reason for the implementation of capital punishment. Most states implement various laws to deter individuals from potentially carrying out unlawful acts (Dezhbakhsh, Rubin, and Shepherd, 2008). This logic implies that if murderers receive the death sentence, any other individual willing to commit a similar crime would have to think twice or risk losing their life. Criminologists have tried analyzing data on murders to find out whether there is a correlation between the two factors. These investigations reveal that death penalties are not effective deterrents (Donohue III, and Wolfers, 2006). This observation is evident in the United States where states that do not have the death penalty have fewer murder cases as opposed to those that still implement capital punishment. These investigations further reveal that the rate of murder in states that support death penalties went higher after the publication of murder. A study by Ehrlich and Northeastern University reveals that the death penalty does little to reduce murder crimes but instead increases the rate of these delinquencies. The results of this study prove that death penalties indeed have the opposite effect in deterring crime. Multiple other studies have replicated this research and found similar results.

This argument is simpler when viewed from a human rights perspective because each individual has the right to life. This perspective does not focus on the costs or deterrence effect but rather on the question of whether states should have the power to decide who dies or lives. Capital punishment essentially gives the state the right to kill, which has in the past been misused even for minor offenses. The holocaust and the Second World War proved that civil society had a critical role to play in restricting the state’s authority to kill. Human rights advocates highlight that capital punishment breaches two important human rights. Each individual has a right to life and a right to live free of torture (Yorke, 2016).

In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which protects these two rights against capital punishment. States should thus abolish this practice since they should oblige to the international norm. Capital punishment is a final and irrevocable act that no human should have over another. Its worst characteristic is that it does not take into account the probability of human error or the possibility of mistakes occurring in the justice system. Exonerations from death row are not rare and people from different states have been released due to their innocence (Borchard, 2013). Capital punishment could cost the life of an innocent person which again explains why states should eradicate this act.

Modern society is also greatly unequal in terms of classes which means that this power to kill can easily be misused to target certain social groups or political opponents (Davis, 2011). The frequency and means of the method of capital punishment might have changed over the years but the trend of the racial, regional, and economic pattern has persisted even in the 21st century. This is evidenced by the fact that the South took a different course from the North regarding capital punishment because this region had an abundant number of slaves hence the constant need to discipline the captive workforce. The use and adoption of capital punishment simply set the ground for more killings. Within this observation and analysis, murders and capital punishment are the same sides of a coin. Any state that seeks to protect the human right to live should not use capital punishment since it is an instrument that can easily abuse the rights it claims to protect.

In the process of policymaking, people must not miss the major point, especially in sensitive issues such as the death penalty. If states are not happy about people losing their lives to crimes, then they should not use capital punishment as condemnation. Instead, states should consider having an alternative form of punishment that does not involve killing anyone. For example, states could create a new type of prison that specifically caters to people who carry out heinous crimes. Capital punishment is a naïve solution as witnessed in the case of Osama Bin Laden whose death did not reduce the number of terrorist crimes around the world. His death in the United States was neither cost-effective nor a deterrent to criminal activities. Again, with the emphasis on the awareness of human rights in this century, no state should implement capital punishment (Yorke, 2016). The argument that it offers victims and their families is also wrong because this understanding implies that victims should feel entitled to kill their perpetrators. Such an understanding can only work with people living in a lawless society. Additionally, killing criminals would then make the victims the perpetrators and create a never-ending cycle of murders.

With this in mind, this letter concludes by requesting the State of Ohio to avoid becoming the monster it is trying to fight. The state should get rid of capital punishment and instead find an alternative that deters criminals from carrying out heinous activities.

Sign,

Grace Oppihle

References

1. Borchard, E. (2013). Convicting the Innocent, and State Indemnity for Errors of Criminal Justice. The Justice Institute, USA.
2. Davis, J. (July 01, 2011). Race, Class, and the Death Penalty: Capital Punishment in American History: Book Review. Peace & Change, 36, 3, 474-477.
3. Dezhbakhsh, H., Rubin, H. and Shepherd, M. (2008). Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect? Economics, Law and Individual Rights.
4. Donohue III, J., and Wolfers, J. (2006). Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate (No. w11982). National Bureau of Economic Research.
5. Peter, C., Robert, B., Matthew, H., & Mark, L. (September 05, 2016). An Analysis of the Economic Costs of Seeking the Death Penalty in Washington State. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 14, 3.
6. Torin, F. (August 24, 2016). The Death Penalty vs. Life Incarceration: A Financial Analysis. Susquehanna University Political Review, 7, 1.
7. Yorke, J. (2016). Against the Death Penalty: International Initiatives and Implications. New York, NY: Routledge.