Sunday, September 21, 2008

Capital Punishment
 
Once a suspect is caught and found guilty of a crime, that person probably isn't going anywhere. If the crime were severe enough, he or she could receive a lifetime in jail or the death penalty. Preferences for punishment vary between inmates. Some would enjoy living the rest of their lives with no cost, and others would rather die than sit in jail their entire life. The controversy then boils down to whether it is ethically right or wrong to use capital punishment.
 
Is the death penalty ethically wrong? A study done by Isaac Ehrlich in 1973 showed that for every inmate that received the death penalty, 7 lives were spared due to others being deterred from committing murder. Deterrence is a measure taken by a state to prevent further hostile actions for similar offenses or crimes. This is a primary reason behind the death penalty.
 
William Bowers of Northeastern University claims that the death penalty has the opposite affect on society. He states that our society is "brutalized" by the practice, and that it further encourages murder. It is also argued against the death penalty that it is not a deterrent, because the majority of those that commit murder do not expect to be caught or do not analyze the possible consequences. There really isn't any other reason a person would follow through with such an act. Many murders are committed on impulse or flurries of emotion. So it can also be concluded that the death penalty serves no more purpose than lifetime sentences.
 
Either way, does something need to change? The Supreme Court has decided that a automatic death penalty applied to everyone found guilty of first degree murder would be unconstitutional. This allows juries an amount of discretion in deciding whether or not a person is worthy of the death penalty. More whites have been punished by the death sentence than blacks in this country. But statistically, blacks commit more murders than white people. Also, suspects being tried for murder cannot always afford a decent lawyer. Those who cannot are most often the ones selected for the death penalty. Should such a dramatic and important sentence as the death penalty be decided on how much money the murderer has?
 
The death penalty is largely an issue of morals and ethics. Some think that not only are cable TV and free meals for life making a mockery of justice, but we are also the ones that pay for it. Others can effectively argue that awarding our government the authority to take life at their discretion is wrong. The grey area that capital punishment sits in right now is growing continuously more questioned by both sides of the argument.
 
-hot butter

 

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am against capital punishment, but I commend you for providing us with arguments to support both sides of this debate.
:)

Anonymous said...

I do not believe in the death penalty i think it is wrong to let the government take a life.
I also think its more of a punishment for them to sit in jail the rest of there life than get a way out.

Anonymous said...

Gotta love the government. I think if anything there should be more death penalties. Figure Joe Schmo goes to prison for life when hes 25 for murder. Assuming he lives to the average age, 72, he'll be in prison for 47 years. In NJ, the annual cost per inmate is about $34,000. Thats a total of $1,598,000. Thats right, one million dollars for a guy that didn't do anything but sit there and kill people. Instead, to kill him would cost $47,000. Just something to think about...

Anonymous said...

I belive we have the natural right to life, but the insant a person decides in cold blood that another peron does not have that right, the crimial is giving us his own rights. It is a little funny to make an argument that it is inhumane to take another mans life for any reason. Well then these criminals are no longer human then as they have taken a life.

Anonymous said...

I am also against the capital punishment. Not only is it under moral scrutiny, but it also costs much more then life imprisonment. According to Richard C. Dieter,"If every death sentence resulted in an execution, the extra costs to the taxpayers
would be $216,000 per execution."

dr.cake said...

tax payers do support prisons, but tax payers also pay for the hearings and appeals and such that take place after someone is put on death row, which can be more costly than someone who spends life in prison.

Anonymous said...

I am against the death penalty. By serving life in prison the convict has time to reflect on what he did. The family members of who that person killed could also show up everyday and remind him.

Anonymous said...

i very strongly believe in the death penalty. I believe that if sombody has killed sombody else they have no right to be on this planet. and it also(as lance 51) said it costs more money to imprison somone for life than to lethally inject sombody

Anonymous said...

It is time to clear up the misconceptions developed through lack of research. New Jersey abolished the death penalty on December 13, 2007. The reasoning,was that over the course of 23 years, it cost the state 253 million dollars on court cases alone. Most trials resulting in no conviction.
The Los Angeles Times researched the subject and discovered that the average death penalty case in California was 250 million dollars per execution.
The state of Kansas did an internal study only to find out that the cost of a trial, debating the death penalty, is 16 times greater then that of life imprisonment.
Duke University discovered that the death penalty in North Carolina is 2.16 million dollars more then a life sentence.
More and more states are realizing that the death penalty is costly and morally incorrect.

Anonymous said...

Isaac Ehrlich's study did not make sense to me. How can he be positive that 7 people were saved by one death penalty?

I agree with cows go moo 3- punishment can come from an individual's refection on what they did wrong. [hah it reminds me of The Scarlet Letter a bit.]