FREE ESSAY ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Crime is inevitably one of the biggest problems that faces the modern world today. It can
be found all over the world, whether in large cities or small villages. Over time,
society has tried to find ways to deal with crime. Such methods include community
service, paying a fine serving some time in prison, and in the case of more serious
crimes, the death penalty. This is the case in some states in the U.S. where persons have
been executed for aggravated assault, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, sabotage and
espionage. Advocates for capital punishment feel that it deters criminals from committing
crime and that if the criminal is not executed, the risk later extends to the community
as such persons may escape or be pardoned or paroled. Although believers in the death
penalty feel that it deters people from committing violent crime and is a variable
solution for protecting society , capital punishment is immoral, it cannot be proved to
be a deterrent, it violates the principle of double effect, it is often applied with
inequities, is condemned by the Church as heresy, and should be eradicated.
Before an actual argument in favour of the eradication of the death penalty it is
important to define what capital punishment actually is. Capital punishment is the
execution of a criminal under death sentence imposed by competent public authority. It is
derived from the Roman word, caput, meaning the head, the life or the civil rights of an
individual. Unlike the revenge of a single person, this penalty is a manifestation of the
communities will to vindicate its laws and systems of justice. The death penalty was used
in ancient times as well. The earliest historical records contain evidence of capital
punishment. It was mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi, a collection of laws and edicts by
Babylonian king Hammurabi that date from the first half of the 18th century BC. The Bible
prescribed death as the penalty for more than 30 different crimes, ranging from murder to
fornication Whoever hits a man and kills him is to be put to death.( Exodus 21:12) The
Draconian Code of ancient Greece imposed capital punishment for every offense. It also
existed in the legal codes of the Ancient Middle Eastern Kingdoms. These codes commonly
prescribed death for murder, religious and sexual offenses. The Israelites listed capital
crimes as homicide, bearing false witness in a capital charge, kidnapping, insult or
injury to parent, sexual immortality, magic, idolatry, blasphemy and sacrilege. During
the reigns of King Canute and William the Conqueror in the 11th century AD, the death
penalty was not used in England. However, the results of interrogation and torture were
often fatal. By the end of the 15th century, English law recognized seven major crimes:
treason (grand and petty), murder, larceny, burglary, rape, and arson. By 1800 more than
200 capital crimes were recognized, and as a result, 1000 or more individuals were
sentenced to death each year (although most sentences were commuted by royal pardon). In
the American colonies before the Revolution, the death penalty was commonly authorized
for a wide variety of crimes. African Americans, whether slave or free, were threatened
with death for many crimes that were punished less severely when committed by whites. In
the early days if death was prescribed, the sentence was often carried out by stoning
hanging, beheading, strangulation or burning at the stake. Today, there are different
methods of execution such as the electric chair, the gas chamber, lethal injection or
death before a firing squad.
All of the methods of executions above are all highly immoral. Not only are they brutal
and savage, but they are destroying the person's basic human good of life, therefore,
violating the principle of morality or moral action. This principle states that when
freely choosing human goods and avoiding what is opposed to them, one should choose in a
way that does not directly damage, destroy or impede any one of the basic human goods in
one's self or in others. The basic human good of life refers simply to the preservation
of life and to various aspects of health, safety and the removal of pain. It is
relatively obvious to see, that killing a criminal his basic human good is being
destroyed. It is easy to say, it is easy to say he/she is a criminal and deserves the
death sentence, but he/she is still a human being, and
Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves 'the creation of God', and it
remains forever in a special relationship with the creator...[N]o one can in any
circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being.
(Pope John Paul II, 94) 
Furthermore, God himself proclaims that He is the absolute Lord of the life of man, who
is formed in His image, giving human life a sacred and inviolable character. As far as
the right to life is concerned, every human being is equal to all others by virtue of the
simple fact that they are humans and nothing else.
Similar to the right to life, advocates of the death penalty feel that it deters
criminals and potential criminals from committing violent crimes, thus lengthening their
own lives, and the lives of others. There is a problem, however, with this line of
thinking because all of the empirical evidence is ambiguous and can have alternative
explanations. For example, during the 1980's, the states that employed the death penalty
averaged seven and a half homicides per one hundred thousand people, while eradication
states averaged just under seven and a half homicides per one hundred thousand people.
There is no solid evidence that capital punishment deters crime. In fact majority of the
police chiefs surveyed all across America feel that the death penalty is not to be a
effective deterrent. In some cases, the death penalty may have the opposite effect
altogether. For example, in England, when public hanging was the punishment for a
pickpocket, the other pickpockets found it a good time to pick pockets when everyone's
attention was on the pickpocket being hanged. Those who believe in capital punishment
think that ...[a] would-be murderer [would] think twice before taking a life if he [knew]
that he may well forfeit his own in doing so. (Sorell,32-33) This theory makes sense, but
it is hard to prove because it assumed that all criminals use rational thought. It
excludes those who murder in a fit of passion, or those who plan to kill others and
themselves . Other things besides the death penalty could cause more murders, for
example, tensions within families, or factors as diverse as adultery and unemployment.
Advocates also argued at unless murders are execute they might some day be free to kill
again and others may be tempted to kill. With this philosophy, a human life is
intentionally taken as a means of achieving a hoped for but uncertain end, a reduction in
deadly crime. The end, deterrence, justifies the evil means execution. This is a
violation of the principal of double effect. 
The principle of double effect is a principle that recognizes that moral decisions often
have two effects, a good one and a bad one. In order to obtain the good we must have no
choice but to tolerate the bad one. Self-defense is a good example to illustrate how the
principle works. The good defender intends that removal of deadly force that is
threatening his/her life. This is inseparably linked to the evil that he/she must commit,
which is the death of a person. This principle, however, does not apply when the state
executes a criminal for murder or another capital offense, but first we must distinguish
between two parts of good and evil effects. First, both effects, neither of which causes
the other, resolved from a single act or procedure. Secondly, the evil effect produces or
induces the good means to an end. When the second part is examined, it is important to
realize that 
...a good end, no matter how compelling, never justifies an evil means. Never, in other
words may [one fundamental human good] be intentionally sacrificed... for the sake of
another (Campbell,17). 
Only in the first case can the principle of double effect be invoked. Capital punishment
is similar to the second case. It violates the principle in that through evil means, the
execution of a human being, can a good end, the protection of the common good, be
obtained. Another example how the principle of double effect works can be shown through a
person who has a deadly tumor in his leg which must be removed, but may cause a problem
with mobility. The procedure, there for, has two effect the preservation of life which is
intended, and the crippling which is not intended. In this case, neither effect causes
the other, but both are a result of the operation. One good, mobility, is denied by which
another is affirmed, life. The benefit must be proportional to the harm. It would be
wrong, however, to give consent to a procedure that cripples in order to attain money
because the good end must not be obtained through evil means. The principle of double
effect is similar to the argument that stresses the whole is greater than the part. For
example, there is a hockey team with great potential, but there is one selfish player
that hogs the puck, takes stupid penalty's, and takes long shifts. The selfish player
must be dropped from the team in order for the team to progress, even though it means
playing with one less player until they get use to it. I is not, however, a mater of
obtaining a good end through an evil means, but rather curtailing the same team we intend
to help. This makes the death penalty seem just, wrong. Once this criminal is behind
bars, he is no longer an immediate threat to the larger part of the community, and
therefore, the death penalty serves no purpose.
The purpose of the death penalty is to ... redress the disorder caused by the offense.
(Catechism, para.2266) This is done by public authority when they impose an adequate
punishment for the crime. It is hard to defend these executions on the grounds of simple
retribution. Those who advocate capital punishment for murder on retributive grounds must
face the objection that sometimes the death penalty is more inadequate. For example, how
does in the electric chair, gas chamber or firing squad match as retribution given the
savage, brutal, heedless characters of so many murders. If the idea of lex talionis, a
life for a life, were to be embraced literally, then those who believed in the death
penalty would bind themselves as cruel and savage as the criminals they are executing.
Perhaps even worse, is the fact that they would be doing this through the light of reason
where as a criminal commits such crimes ...impulsively or in hatred and anger or with an
insane or unbalanced mind. (Bedau, 246)
For there to be an equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had
warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who,
from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not
encountered in private life (Bedau, 247)
Life imprisonment, on the other hand, does fit the crime of murder and can even be
claimed to be the proper one because it is retributive, but not in the literal sense of
the lex talionis. Another way in which the death penalty has been applied with inequities
is that all sociological evidence points to the conclusion that the death penalty is poor
man's justice. They either have poor defense at trial; they have no money to bring
helping witness' to trial; no funds for an appeal or for a transcript of the trial
record; or they are strangers in the community in which they are being tried. Capital
punishment is also radically sensitive. every study for the death penalty for rape
(unconstitutional only since 1977) has confirmed that black male rapists (especially
where the victim is a white female) are far more likely to be sentenced to death than a
white male rapists. (Bedau,247-248) similar studies show that black murderers are more
likely to end up on death row than other killers. Even killers of whites rather than
non-whites , are more likely to end up on death row. Persons are executed not because
they are found to be uncontrollably violent or likely to escape, but because they are
victims of prejudice and discrimination. A punishment as severe as death should be fairly
enforced and applied if it is to be used.
The use of the death penalty was condemned by Pope John Paul II last year in Missouri in
front of one hundred thousand people. He even urged the people to spare even those who
commit great evil. According to the Pope, modern society has the means of protecting
itself without definitely denying criminals the to change to reform.( the star, Jan.
28/99) What he was really doing, however, was ...renew[ing] the appeal [he] made most
recently at Christmas (1999) for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both
cruel and unnecessary. (the star, Jan. 28/99) He declared that the dignity of human life
must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. (the star,
Jan.28/99) The Church strongly believes that  if bloodless means are sufficient to defend
human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons,
public authority must limit each other to such means... (Catechism, para.2267) Not only
is the death penalty cruel and unnecessary, but it is also a grave act of disobedience to
the moral law and to God Himself, the creator of the Law. Does the fifth commandment not
forbid directly and intentionally killing a human being on the grounds that all life is
sacred ? it does, and all those who do advocate the direct and intentional killing of a
criminal are sinners in the eyes of the Church. In short, the Pope established the
Church's position on the controversial issue of capital punishment in saying that [He]
confirm[s] that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always
gravely immoral. (Pope John Paul II, 101)
although the death penalty may seem to be excellent solution for deterring violent crime
and protecting society, it is quite obvious that it is immoral, has no empirical evidence
to support the fact that it may be a deterrent. It violates the principle of double
effect, is often applied with inequities , and is condemned by the Church and the Pope as
heresy. Rehabilitation and life-long incarceration are two effective solutions to the
problem that has been facing the whole world for centuries. Unfortunately there is no way
to bring about a complete halt to violent crimes, but measures can be taken to ensure
that the punishments are morally upright and acceptable. 
Bibliography
WORKS CITED
John Paul II, Pope. The Gospel of Life = Evangelium Vitae. New York: Random House, 1995
Steins, Richard. The Death Penalty: Is It Justice ?. New York: Twentieth Century Books, ?
1993
Bedau, Hugo Adam. Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases./Michael L.
Radelet. [Stanford, Calif.: S.N.], ?1987
Wekesser, Carol. The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven
Press,?1991
Tushnet, Mark V.. The Death Penalty. New York, NY: Facts File, ?1994
Sorell, Tom. The Cambridge Companion To Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1996
Schabas, William. The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1997
Baird, Robert M. & Rosenbaum, Stuart E.. Punishment and the Death Penalty: The Current
Debate. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, ?1995
http://www.thestar.com/-back issues
Microsoft? Encarta? Encyclopedia 99. ? 1193-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
Reserved 
Catechism of the Catholic Church/ Austin Flannery,. O.P.copyright?1992, Costello
Publishing Company Inc.