FREE ESSAY ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

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? The death
penalty is our harshest punishment. It is irrevocable: it ends the existence of those
punished, instead of temporarily imprisoning them. 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 The monetary cost of appealing a
capital sentence is excessive. Further, actual monetary costs are trumped by the
importance of doing justice. 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.
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 their 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. Many have insisted that the death
penalty is uncivilized, inhuman, inconsistent with human dignity and with the dignity of
life. They speak 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. 
As stated there are good reasons for and against capitol punishment. A crime punishable
by death, theoretically, is less likely to be committed, whereas imprisonment does not
seem quite so harsh. I believe we need to make the idea of imprisonment seem more
damning. What many do not concentrate on is that while in prison the prisoners are
focused on aspects of psychiatric recovery, such as Rehabilitation and restitution; most
people see a life sentence as a few years in prison, and then they are paroled. The
purpose and the severity of prison need to be reinforced to make people realize the
penalties for their actions.