Debates on Capital Punishment in the US

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Arguments for capital punishment
Arguments against capital punishment
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Capital punishment refers to the act of killing an individual who has been found guilty of committing a certain crime (Gottfried, 2003, p.35). Capital punishment is a severe form of punishment because a victim cannot repeal a death sentence. A less severe alternative to death sentence is life imprisonment. Despite its existence, some countries still practice capital punishment.

The debate on whether capital punishment is ethical and moral has elicited different opinions in different societies. Proponents of capital punishment argue that it guarantees permanent security and safety to communities, it deters crime, it is appropriate for some crimes such as murder, and it is less costly (Gottfried, 2003, p.37).

On the other hand, opponents argue that it is inhuman, it is unfair if someone is wrongly convicted, it is a violation of human rights, it affects the emotional and psychological well-being of a victim’s family members, and it is against God’s will (Gottfried, 2003, p.41). Capital punishment should be reaffirmed because it is an effective method that could be used to deter crime and improve security.

In the United States, 35 states have the death penalty in their legal system. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there have been 1226 death sentences in the United States since the year 1976 (McCafferty, 2011, p.53).

In 2010, there were 38 executions. This number decreased from 106 executions in 2009 (McCafferty, 2011, p.53). Some methods used to kill criminals include hanging, shooting by a firing squad, intoxication in a gas chamber, electrocution, and lethal injection.

Arguments for capital punishment

Capital punishment has several advantages that render it valid as a form of punishment for crime. First, it guarantees the safety and security of prison staff and the people in the external community (McCafferty, 2011, p.58). Individuals who receive a death penalty are usually dangerous and highly violent people.

Executed criminals cannot commit crimes either after their release from prison or in prison. Their execution guarantees the safety of prison staff and the public. Their death is an assurance of security because they cannot continue their unlawful acts and this improves security.

Secondly, capital punishment deters crime by discouraging criminals from engaging in crime (Gottfried, 2003, p.42). In countries such as Singapore that have death penalty, lower rates of crime have been reported. Capital punishment deters crime because of its severe consequences.

Between the years 1993 and 1997, the death penalty was widely used in the United States due to a rise in crime. As a result, the rate of murder dropped from 24,562 people to 18, 209 people (McCafferty, 2011, p.54). This drop was as a result of the avoidance of the severe consequences of capital punishment by criminals.

Thirdly, it is the right form of punishment for certain crimes because it is equal to the crime committed (Gottfried, 2003, p.45). For example, capital punishment is the best punishment for murder because it is equal to the crime.

Any other form of punishment would be unfair because it would be less serious than the crime itself. Proponents argue that victims of crime receive justice when criminals are killed because the penalty is equal to the crime committed. The individual is made to pay by death in proportion to the crime committed.

Fourthly, capital punishment is less costly that other forms of punishment such as life imprisonment (Gottfried, 2003, p.46). The cost of imprisoning an individual for life is more than the cost of killing the individual. It is logic to award a death penalty to an individual instead of life imprisonment because it prevents use of government resources, which are instead used for other more viable projects.

Arguments against capital punishment

Opponents of capital punishment present several arguments to support the abolishment of capital punishment. First, they argue that it is unethical and cruel (McCafferty, 2011, p.61). Killing a person is inhuman even though the person may have acted in an inhuman manner. They claim that each person has a right to life and should not be killed under any circumstance.

Capital punishment is inhuman because the methods used for execution inflict intense pain and suffering to the individual. As such, the individual’s right to life is violated. Even though a criminal practices inhumanity by committing a crime, killing the individual does not solve the problem entirely.

Capital punishment is ironical because its main teaching is that killing someone who has killed is moral and justifiable (McCafferty, 2011, p.62). However, this argument is ambiguous because different cultures interpret the concept of humanity differently.

Secondly, it is an unfair form of punishment for individuals who are convicted wrongly. For example, since 1976, 130 people have been released from death row after they were proved innocent (McCafferty, 2011, p.64). In severe cases, some people are killed after being wrongly convicted.

It is unfair for a person to be executed even though he/she is innocent. Some people have been proven innocent but the proof of their innocence came too late that they were executed before they were released. In addition, some criminals ask for a chance to amend their ways and become better citizens. However, with a death sentence, that is impossible.

In a case where an innocent individual is executed, the execution is irreversible, and the government lives with the guilt of executing an innocent citizen. The fact that an innocent individual could be wrongly convicted is not a good enough reason to abolish capital punishment. This is because in the same way, guilty individuals could be wrongly released for lack of enough evidence (McCafferty, 2011, p.68).

Thirdly, capital punishment is a violation of the human right to life (Gottfried, 2003, p.73). Despite the degree of a crime committed by an individual, killing him/her violates his/her right to life. This argument varies from society to society because human rights are determined by factors such as religion, cultural beliefs and religion, which vary among societies.

Opponents argue that sentences such as life imprisonment could be awarded instead of capital punishment because they do not violate an individual’s right to life (Gottfried, 2003, p.74). In some societies, the interpretation of human rights allows capital punishment for individuals who violate the human rights of others.

Fourthly, capital punishment is not fair and may cause emotional and psychological trauma to a victim’s family members (McCafferty, 2011, p.71). In countries where it is practiced, capital punishment is a form of compensation for a crime committed using the life of the criminal. This is immoral because two wrongs cannot make a right. An individual deserves a chance to reform for a better life.

In addition, the pain experienced in executions could be unbearable. The degree of pain depends on the method of execution used. Despite the method used, the pain affects both the individual and his/her family.

Family members may be traumatized and as such suffer emotionally and psychologically, which may affect their lives negatively (Gottfried, 2003, p.72). For example, if the individual has young children, they may be unable to live normal lives owing to the effects of the knowledge of their father’s execution.

Fifthly, capital punishment denies the victims a chance to reform and practice spiritual redemption (Gottfried, 2003, p.75). Even though an individual may be sorry and remorseful for committing a crime, reformation is impossible with a death penalty. In most societies, spiritual redemption is considered a priority mainly at the time of death. Spiritual redemption means making peace with fellow human beings and God before death.

However, capital punishment victims do not get this opportunity. Opponents consider capital punishment unethical because they argue that death should be natural and not induced in any way.

Conclusion

Capital punishment is the killing of an individual who has been convicted of committing a certain crime. The issue of whether capital punishment is moral and ethical is a controversial one. Some countries have abolished it while others still practice it. For example, in the United States, 35 stares practice capital punishment.

Proponents argue that it deters crime, guarantees permanent security, it is appropriate for crimes such as murder and rape, and it is less costly than alternative punishments such as life imprisonment.

Opponents argue that it is inhuman, may be unfair if someone is wrongly convicted, it is a violation of human rights, it affects the emotional and psychological well-being of family members and it s unfair. Capital punishment should be reaffirmed because it is the best method of stopping crime and hence improving the security and safety of all people.

References

Gottfried, T2003, Capital Punishment: the Death Penalty Debate, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.

McCafferty, J 2011, Capital Punishment, Aldine Transaction, New York.

Click Here To Order Now!