FREE ESSAY ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Capital punishment is the execution of a perpetrator for committing a heinous crime
(homicide), and it is a hotly debated topic in our society. The basic issue is whether
capital punishment should be allowed as it is today, or abolished in part or in whole. My
argument is that:
1) Capital punishment is not an effective deterrent for heinous crimes.
2) Life imprisonment can be worse of a punishment than death, not as 
costly as execution, and better for rehabilitation.
3) The innocent can be wrongly put to death.
Conclusion: Capital punishment should be abolished.
Though capital punishment might seem like the only way to get revenge, it is morally
unjust. Who are we to decide whether a person should live or die? It is morally wrong,
individually or through government action, to seek revenge on a murderer by means of
execution. The death penalty violates our right to life.
Capital Punishment is Not an Effective Deterrent
As justification for capital punishment, deterrence is used to suggest that executing
murderers will decrease the homicide rate by causing other potential murderers not to
commit murder from fear of being executed themselves and obviously the murderer who is
executed will not kill again. This position may seem initially correct, and indeed, in a
USA Today Poll, 68% of respondents agreed that the death penalty is an effective
deterrence for crimes. However, some research suggests that rather than deterring
homicide, state executions actually may cause an increase in the number of homicides
(Stack, 1990). This phenomenon has been called the brutalization hypothesis and it
suggests that through proposition, modeling, or by legitimizing killing, the death
penalty actually causes an increase in homicides. Thus, the brutalization hypothesis is a
reason for opposing the death penalty.
On the other hand, a study prepared for the UN in 1988 showed that abolishing the death
penalty shows no significant change in the number of crimes committed. Since Canada's
abolishing of the death penalty in 1975, homicide rate actually decreased 27 percent (up
to 1993).
Life Imprisonment
Life imprisonment can be worse of a punishment than death for many convicted murderers.
Instead of an easy out, these people will have to live out their lives without many of
the freedoms and rights you and I take for granted. These people will be told when to
wake, when to eat, when to work, and when to sleep. They will live out the rest of their
days with the same monotonous routine, and after a while, many become so accustomed to
it, that they lose their skills for live on the outside.
Some of those who support the death penalty base their argument on the fact that it is a
cost-effective alternative to life imprisonment. However, it may be more costly to
execute an inmate than to have that person serve a life sentence (Amnesty International,
1987). A 1982 study in New York concluded that the average capital murder trial and the
first stage of appeals costs U.S. tax-payers 1.8 million dollars (Bohm, 1987). It is
estimated that this is less than it would cost to incarcerate someone for one hundred
years. Other sources estimate that it can cost up to 2.2 million dollars to obtain and
carry out a death sentence (Johnson, 1990). The principal factor in this cost is the
appeals process, which lasts an average of ten years and is deemed necessary to reduce
the likelihood of the execution of an innocent person.
Obviously, the execution of a murderer deems him/her incapable of murdering again.
However, those who support the concept of rehabilitation say that imprisonment is
effective in preventing murderers from killing again. Murderers have the lowest rate of
re-committing a homicide than people who have served time for other offenses (Johnson,
1990).
The Innocent
With convictions and executions, there is always a chance that someone was wrongly filed
with charges. What are we to do with these people? In a study of capital convictions from
1900 to 1986 conducted by Radelet and Bedau, 350 cases were identified in which
defendants were mistakenly convicted of crimes they did not commit, and of these 350, 24
were executed. Though 24 un-called for executions in 87 years don't sound too bad, the
number should be zero. Society must determine whether the risk of wrongly executing an
innocent person is worth taking to reap the benefits of executions of convicted
murderers.
Conclusion
The latest information for Amnesty International states that 70 countries have completely
abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Thirteen countries have abolished the death
penalty for all but exceptional crimes, such as wartime crimes. Twenty-three countries
haven't abolished the death penalty by law, but haven't carried out any executions in the
last ten years. Once abolished, most countries do not reintroduce the death penalty.
Since 1985, 35 countries have abolished the death penalty. During that period, only four
reintroduced it - Nepal then once again abolished it. During 1998 at least 2,258
prisoners are known to have been executed in 37 countries and 4,845 sentenced to death in
78 countries. These figures include only cases known to Amnesty International; the true
figures are certainly higher. More than one hundred countries have laws preventing child
offenders (under the age of18) from the death penalty. Six countries are known to have
executed child offenders. The largest number of executions of persons under the age of
eighteen was ten in 1990 in the United States.
One of the most important developments in recent years has been the adoption of
international treaties where countries commit themselves to not having the death penalty.
Three such treaties exist now: The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, which has been by 40 countries; The Protocol No. 6 to the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which
has now been ratified by 33 European countries; Protocol to the American Convention on
Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty, which has been ratified by six countries in
the Americas and signed by two others. Protocol No. 6 is meant only to abolish the peace
penalty in peacetime. The other two are meant for total abolishment.
Sixty-eight prisoners were executed in the United States in 1998, bring the total for an
even five hundred since the death penalty was resumed in 1977. Over 3500 prisoners were
under the sentence of death as off April 1, 1999. Thirty-eight of the fifty US states now
provide for the death penalty law. The death penalty is also provided under the US
military and civilian law.
Hopefully I've made the point that the death penalty is useless except for delivering
some sort of closure to a victims' loved ones, through this type of closure is morally
wrong, and can be achieved through life imprisonment of the murderer. And because capital
punishment is not an effective deterrent, because life imprisonment is a better option,
and because the innocent wouldn't have to die; capital punishment should be abolished.