Category: Capital Punishment

The Green Mile is an American fantasy, mystery, and crime drama adapted from Stephen King’s novel [1996] and directed by Frank Darabont in 1999. The stars of the film are Tom Hanks, which appears as Paul Edgecomb, the commanding officer of the death row cellblock at Cold Mountain Penitentiary in Louisiana, and Michael Clarke Duncan in his breakout of a supporting role as John Coffey, an innocent and physical strong looking black man, placed on a death row for a crime he never committed. The film is composed between reality and John Coffey’s superpowers, and it also crosses highly meaningful themes, for example, racism, punishment of an innocent, death, and faith. The film was nominated for four academy awards[footnoteRef:1] and had other important awards and nominees, likewise a high IMDb rating (8.6)[footnoteRef:2]. This movie would appeal to young mature adults due to its cruelty, violence, and tearful scenes. [1: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120689/awards?ref_=tt_ql_op_1] [2: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120689/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt]

The story of the film is told by used to be commanding officer Paul Edgecombe (Thom Hanks) and he flashes back to the 1930s at the Louisiana State Prison where he was responsible for his colleagues and took care of condemned men who were sentenced to die in the electric chair. Although he had seen many cons, he met a completely different con named John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan) – a massive black man who was convicted of killing young twins. As he appears to the E block, he makes an impression of a strong and huge man with poor linguistics who could kill anyone, however, his politeness, behavior, and superpower to mainly heal injured or ill people, portrays him as completely opposite to that person. That is how from the very start Paul starts wondering if Paul Coffey is really guilty and responsible for murdering the sisters. The structure of this movie is simple to follow because it goes chronological from the beginning till the end. Firstly it shows the present, then the protagonist starts telling the story that happened years ago.

The movie mostly uses metaphors and symbolism that are related to faith, but not only because through several scenes appears the figures of Christ. More importantly, one of the main characters, John Coffey, can be understood as a sign and may be represented as the figure of Jesus, as it was stated by Paul Edgecomb “I just can’t see God putting a gift like that in the hands of a man who would kill a child.“[footnoteRef:3] Coffey appears from nowhere, and at the begging of the movie, he mentioned that he is afraid of the darkness. No surprise that in the healing process, the lights in the jail start flickering and after that, he realizes diseases as a black swarm of flies from his mouth. Furthermore, a little mouse whose name is Mr Jingles, is considered by many as a form of the angel, who was sent for a con to prepare him for his death. In contrast to these characters, an evil part devolves into the guard named Percy Wetmore who enjoys watching prisoners dying and suffering, and murderer Will Bill. Thus, symbolism requires a deeper understanding and remarking for the audience. [3: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/green_mile/quotes/]

The Green Mile is set in a Mountain Penitentiary in Louisiana, E block, in the 1930s. It is believable that it is summer, because of the characters’ vivid sweat on their faces which is clearly visible as the camera shows them from very close. The characters’ costumes give the accuracy of what year it is, it is understood from prison guards’ uniforms, and cons’ simple clothing, and even from women’s hairstyles. The lighting makes the movie look realistic, and it dramatically changes when Coffey by his powers showed a guard who is really guilty of murdering two girls – the scene becomes darker. Thus, the mise-en-scene plays a great part in creating a movie atmosphere, and in this case, it sure did its job.

The context of the movie obviously revolves around the theme of death and faith. Death appears as a punishment for every prisoner and every one of them has to walk “The Green Mile” and wait for the execution on the electric chair. Moreover, John Coffey’s character portrays a real example of racism, because he has dark skin, and it conveys people’s mindset at that time; it shows that he is already guilty and inherently disadvantaged because of his skin. Thus, the innocent person is punished for this horrible ending even though he has a gift from God. The context of this movie can be pagalvotas bet kuriame gyvenimo laikotarpi

The Green Mile may leave a remarkable impression on almost every viewer. With deeper symbolism, it touches very thoughtful themes such as racism, faith, and death, and overall it would be hard to deny the thought that it still is and was considered at some point in every part of the world in every decade. Even though this movie is between reality and fantasy, it can leave mature adults wondering about their faith and morality. On this wise, Frank Darabont completed every aspect and directed this movie as a treasure for the audience.

References:

1. https://books.google.lt/books?id=KNA7gfXJw9sC&pg=PT40&lpg=PT40&dq=the+green+mile+mr+jingles+angel&source=bl&ots=85G7qq4ezf&sig=ACfU3U15KYjNx0k3mHolAcBAK6Rfryab6A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRgIbu7rPiAhVKl4sKHUhBDOU4ChDoATAJegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=the%20green%20mile%20mr%20jingles%20angel&f=false

The death penalty is taking a human lifestyles in return for some bad conduct submitted by using an individual that has been esteemed to be so antagonistic to society it warrants the closure of the informer’s existence. The death penalty can’t be a straightforward issue which can without a whole lot of stretch be decided in excessive contrast non-debatable terms. There are continuously specific sides to an problem, yet the death penalty is by means of all debts a multi-sided subject, that is match for being surveyed and investigated in compound manners from various perspectives. A part of the social and cash related costs are self-evident, anyway a better evaluation uncovers prices to society that are not effortlessly determined yet have to now not be disregarded. There are a few folks that would possibly take a gander at capital punishment as a need and contend that the blessings to society warrant its proceeded with use.

However, the opposite side could convey that there are various layers to the problem, a few excellent and moral, and that we lose substantially more than we benefit by shielding what could be viewed as an antiquated case of our country’s tough past. For one to get capital punishment, their wrongdoing ought to be equivalent to their subject or it conflicts with the Eighth Amendment’s limit on cruel and uncommon area (LII). Individuals who were accused of capital punishment had carried out some wrongdoings. As indicated via an ongoing net Sentencing for Life article, 81.8% of people condemned to capital punishment submitted murder, 6.7% submitted assault, 1.9% had been in charge of a slave revolt, 1.7% submitted a thievery, and 1.1% became from burglaries (Controversial Topics).

Since most of the human beings who have been sentenced to the demise penalty from murdering someone, they match into the category of ‘a watch for a watch,’ (Pros and Cons). In the US specifically, about 1,188 human beings had been finished between 1977 and 2009, mainly with the aid of deadly injection (Pros and Cons).

The death penalty has information inside the United States that consists of public executions, accusations of the loss of lifestyles penalty being merciless and uncommon punishment, protests for and toward capital punishment, and maximum those days numerous findings of mistakes in convictions ensuing in many former dying row inmates being released due to proof of their innocence. The United States has taken into consideration many execution strategies come and go in the path of the remaining hundred years, including hangings, the firing squad, the electrical powered chair, and the gas chamber. Some of these are nevertheless alternatives in some states, however deadly injection has emerged as the popular execution approach all through most states who exercise their capital punishment rights.

In colonial instances executions were accomplished in public and were a perfect shape of entertainment. We have considered the stop of public executions, with the remaining one being accomplished in 1936, in line with Clear and Cole (2003). There are however a few who argue for the reinstatement of public or televised executions, and the arguments for every factor of this trouble elevate valid points. I don’t forget the apparent arguments toward televising or making public an execution is first and most vital the condemned man or woman’s right to privacy, and the easy fact that watching a human lifestyle could be stunning and provoking to many members of our society. An argument for permitting viewing of executions was made by manner of Phillip Weise; he asserts that ‘televised executions ought to be legally mandated to entirely educate the public approximately the political and bodily effects of capital punishment’.

An captivating addition to the hassle of public execution happened in 2001, whilst Timothy McVeigh asked to have his execution publicly broadcast. Prison officials had been thinking of a closed-circuit broadcast inside the jail for approximately 250 household members of McVeigh’s sufferers who all wished to observe the proceedings. Mr. McVeigh raised equal right of access to worries, and therefore made the request for a public broadcast, which turned into as soon as summarily denied by prison officials (Compton, 2001 para. 2). Death Penalty sentencing inside the United States is a trouble that generally inspires robust critiques every for and in the direction of the execution of criminals in our correctional system. The subject matter of the death penalty incites heated debates from both aspects, irrespective of what a character’s factor of view is on the subject, severe emotions still appear to be connected to their critiques. All supporters and critics publish large volumes of content that guide their views within the wish of attracting detractors on their side. A brief quest for ‘capital punishment’ on line turns up masses of website listings which contain lots of pages of files and essays on the subject.

According to figures from the Bureau of Justice and Death Penalty History, in 1967 the Supreme Court suspended all executions until a selection at the constitutionality of capital punishment might be made, mainly whether it can be considered cruel and unusual punishment, thereby breaching the Constitution. The Supreme Court dominated that death penalty changed into now not in violation of the Constitution and inside the The Supreme Court dominated that capital punishment changed into no longer in violation of the charter and America noticed the reinstatement of the dying penalty in 1976. We have had demonstrations and reasons for and towards the exercise of capital punishment from the go back of death penalty to the prevailing day. Recently, thanks to trendy medical advances, the subject has gained accelerated specifically.The advance in the availability of and the precision of DNA testing. Capital punishment supporters say it serves as a deterrence and retribution, as well as incapacitating the convicted to commit future crimes. There is no doubt that the death penalty can kill the convict, but the ones antagonistic argue that there’s no proof that the loss of life penalty acts as a disincentive and that justice and punishment may be administered with out taking a human existence. Disability can be finished by life imprisonment, so there’s a viable execution desire that basically negates the declare that we want capital punishment for disability.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) addresses the issue on their internet site with the subsequent statement.

‘Capital punishment is the closing denial of civil liberties. The ACLU opposes capital punishment underneath all circumstances because it violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment, is run arbitrarily and unfairly, and fails to deter crime or improve public safety.’

While the controversy goes on, number of Americans surveyed are in aid of the precept of capital punishment, in line with Clear and Cole (2003), provided it’s miles implemented justly and appropriately. They also show that public opinion shifts while a sentencing choice is proposed, ‘When the share of Americans supports an specific choice to the death penalty-lifestyles imprisonment with no possibility of parole Americans favoring the death penalty drops to near 50 percentage.’ This is a very interesting shift due to the fact capital punishment has continually had approval scores well over the 50 percent mark, if Americans divide themselves similarly on the problem it will open the doorways to new regulation and possibly signal the quit of capital punishment inside our nation.

Throughout the ultimate decade there has been a enormous shift in the arguments both for and towards capital punishment, due in part to scientific advances inside the DNA field. The argument now does no longer necessarily cognizance on whether capital punishment works as a deterrent or is morally just, or even if the death penalty is being carried out fairly. The new problem is must we continue to use capital punishment as a sentencing option when mistakes are continuously being made at the correctional and judicial fields. DNA evidence is being used to show that severa mistakes have took place and are still happening in capital punishment cases.

In January of 2000 Illinois Governor George H. Ryan declared a moratorium on the executions of all Illinois loss of life row inmates. He mentioned the following as his reasoning for the moratorium.

‘I now choose a moratorium, because I actually have grave issues about our state’s shameful file of convicting innocent human beings and placing them on demise row,’ Governor Ryan said. ‘And, I believe, many Illinois citizens now feel that equal deep reservation. I cannot guide a system, which, in its administration, has confirmed to be so fraught with errors and has come so near to the final nightmare, the state’s taking of harmless life. Thirteen human beings were located to have been wrongfully convicted.’

With this statement and the ban Governor Ryan viably propelled the war of capital punishment rivals beyond what any degree of fighting would ever do. Senator Ryan indicated boldness in admitting to the diverse missteps made in the death penalty instances and shed light on the way that demise penalty is a territory in which there should be no room for give and take. McCuen allotted an article now not long after the ban became effective which incorporated the accompanying remark, ‘Executions must stop till all emotions are painstakingly looked into to guarantee there are no guiltless people looking ahead to capital punishment. The province of Illinois, confronting excusing evidence, has set free greater death row detainees than it has executed. With numbers that manner, there is little uncertainty the Illinois and extraordinary states have unfairly executed numerous guiltless people’.

In maximum fields a margin of mistakes is appropriate and expected. When handling human lives mistakes are not acceptable. If a person spends years locked far from their circle of relatives and pals before being exonerated there’s no manner to ever update that point they have lost, and the impact of one character being eliminated from a family has a long way reaching results for diverse participants of society. It is no longer most effective for the direct family who’s affected, but also all of society, we’re buying that man or woman to be incarcerated, and in all likelihood their own family is relying on social packages to survive because of the missing income from that family member being locked away. The purpose so many errors are being revealed is because of DNA proof being used to exonerate a convicted and evidence their innocence.

DNA trying out has advanced to a degree where it could easily, and value effectively be used to prove conclusively whether or not a person is responsible for committing a crime. In many instances DNA proof is being used to release those previously sentenced to the death penalty with the aid of proving they couldn’t have dedicated the crime they had been sentenced for. Human beings are not infallible, and errors are sure to arise in life, and we’re seeing every day that the correctional field is not proof against human error. The hassle is that with capital punishment somebody’s life hangs in the balance, while a mistake occurs, we’ve to comprehend that if the sentence has already been carried out it is too past due to correct the error.

The frequency of finding harmless people on loss of death row has improved so dramatically that corporations are actually being shaped whose sole cause is to find harmless demise row or even general jail population inmates and use conclusive DNA evidence to free them. One such business enterprise is The Innocence Project; they may be a non-earnings felony sanatorium which operates out of the Benjamin J. Cordoza School of Law in New York City. The venture became based in 1992 by means of the cutting-edge directors, Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Nuffield. They accept instances from all around the United States and all criminal paintings are supplied seasoned bono upon their recognition of a case. The simplest cost for the defendant is the value of the DNA checking out, and a few defendants can find advocacy companies to cowl this expense. The Innocence mission accepts instances wherein DNA proof has no longer yet been used as evidence, and where it can conclusively prove innocence. The Innocence Project does not now offer felony recommendation or research, but they make available on the Innocence Project website a list categorized by means of kingdom of packages and agencies that do provide those services.

There are masses of examples of women and men who’ve spent years of their lives on loss of life row, later to be freed by means of DNA evidence. One such guy is Ray Krone from Arizona, who spent over two years on death row before being exonerated by way of DNA proof in April of 2002. There are absolutely many others who’ve spent a good deal longer behind bars than Krone, but he is giant due to the fact he changed into the 100’Th harmless individual launched from an American demise row after being exonerated. There are countless testimonies of households being torn apart because of errors in our judicial system, however to enter the ones might now not accomplish anything. Although they’re touching and do successfully add to the argument for capital punishment reforms, in the end it comes down to data.

The variety of mistakes taking place is just too excessive to support persevering with our modern systems. I consider the relaxation of the country’s desire to follow Governor Ryan’s instance and claim a country wide moratorium on all death row cases, until we are able to overview the device and accurately report the troubles mainly to innocent humans being convicted. Some of the underlying causes that cause innocent people being sentenced to die include perjured or coerced memories at trails in which the accused is represented by way of a court docket appointed lawyer who is paid by using taxpayer’s dollars but isn’t even constitutionally obligated to stay awake during the trail, most effective to be present. Everyone in America is entitled to legal representation, however the information is that if you can come up with the money for the nice lawyers, you’ll get the excellent defense. In many instances earlier than the accused even has the chance to guard themselves in a courtroom their destiny has already been sealed with the aid of the very cops who have sworn to guard and shield them. There have been numerous cases in which it’s far alleged that law enforcement officials have tampered with proof or coerced testimony from other inmates looking for a lighter sentence to ensure they get a conviction and may close their case.

There will continually be a debate in our country over the deserves of capital punishment, and whether or not it is in reality wanted to preserve our society safe. We know we can incapacitate offenders without executing them, so the issue remains whether or not our society must rationalize taking a human life, in the call of justice. There may in no way be a solution to this dilemma and so we need to focus not on whether we want capital punishment, however whether or not it’s far running as intended. The facts display it is not, and numbers do not lie or rely upon moral arguments, they consist of strong black and white nonnegotiable statistics just like the following from the Death Penalty Information Center.

Those who’re anti-death penalty convey up one thing that is very important: irrevocable errors. In the case that a supposed criminal is being charged with the dying penalty and goes through with it, what happens while that ‘criminal’ turns out to be innocent? Fortunately, out of the 87 humans who’ve been freed from loss of life row due to the fact they had been later proven innocent, never certainly went through with their sentenced dying penalty (Pros and Cons). This approach that there’s an error rate of one innocent person for each seven people executed, which is certainly uncalled for (Pros and Cons). If this error become to manifest and an harmless man or woman become to be killed with the aid of deadly injection or another shape capital punishment, which might essentially be referred to as murder. If this changed into the case, shouldn’t the authorities be charged with the loss of life penalty for committing a capital crime? The anti-loss of life penalty humans declare that through casting off that form of punishment they may be also eliminating even the slightest hazard of this error from happening (Pros and Cons).

What ought to make human beings query their view of this topic is that each side has legitimate points. One may think that the loss of life penalty might be suitable in the event that they had suffered a loss in their lifestyles and recognise what it looks like to have someone taken from them and want a feel of revenge to make them sense better. Others may aspect with the anti-demise penalty in the event that they agree with a crook ought to have to stay with what they did for the rest of their existence, continuously being reminded of the results of their actions. What makes human beings lean more in the direction of keeping the death penalty is the truth that they need the murderer to section the equal factor that the sufferer felt, which ultimately results in loss of life. Although lifestyles in jail also result in dying, so long as parole is in no way an option, the mourning own family members sense the need to execute the assassin as soon as possible so that they do not now have time to be proven innocent or get on parole.

While the anti-death penalty believers have many strong reasons as to why it ought to now not be used, the reality of the matter is that we need it today no matter what. Even though lifestyles imprisonment and the dying penalty each bring about loss of life, the elements that make up each punishment are what reason the argument of which one is better. Many humans sense as even though they will no longer be capable of circulate from the lack of a loved one until the person that killed them is ‘rightfully punished,’ as consistent with themselves (Sentencing for Life). Although there are good motives to remove the demise penalty, distraught Americans could honestly no longer stay without it.

What is the principal explanation behind capital punishment? Human developments have been doing capital punishment for 4,000 years back. Capital punishment is held today for ruthless and deplorable wrongdoings, for example, first-degree murder. Nations like China, Iran, Japan, and India extend capital punishment for monotonous fierce wrongdoings, for example, assault, rape, or explicit medication offenses. Here is a portion of the upsides and downsides of capital punishment. Here are a few experts on capital punishment. It is an approach to give equity to unfortunate casualties’ security for an all-inclusive community safe. It’s a social desire to carry on with your existence with no mischief from others. When there is somebody who chooses to conflict with this desire by carrying out a vicious wrongdoing, at that point there must be steps taken to give every other person the wellbeing that they merit. Capital punishment gives an aware result. Capital punishment has two basic results with regards to how beyond words. At this moment, capital punishment is barbarous yet can be helpful on occasion. Individuals have been slaughtered by snoozing by somebody who gives a deadly infusion that in a split second can bring somebody from breathing which implies they are to an abrupt halt.

We have failed to address how easily the law can simply blame somebody for wrongdoing and they do whatever is in their will to slaughter anyone they can do at their own unrestrained choice. As much as you can say that we could be alive in light of the fact that they have executed those who have hurt people groups’ lives and we could be next for accomplishing something as little as somebody attempting to murder us yet then we guard ourselves by shooting them back. They could be sent to prison or be given capital punishment on account of a last-chance circumstance which makes them either pass on or go kick the bucket at a charge you know your getting on the off chance that you contemplated it obviously. I need to show how barbarous this can truly be. This is the reason I will appear about the cons of capital punishment. It accompanies a danger of a guiltless individual being executed Regardless of whether the proof is clear about an individual accomplished something incorrectly yet perhaps it wasn’t purposeful and possibly they were extorted and in the event that they squealed on them they will slaughter somebody dearest to them.

There is a lot of contention in the public sphere concerning the reinstating of the death penalty. Many feel that the reinstating of the death penalty might be controversial because innocent people that are falsely accused of crimes they did not commit might not be able to reach a timely recourse to prove their innocence. Therefore, I feel that the death penalty should not be reinstated in South Africa, due to its dark history and the negative connotations it draws to the country. In addition, this essay will be looking at the history of countries that constituted the death penalty, the implications of it, and what can be used as an alternative method to ensure law and order, without taking the lives of people whether they are criminals or victims.

Although people feel that reinstating the death penalty would curb crime and deter criminals from committing offenses, according to evidence this is not often the case. “Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death penalty states.” (Bedau 1973:5). In addition, how can we as a country reinstate something that would bring more death at the hands of innocent people? As a matter of fact, these people that would be ‘killed’ need to be done by someone who has nothing to do with the repercussions of the criminals affected. As a consequence, more people in unfavorable circumstances could possibly be executed for crimes they never committed, which are often not reversible (Van Den Haag 1969:141). It is no surprise that many people could lose their lives, without juries finding the necessary evidence to prove their guilt. Therefore, I feel that people have the right to fight for justice, for the fact that they might be ‘framed’ for something they have never committed. According to (Bedau 1973:5) it is more likely for crimes to witness an increase in countries where the death penalty is constituted in comparison to countries that do not have the death penalty. Moreover, even though a crime is committed in a society where the death penalty is established or not, citizens’ desire to commit an abominable crime might outweigh their fear of being executed for their crimes (Van Den Haag 1969:145). Finally, the psychological and sociological implications might even have worse effects on families that were affected by this government-sanctioned practice.

Citizens might feel that capital punishment is useful to benefit the majority. For instance, if people were planning on overthrowing the state, their victorious expectation might far exceed their fear of being put to death by the state (Van Den Haag 1969:145). Nevertheless, capital punishment might cause people to seek revenge for the pain that this practice has placed on their mental capacity. As a consequence, people might not be deterred by this death-threatening penalty if they want to take the law into their own hands by seeking retribution. “An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder.” (Bedau 1973:15). Furthermore, it does not matter who the victims are of abominable crimes, the death penalty would not restore justice through similar attacks. For this reason, alternative measures such as life sentences might be more appropriate since everyone has the constitutional right to life.

In a civil society, life imprisonment is considered the just and fair punishment practice to bring offenders to the book. Since every citizen has the right to life, it is pivotal that they must be able to prove their innocence, even if it means that they need to do so for the rest of their lives to prove it. According to (Van Den Haag 1969:145) disobedient characters are more inclined to break the law if penalized with strict prison sentences, but this is not quite the opposite if replaced with the death penalty. Furthermore, if any severe form of punishment needs to be implemented to deter criminals, then surely life imprisonment would be more effective, since offenders would be locked away long enough not to do it again (Bedau 1973:5). Consequently, reinstating the death penalty would only leave more families in grief and pain, due to the ineffectiveness that two wrongs do not make it morally permissible to kill another.

Although I fully disagree with the death penalty, however, what I am sure of is that there are a lot of other measures that can be used to deter criminals and bring down the crime rate in South Africa. Moreover, experts suggest that violence should be treated as a public health concern, where people should be assisted and needs to feel appreciated, rather than rejected and considered a societal problem (Larsson 2020). In addition, if people are not supported through their problems this could cause more offenses, in comparison to societies where people are given support structures. According to (Writer 2020) the validation of capital punishment is the same as endorsing cold-blooded murder. In other words, there are better alternative measures to curb violent crimes and criminal activities, and this is supported by experts. Some may challenge that life imprisonment might not be an effective alternative to curb crime in South Africa. However, life imprisonment has been statistically more effective in other countries, but not the same can be said about capital punishment. Nevertheless, my argument is that life sentences are more effective to address crime in South Africa.

Finally, reinstating the death penalty in South Africa would not put an end to crimes, but might even increase it. According to (Bedau 1973:5) “death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death penalty states. During the 1980s, death-penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5 criminal homicides per 100,000 of the population; abolition states averaged a rate of 7.4.” In addition, South Africa is also one of the most unequal countries in the world, however, taking poverty out of the criminal equation does not necessarily mean that our crime rate would decline. Countries such as the United States where the death penalty is still in practice, also do not see a reduction in crime despite the fact that they have been able to increase the shortage of job opportunities (Van Den Haag 1969:144). As a consequence, reinstating the death penalty which has caused more damage than good in the past, would be to risk repeating the mistakes we have done in the past, instead of respecting lives whether their a criminal or not through punishing criminals with harsh life sentences.

In my final analysis, it is evident that the reduction in crime is not a result of the death penalty. Moreover, if the death penalty were to be reinstated in South Africa it would not against any evidence better the crime rate. On the contrary, every citizen has the constitutional right to life and that decision does not depend on the state to decide whose life to take. Capital punishment has been practiced by the state before, even though it was done in a different historical background it still has not been effective in the reduction of crime. Nevertheless, despite the ineffectiveness of the death penalty concerning other countries and particularly in South Africa, justice could never be restored if capital punishment is used as a corrective measure, and therefore it should be replaced by implementing harsh life sentences for affected criminals.

Killers ought to be executed on the grounds that they have ended a life intentionally. This is vital in light of the fact that life can’t be brought back, regardless of what you do. Capital punishment for homicide presently is life in jail. That isn’t right since, in such a case that a killer slaughters somebody, the killer ought to be murdered. ‘ an eye for an eye, is a famous quote that implies that on the off chance that somebody breaks your arm, you can break his. This statement and its significance are vital and ought to be a law. In this way, if a killer executes an individual, the killer should be killed and executed. Likewise, if killers were condemned to live, there would be numerous issues. Prisons would be stuffed. It is hard to fit more prisons since it would cost a lot. If a city had no rule to kill murderers, then there would be no fear of death by them. That would lead to more murders on the street. No one would fear death because they can’t be killed. Therefore, if we kill murderers that deserve to die, then there will be less crime. As a result, the death penalty acts as a deterrence for murderers to warn them to not kill as they know if they do only death awaits them. This is a valid strong argument as no religiously you can’t bring anyone back from the dead once they are gone, they are gone forever, as such it’s a strong argument.

Most Christians accept that capital punishment isn’t right. The primary purpose behind this is on the grounds that they have solid confidence in the sanctity of life. This is the possibility that all human existence is made by God and along these lines is holy. Christians additionally accept that God made life, subsequently, just God ought to have the capacity and ability to remove it, and meddling with this isn’t right. One of the Ten Commandments teaches Christians not to execute, so this would be another explanation that they consider to be punishment as an off-base. What’s more, a few people may utilize the contention that honest individuals have been executed uniquely for their names to be cleared years after the fact after it’s past the point of no return. On the off chance that slip-ups have occurred previously, at that point they can happen once more. Some exacting Christians will concur with capital punishment, as there are instances of individuals being given capital punishment in the Old Testament, which educates ‘tit for tat’. As a result, there is confusion within the beliefs as some Christians do not know which one to believe in. As such this is a weaker argument as its conflicting and disagreeing upon its own points.

Should capital punishment be reintroduced?

I chose this topic as I believe it is still relevant in today’s society as it varies between countries and there is still not a unanimous opinion on the topic therefore is highly controversial and I would like to complete this research to discover my own true opinion. I also have interests in law and criminal justice that I would like to further explore and believe it would be an interesting area to explore because of the variety of opinions. I believe the opinions have so much controversy due to a lack of education around the topic.

Capital punishment was made illegal in 1969 by the House of Commons following multiple miscarriages of justice. It was decided that the country would be better off without it, but is this what society truly wants? It was abolished as too many innocent people were being killed for crimes they did not commit. In the world today 70% of countries have now illegalised the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Centre, 2021) however as of 2020 it was still legal in 56 countries (BBC News, 2020). So, who is right?

The abolishment came about because of a variety of factors including campaigns, changing social attitudes, and continuous miscarriages of justice. Unlike other countries, it was parliament and MPs that fought for the abolishment, not the people (Julian Knowles, 2015).

There were a few major cases that were pivotal in the decision because of the severity of the miscarriage of justice that had taken place. One of these includes the case of Timothy Evans in 1950. He was a Welshman living in that was falsely accused of murdering his wife and child and as a result, he was executed. It to this day is still one of the most awful miscarriages of justice to ever take place in the legal system (BBC, 2012). One of the more controversial cases was involving Derek Bentley in 1953. It was due to a miscommunication when a friend of his fired at a police officer and consequently was wrongfully hung. It caused mass protests and took 40 years of campaigning by the family to have Derek pardoned in 1993 (GCSE History, 2020). As a result, people began to doubt the ethicalness of capital punishment. These are just a couple of well-known examples of failures of the legal system and there are many more that have taken place over the years which ultimately led to the abolishment of the death penalty.

I conducted a survey with students aged 16-17 where I gathered 40 responses to gain insight into the opinions of the next generation. In this I found that the opinions are just as varied as those in the rest of society, therefore I feel that this gives an accurate reflection. However, it is very interesting to see that those in the same environment have such dramatic differences of opinion on this topic. It was mostly an even split from one extreme to another. Many that agreed with capital punishment believed that if it was to be implemented that there should be a more ethical way to conduct it.

In this data 1 is totally against capital punishment and 5 is completely for and the rest is somewhere between. From these results, we can see that more people are for rather than against capital punishment however the spill is still very even to show us this is very controversial with some people having no favored opinion at all. Seeing as so many have no absolute opinion does this suggest that it’s outdated and no longer relevant to today’s society or is there just not enough education surrounding the topic?

However, when asked if capital punishment is ethical many disagreed, so why do people agree with it if they don’t believe it is morally right?

Discrimination

There is a well-known history of systematic racism in the history of the justice system, and this has had effects on those trialed for the death penalty. In America, 89% of those that were sentenced were black defendants. 75% of murder cases were sentenced to death because of a crime against a white victim although there is an equal chance for either race to be a victim. There has been a bias toward white victim cases in almost every single case that was studied over a prolonged period of time (Death Penalty Info, 2020). Due to this, we can see that when in practice the justice system is not always fair so to sentence someone to death wrongly is one of the most unethical and inhumane things that could be done.

However, is significantly more equal to America, placing 16th on world rankings compared to them 69th place so is hard to compare their data but we still are aware of the inequalities faced.

UK data

Christianity is the most influential and common religion. There are many controversial messages from Christianity, so it makes it difficult for its followers to know what to follow. The ten commandments clearly state, ‘You shall not murder’ (Exodus 20:13). In the Old Testament the quote ‘But if a serious injury results, then you must require a life for a life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot’ (Exodus 21:23-24) is used which suggests people should be punished for their actions. However, later on in the New Testament, talks about personal encounters, and the Old Testament is talking about government encounters. there is a response to this that says ‘But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also’ (Matthew 5:38). These quotes completely contradict each other, and therefore difficulty is created for those that follow Christianity as they may not know which belief to follow as they have been given multiple responses by their God. This is especially difficult for Christians who rely on answers solely from the Bible and no other sources as there is no clear message given.

In the Roman Catholic Church, the 5th commandment prohibits the unjust taking of human life, it supports capital punishment in principle but holds that current application is unnecessary since we have matured as a culture. The Pope and the Bishops concluded that capital punishment was not suitable in today’s society as they say it does more harm than good (Avery Cardinal Dulles, 2001).

Keeping people imprisoned costs a lot of money but also delivering the lethal injection. On average it costs around $18,000 to keep criminals alive, however, it would save around $12.5 million for the state if they were executed rather than sentenced to life in prison (Weebly, 2020). This would also act as a prevention so even more money would be saved.

Impact on families 300

Punishments can also have negative impacts on the family outside of prison. The family may lose respect from the community and be faced with the burden of that member not being present in daily life. That member may have been the breadwinner for the family so with their absence the family may also struggle financially. This also has a negative impact on children as they may witness crimes or arrests which can cause trauma early on. Furthermore, when children are raised, they are socialized by their parents and part of this is the influence they have, if the child is raised in an environment where it is considered normal to be committing crimes and spending time in prison, they will continue this in later life and the cycle will continue. Many researchers have found that children, whose parents are in prison, are more likely to show depression, hyperactivity, clinging behavior, sleep problems, truancy, and poor school grades (Murray, 2005).

Impact of Facing the death penalty on Friends and Family

The basic argument of retribution and punishment is that all guilty people deserved to be punished, only guilty people deserve to be punished and guilty people deserve to be punished in proportion to the crime they have committed (BBC,2014). Following this logic in the case of a murderer the crime deserves death, so why is it forbidden? However, many say that this would be achieving vengeance rather than retribution, but why do we value the lives of the people that have done wrong so much?

If Australians are caught and found guilty of smuggling illegal drugs into another country that has the death penalty as the standard punishment for such a crime, then it is not morally right that they are sentenced according to that country’s laws. To prove this statement, I am going to focus on two ethical theories. Retributivism is an ethical theory of punishment focusing on the idea that when an offender breaks the law, justice requires him or her to suffer in return (Frey & Wellman, 2005). The consequentialist theory holds that the morally right act is one that will generate a good result or consequence (Frey & Wellman, 2005). I am going to argue three arguments throughout this essay, the first being that the death penalty has no positive effect in deterring crime, the errors in the system surrounding the death penalty are too frequent and severe and that execution is an inhumane and unjust act and is too cruel a punishment for the crime being discussed (Frey & Wellman, 2005).

Firstly, there is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than a prison term (Frey & Wellman, 2005). Many criminals don’t get caught, many can also not receive the death penalty in the end, and those who do are usually on death row for a long time, at least a decade and occasionally more, so for other potential criminals it is not a major threat to them and the connection between a crime they intend to commit and the death penalty is often completely irrelevant in their minds (Frey & Wellman, 2005). It appears that to gain a deterrent effect, countries with the death penalty rely on media coverage to deter criminals, however, in the heightened media coverage, it seems to have had the effect of simply becoming a “spectacle” that diverts the public attention from other significantly worse issues such as policy problems and corruption, and displaying an image of coherent legal sovereignty in many third world countries at a time when the rule of law is in fact diminishing (Frey & Wellman, 2005). The consequentialist theory responds to this argument with appeals to common sense as it is suggested one is most deterred by what one fears most. It is understood all humans have a great fear of death, even greater than that of loss of liberty, thus, the death penalty must deter more strongly than imprisonment (Frey & Wellman, 2005). However, in response to this rebut, researchers have compared murder rates in jurisdictions before and after they abolished the death penalty and it seems there are too many uncontrollable factors that influence the homicide rate that it is hard to be confident that the results of the comparisons accurately reflect a direct effect of the death penalty rather than other factors, for example, varying ages and employment rates (Frey & Wellman, 2005). There is a large possibility that the threats of life imprisonment are enough to significantly suffice any potential killers who could be deterred at all (Frey & Wellman, 2005). It is also largely debated whether a perceived small risk of death deters better than a risk of life in prison. Even if the observed dispute over death deterrence insufficiency were resolved, a normative issue would remain (Frey & Wellman, 2005). At the core of many beliefs is that deliberately murdering a human who is no longer in a position to potentially threaten someone’s life is so inherently immoral that it must be banned.

The death penalty always conveys a strong risk that innocent people could be convicted of the crime of smuggling drugs to another country, sentenced to death, and eventually executed. Recently a Filipino woman Mary Jane Veloso had been on death row (Howard, 2019). Mary was a poor migrant worker and believed to be a victim of human trafficking by her employer whom she was understood to have murdered in an attempt of self-defense. Despite Mary eventually being able to reprieve the punishment the psychological effects she, her friends, and her family suffered were indecipherable (Howard, 2019). Consequentialists provide two disputes in rebuttal to this argument. The likelihood of the suffering of innocent people on death row is supposedly exaggerated and the numerous layers of review and process protections built into the capital punishment systems within each country that entertain capital punishment are thought to make it extremely unlikely an innocent person will be wrongly convicted and executed as systems are able to wean out wrong convictions before mistakes occur (Howard, 2019). For example, more than 90 prisoners have been released from US death row since 1973 under evidence they are innocent (Howard, 2019). Secondly, the risk of a mistake is only one minor moral deliberation relevant to whether execution is morally acceptable and can be outweighed by competing moral considerations such as by doing justice by giving the worst crimes a severe punishment (Howard, 2019). Retributivists challenge both of these responses as factually the execution of the innocent is not so minute a possibility, as approximately twenty-four mistakes occurred in the 1900s in which innocent people were executed (Howard, 2019). The so-called protections and reviews appear to be more apparent than real, given what have been appalling legal representations of capital defendants on trial and the frightening legal barriers to post-conviction review (Howard, 2019). As for the benefits outweighing the risk of mistakes, it must be evoked first that there is little evidence of the death penalty having a significant effect on the deterrence of the same and similar crimes.

The execution of humans by humans displays a morally flawed attitude towards human life that makes it as unsuitable a penalty for even the worst crimes as torment or mutilation would be (Leechaianan & Longmire, 2013). Statistics show that the death penalty leads to a brutalization of society and ultimately demonstrates an increase in the murder rate (Leechaianan & Longmire, 2013). In the United States of America, it appears that there is an increase in murder rates in states that comprise the death penalty as a punishment (Leechaianan & Longmire, 2013). In 2010, it was measured that the murder rate in states where the death penalty had been abolished was lower at 4.01 percent per 100,000 people. In states where the death penalty is used, the figure was higher at 5 percent (Leechaianan & Longmire, 2013). Lex talionis is a principle argued by retributivists that dictate offensive, obscene punishments for some crimes whilst not even suggesting a penalty for a host of other offenses. For example, murdering murderers and raping rapists versus the punishment for drug smuggling which would suggest no punishment at all. However, Retributivists claim that a crime could be so heinous and serious that the death penalty can be the only appropriate punishment and criminals should suffer an insult to the dignity and humanity of the victims, equivalent to the crime they committed (Frey & Wellman, 2005). Lex talionis is a principle used by this theory that demands criminals be punished by suffering the very fate they inflicted on their victims (Frey & Wellman, 2005). However, this is a principle that cannot be applied to all crimes and is left drastically unclear and almost impossible (Frey & Wellman, 2005). Especially in the case of smuggling drugs into a foreign country, there Is no punishment suitable for this crime based on the principle of lex talionis (Frey & Wellman, 2005). At the core of many beliefs is that deliberately murdering a human who is no longer in a position to potentially threaten someone’s life is so inherently immoral that it must be banned, and the crime of smuggling drugs cannot be justified via the use of the death penalty.

Ultimately, If Australians are caught and found guilty of smuggling illegal drugs into another country that has the death penalty as the standard punishment for such a crime, then I do not believe it is morally right that they are sentenced according to that country’s laws. I have proved this through disputing the ethical theories of Retributivism and partly of consequentialism as I believe that the death penalty is ineffective in deterring crime, the risk of errors in implementing the death penalty is too high and that execution-only brutalizes human culture, and is unnecessary in which execution is not the right punishment.

‘But secondly, you say ‘society must exact vengeance, and society must punish’. Wrong on both counts. Vengeance comes from the individual and punishment from God (Victor Hugo).

What can be considered a ‘just punishment’ is a much-debated and complicated subject. Who has the authority in deciding whether the severity of a punishment is appropriate or too cruel? In his article ‘Going to See a Man Hanged’, published in Fraser’s magazine for town and country, William Makepeace Thackeray asserts his opinion against capital punishment, instilling the notion that society does not hold the right to execute such a severe ‘punishment’ for it goes against the Christian Law. He believes that by exercising such power over a person’s life, and death, society is reaching above its station and into God’s domain.

Considering that Thackeray was a member of the movement striving to abolish capital punishment, he strategically chose to publish his essay in Fraser’s Magazine since the journal was also pro-abolitionist. The writing of this article was also well-timed since he wrote this essay shortly after a motion to abolish capital punishment failed to pass. In his essay, Thackeray becomes the eyes and ears on behalf of the reader and retells his ‘partaking of this hideous debauchery’ in attending Courvoisier’s execution. He purposefully uses evocative language in his descriptions of the grounds and the emotions that the whole event struck in him. ‘As you see [the scaffold], you feel a dumb electric shock, which causes one to start a little, a give a sort of gasp for breath.’ Thackeray uses the phrase ‘gasp for breath’ to implant the idea of suffocation in his reader’s minds, ‘forcing’ them to empathize with the final moments of the person being hanged where they futilely gasp for breath. Through these descriptions, he is trying to rouse empathy and disgust from his readers in response to the crime that is execution.

One of the arguments that he makes in his article is that while the governing bodies believe that making a spectacle out of a public execution will deter the general population away from criminal activity; it instead becomes nothing more than a display to be enjoyed ‘ something that breaks away from the mundane. To further drive his argument home, he uses an anecdote where three successive decapitations took place. He states that at the sight of the first head, the spectators were struck with terror, disgust, and fear. The third head was looked at with interest but at the sight of the third head, the onlookers had become desensitized. Even worse due to a mishap ‘the punishment had grown to be a joke.’ Thackeray ends this story by commenting that the joke that came out of these events is a ‘pretty commentary, indeed, upon the august nature of public executions, and the awful majesty of the law.’

His article serves to admonish the ‘righteous’ people representing Law and Justice that stoop to the level of a criminal by claiming that they are doing the public service and calling their actions ‘punishment’. In the latter segment of his articles, he confesses his feelings of disgust at having to experience something as awful and debauched.

‘I am not ashamed to say, that I could look no more, but shut my eyes, as the last dreadful act was going on, which sent this wretched guilty soul into the presence of God.’

Thackeray chose to exclude any description of the actual execution; he closes the readers’ eyes much like he closed his own to spare them from the horrors of the act. He creates a moment of silence for the reader to digest what he just read before Thackeray continues on to pass judgment on both society and government.

He proceeds to express his loathing of the fact that society continues to hold on to what he considers antiquated, the Mosaic law of an eye-for-an-eye since he believes it goes against everything that reason and Christian Law stand for. He expresses his disappointment in the governing system for allowing the Judiciary System to be defiled and become a perverse version of the idea that it stands for. In his article, Thackeray states, ‘I came away down from Snow Hill that morning with a disgust for murder, but it was for the murder I saw done.’ In his eyes what was witnessed was not a ‘just punishment’ but instead the crime of murder under the guise of law and order. In his eyes, society has started to confuse what is punishment with what is outright murder. A man should not hold the authority to take another’s life and it is not the government’s place to decide that a person can no longer atone for their sins upon Earth. Thackeray seems to say that Man is greedily overstepping his bounds into the realm of God.

In his article, he mentions that the sight left a lingering impression upon him, but not what the government hoped that it would be’ that of deterrence ‘ rather, it is one of horror for the ‘butchery’ that he got to experience, which left him feeling ‘miserable ever since’ with Courvoisier’s death ‘[weighing] upon [his] mind’ and ‘as soon as [he] begins to write [‘Going to See a Man Hanged], [he] get melancholy’ he admit to his mother in his private letters. More striking is Thackeray’s closing sentence for his article:

I feel ashamed and degraded at the brutal curiosity which took me to that brutal sight, and I pray to Almighty God to cause this disgraceful sin to pass from among us and to cleanse our land of blood.

He firmly believes that only God has the power to absolve them of their sins for the hypocrisy of committing murder and calling it justice.

The subject of punishment is a complicated one. Regarding the severity of a committed crime, an equally severe punishment should be allocated. But what Thackeray tries to instill in his reader is not to become a monster themselves in the effort of culling and punishing the monsters of this world. In other words, he urges them not to stoop to the level of a criminal. No Man has the right to remove another’s life, as per the Christian law, and that should also be obeyed by society and not be made into an exception for the excuse of ‘punishment’.

‘Sarah Lewis claimed for Victorian mothers who kept within ‘the sphere which God and nature have appointed’ ‘no less an office than that of instruments (under God) for the regeneration of the world ‘restorers of God’s image in the human soul. Can any of the warmest advocates of the political rights of woman, claim for her a more exalted mission ‘a nobler destiny?” (Janet Larson). Discuss the destiny of women in any text(s) studied in this module.

Daughters of Decadence

The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

Emancipation: A Life Fable by Olive Schreiner

Life’s Gifts by Olive Schreiner

The Undefinable: A Fantasia by Sarah Grand

Sesame and Lilies by John Ruskin

The destiny of an individual can be considered as a set of predetermined events that one is expected to struggle against and ultimately yield to. Much in this fashion, the destiny of women can be considered the expectation of them to follow societal norms of obedience and gentleness. In his lecture Sesame and Lilies, John Ruskin considers the position of women in society and how they should be educated in accordance with their sex. However, as seen in quite a few texts written by female writers of the period, women were not docile creatures waiting to fall at the whims of fate but rather fought against its constraints with vigor.

It has been 58 years since capital punishment was abolished, and since then there’s been a huge debate about whether the law should be erased. I understand the difficulty of this topic as it is heavy with both advantages and disadvantages, this is why today I will be going over the many reasons I believe we should re-introduce capital punishment and I will also be addressing the issues people face with this matter. Capital punishment is the highest stage of punishment possible, still equipped in many countries around the world. I believe that this could help society change and make a better world. You must understand the importance of this subject as it could change the way society is forever. This decision could save many lives ahead.

Since 1964, when capital punishment was abolished because it undermines human dignity, there has been an increase in major crimes such as murder and rape. In 2021, there were 6 million offenses; yet in 2013, there were 4 million. If we wait around there will be huge consequences, crime will slowly increase over the years leading to a huge impact on the behavior of newer generations. We can stop this. How can we just sit around knowing generations to come will be affected? Isn’t this enough to strip the dignity of the inmates? Millions of people die every year through major crimes. Things need to change.

Although I am aware that a prisoner should be punished in more lengthy measures and, therefore, should be in jail reflecting on their actions how does this help? 2 out of 3 prisoners go back to jail, showing that jail doesn’t affect them, it may even increase their violent behavior as they learn new tricks. Bringing back the punishment could change the view of many prisoners, and they may take jail as a punishment and be more cautious of their actions.

Ultimately, Jail does not make up for the actions of the individuals. Jail is just a place where inmates are watched, and that does not help the criminal. Research shows that a long sentence has little impact on the individual, and it is believed that jail does not help criminals yet keeps them away from society. So, what happens after their sentence? Do they live like normal people? There is a high chance that they will go back to their life of crime and won’t care about the consequences involved, as their everyday life out of jail is ruined. After jail, prisoners find it hard to find jobs and live securely with their families, and the respect given by others is low. This will end in a vicious cycle, showing no hope for the individuals. Bringing back capital punishment will help end this vicious cycle by preventing people from entering it in the first place.

Also, some people believe capital punishment is for vengeance and not for retribution. People see it to be selfish, and not considering the lives of others. Even so, it is a form of closure, helping the victim cope with their pain. Many victims of major crimes live with long-term trauma. Yet, their suspects get to live peacefully in jail when they’re at home dealing with their issues 10 years later. This shouldn’t be allowed. Stop this neglect of victims. They need to be heard. Bringing back the punishment can help soothe people and create a secure and safe environment.

Could you live knowing your rapist or family murderer is roaming around freely? For many, this is a huge issue. People are unable to live their everyday lives as they are in constant fear. Olivia who is 30 years old shared that it is mostly impossible for her to live a normal life as she is in constant fear knowing her sister’s murderer has completed their sentence and is living with little to no surveillance. I don’t understand why society could watch people suffer. Society should understand this is a huge issue as it wrecks the lives of normal people. We need to stand up for those affected.

Capital punishment is also seen to cut life short. There is no time for redemption or being in reach of forgiveness. Yet, is this life worth fighting for? This person is the same person who killed the lives of many or other major crimes. Many of these crimes take much consideration of the punishment that comes along with it, showing the criminals didn’t think to care about the consequences. It is crazy, to fight for a life that doesn’t want to be fought for. There are many ways that we can give a chance to the criminals such as giving them a long time in jail and seeing their improvements before deciding their fate etc meaning we won’t be affecting people who are in reach of change.

Nevertheless, Capital punishment has always been a secure way of punishment. Despite the huge amount of arguments against it, it is still the safest measure for society as it keeps the crime rates low, keeps the environment around us safe, and helps the criminals around us see jail as more than just a living space with surveillance. You will be shocked at how much change we could make by just applying this punishment again. It is time to help the public be safe, secure, and certain.

Capital punishment can be defined as a judicial process that involves an individual being subjected to some form of severe punishment for offences committed. After watching the films titled “Thin Blue line,” “the Empty chair” and “Fighting for life in the Death Belt,” it can be noticed that they all include the theme of capital punishment.

In some cases, it can be observed that some of the victims undergo capital punishment for crimes they did not commit. This article is a reaction journal that will expound on the issues of capital punishment as expressed in the above movies.

In the movie titled the “Thin Blue Line,” Robert Woods, who is a police officer in Dallas is murdered by an individual who he had stopped for violating traffic rules.

As fate would have it, Randall Adams is convicted for the crime and consequently is sentenced to life imprisonment. 12 years into his conviction, an individual who has testified as the chief witness in his case, David Harris, is found guilty for a different murder and is served with the death sentence. As the movie comes to an end, Harris confesses to have also murdered Wood and Adams is therefore set free.

As one watches this film, it is difficult to miss the filmmaker’s strong opposition against capital punishment as the film exposes flaws in the criminal justice system that erroneously send many convicts to their death, some for crimes they did not commit.

The movie “The empty chair” is also another movie in which capital punishment is included. This film explores an experience that many would find very difficult to deal with: that of dealing with the events following the murdering of a close member of one’s family.

The storyline is about four loss stories one being that of Renny Cushing who had to deal with the murder of his father at the hands of a neighbor who also happens to be a police officer. The other story of loss is that of Sue Norton whose parents were not only robbed but also shot for a pickup truck and 61 USD.

The other two loss stories are those of Peter and Sue Lowenstein and Susan Ramuda, whose son was murdered over Lockerbie and whose daughter was crushed to death with a rock, respectively. On a closer look these films, one gets to realize that they are about the struggles that individuals deal with following the loss of loved ones. While some will push for capital punishment to be applied to the murderers of their loved ones, others oppose the measure.

For instance, Cushing turns in to a strong advocate against the death penalty sentence and heads an organization that advocates for reconciliation of the victims’ families. Interestingly, Norton becomes very a very close friend of the individual who murdered his parents and even fights, though in vain, to save the murderer from the death penalty. Those for the death penalty in the movie are represented by Ramunda who becomes a strong advocate for the death penalty and in many instances, is a counterpart of Cushing.

Personally, I do not advocate for the death sentence and as such, I naturally found Norton’s and Cushing’s philosophies more compelling as I watched the movie. To some extent, I also think the makers of the film also think the same given that they seem to include Cushing in the most unforgettable moments.

In the movie, Cushing argues against the death penalty by terming it as a symbol of failure by the society to satisfy the victims’ needs. Another sentence that is likely to keep lingering in the minds of viewers is the one where Cushing calls healing a process and not an event. To him, the healing process is usually characterized by forgiveness but execution only goes to show the affected individuals’ lack of forgiveness. I completely concur with this statement and frankly, I think the makers of the films do as well.

Yet another film that tackles the capital punishment issue is “Fighting for life in the Death-bed.” This film is an examination of this issue from Stephen Bright’s perspective. Bright, in the film, is among the leading lawyers in the land advocating against the death penalty, and has done so for more than two decades.

The film concentrates on the remaining few days and hours of two of his clients as he vehemently tries to save them from being executed. Even though both men are found guilty of having engaged in horrible crimes, Bright comes up with strong statements challenging the stand of the criminal justice system to execute his clients.

In conclusion, capital punishment is still an issue that evokes strong emotions going by the numerous debates concerning the issue. This journal has explored three films all of which are against the death sentence.

In my personal view, I think capital punishment is too extreme a measure especially when applied wrongly to innocent victims just as shown in the “Thin blue line.” Even for cases where the convicted individuals are guilty of grave crimes, the society should seek ways of rehabilitation and forgiving these individuals instead of subjecting them to death.