FREE ESSAY ON A PERMANENT DEATH - CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

A PERMANENT DEATH - CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

A Permanent Death - Capital Punishment 
There are five basic reasons that society uses when imposing punishment that I've been
able to conclude from my readings. I will discuss these societal concepts and show that
the death penalty does not serve to further them. As a result William Smith should not be
subject to the death penalty and in fact the same should be abolished from our system of
punishment. 
Deterrence
Deterrence is basically defined as the punishment should fit the crime. Under this
concept, the individual committing the crime and society are prevented from committing
this action again. In the case of the death penalty, an individual kills another human
and he is punished for it by death. Punishment is supposed to be a temporary penalization
for a wrongful action. Death is far from temporary. One is to learn from one's mistakes.
How can the person learn if they are paying for their mistake with their life? In Ernest
van den Haag's article, The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense he states, The death penalty
is our harshest punishment. It is irrevocable: it ends the existence of those punished,
instead of temporarily imprisoning them. (Haag, 251). By imposing the death penalty the
individual does not learn from their mistakes and neither does society.
Economy
Under this concept, punishment should be economical. As Haag points out, ...the monetary
cost of appealing a capital sentence is excessive. (Haag, 253). Further, ...actual
monetary costs are trumped by the importance of doing justice. (Haag, 253). Additionally
there are specific costs associated with keeping an inmate on death row, (i.e. the cost
of the specially built prison blocks, the need for maximum security, etc.) and more.
These costs clearly out weigh the regular costs incurred to house a regular inmate.
Deterrence is clearly not served by imposing the death penalty and society aims for
justice are thwarted. 
Restitution
Society demands that the punishment should fix the harm it has done. By sentencing a
person to death no harm has been fixed. You can not bring the murdered person back by
taking the prisoner's life. Punishment-regardless of the motivation is not intended to
revenge, offset, or compensate for the victims suffering or to be measured by it. (Haag,
253). 
Retribution
The community demands that justice be served. Would justice not equally be served and in
fact may be better served by life imprisonment? I believe it would be a worse punishment
to endure a life sentence in prison. The individual is deprived of his liberty. He will
then suffer and live the rest of his or her life within three lonely walls and a set of
bars. It gives the individual time to think and wallow in his own guilt. 
Someone kills another. The State then proceeds to kill him for doing so. This is not
punishment but revenge. Revenge is inconsistent with society's demands that justice be
served because the punishment has to fit the crime. Justice Brennan has insisted that the
death penalty is uncivilized,  inhuman, inconsistent with human dignity and with the
dignity of life. (Haag, 254). Brennan speaks of moral imperatives. It is morally wrong
for someone to kill someone. If so, then the state is committing a morally wrongful act.
As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. 
Rehabilitation
Society desires for its members to reintegrate themselves into society. Punishment
includes preparing the person to reenter society and lead a productive life. Without
doubt, if you impose the death penalty there is no opportunity for rehabilitation. 
Overview of the William Alvin Smith case
William Alvin Smith robbed and killed the owner of a grocery store in Georgia when he was
20 years old. He turned himself to the police and signed a confession. The local jury
condemned Smith to the electric chair but a federal judge ordered a new sentencing
hearing for Smith on the grounds that he lacked the ability to understand the
significance of waiving his rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present.
Smith has the mental capacity of a ten-year-old. 
Analysis of the William Alvin Smith Case in Relation to Society's Expectations of
Punishment
William Smith stands before you guilty but guilty of what? That is the question. I
propose to you that the only thing we can condemn William Smith for is being guilty of
being a child and acting the way a child would. Let us examine his actions. William Smith
in whatever state of mind he was at the time he committed this act fully acknowledged
that he did in fact do something wrong. I propose that he did that in exactly the manner
that a child would go to a parent and admit their wrongdoing in order to obtain the
parent's forgiveness or perhaps their help.
The State now stands in the role of parent in this case. Let us examine the position the
State has taken when dealing with children that have committed violent crimes. I have but
one question to ask: Do we kill our children? Let me give you a recent example - the
teenage girl in New Jersey who knowingly and premeditatedly murdered her newborn baby at
the prom and then went back to the prom dance. Another case comes to mind of the
teenagers who conspired and did murder the girlfriend's competition. An even better
example would be the rash of murders committed in the nation by children in schools. In
all these cases these children knowingly committed the heinous crime of murder.
Once again I ask you: Do we kill our children? Has the State, exercising its discretion
decided to impose the death penalty on any child? In every single case that I have just
cited, these children have not been condemned to murder but their ability to comprehend
the seriousness of their actions and other factors related to their youth have been taken
into account. All have been sentenced to prison terms to be served in a youth facility. 
Another legal fact comes to mind in that some teenagers that have committed murders have
petitioned the Court to treat the minor as an adult. The law allows a juvenile to be
treated as an adult if it is determined that the juvenile in fact is a juvenile in age
only yet has the mental capacity of an adult and should be treated like one. It stands to
reason that there is room in the law for the inverse to apply.
Why should this man die? He can not think, act or feel like a normal 20 year-old man. In
this case, we have a situation of a person who has been adjudicated to have the mental
capacity of a ten-year-old. How can we then shut our eyes to this basic fact of William
Smith's mental capacity and just look at age as the overriding factor to consider when
punishing him for his crime? 
Society demands that the punishment fit the crime. I have outlined above what society
expects from punishment and the punishment that the State decides to give out to children
in these matters. On both accounts it is clear that society is not served. Can you
examine your conscience and decide to give a child, maybe your child, the death penalty?
If so, go ahead and sentence William Smith to death and in doing so, that's exactly what
you will be doing. You will be deciding - let's kill our children.