Capital Punishment
In the 1960's capital punishment was still an issue in our country. It
brought up many questions about morality which finally led to its
abolition in 1969.
In the 1950's the houses in Rillington Place were divided into 10
flats. From the outside Number 10 looked the same as every other,
however the horrors that were found in it in March 1953 made it one of
the most infamous addresses in England.
John Christie's murder method was to lure women to his house, get them
drunk then gas them. Once they were unconscious he strangled them and
finished by raping their corpses.
In 1949, Timothy Evans returned home to find his wife and 14 month old
daughter strangled to death. With shock and panic he fled to London. A
few days later he went to the police in Wales and told them of the
murders- he blamed his neighbor John Christie however he was charged
and tried for both murders and hanged in 1950. John Christie had also
fled his flat but a tenant found three dead prostitutes hidden in
Christie's kitchen. Upon further examination they found Mrs. Christie
under the floorboards in the bedroom and body parts and bones in the
garden. When he was found he confessed to have killing his wife and
eventually others. Altogether he was charged with 9 murders and hanged
on July 15th, 1953.
Timothy Evan was an innocent man hanged for a crime he did not commit.
Who has to decide whether people are innocent or guilty and does the
society have the right to take a life? By killing those who we believe
to have killed are we not ourselves made killers and sinking to the
level of those we are trying to eradicate. There was a reprieve
system, however how can we be sure that those hanged were guilty of
worse crimes than that reprieved, or was the whole reprieve system
just a lottery that was incapable of distinguishing between degrees of
wickedness?
Another case is the one of Ruth Ellis.
Murder, a common occurrence in American society, is thought of as a horrible, reprehensible atrocity. Why then, is it thought of differently when the state government arranges and executes a human being, the very definition of premeditated murder? Capital punishment has been reviewed and studied for many years, exposing several inequities and weaknesses, showing the need for the death penalty to be abolished.
Many positions can be defended when debating the issue of capital punishment. In Jonathan Glover's essay "Executions," he maintains that there are three views that a person may have in regard to capital punishment: the retributivist, the absolutist, and the utilitarian. Although Glover recognizes that both statistical and intuitive evidence cannot validate the benefits of capital punishment, he can be considered a utilitarian because he believes that social usefulness is the only way to justify it. Martin Perlmutter on the other hand, maintains the retributivist view of capital punishment, which states that a murderer deserves to be punished because of a conscious decision to break the law with knowledge of the consequences. He even goes as far to claim that just as a winner of a contest has a right to a prize, a murderer has a right to be executed. Despite the fact that retributivism is not a position that I maintain, I agree with Perlmutter in his claim that social utility cannot be used to settle the debate about capital punishment. At the same time, I do not believe that retributivism justifies the death penalty either.
“This is not a nice man … innocent is not a word that suits him in any way,” says Brian Webster when speaking of Matthew Poncelet, the man on death row in the movie Dead Man Walking. Many people feel that the death penalty is immoral and it should not be used; however I feel completely opposite. I believe that capital punishment is a fair sentence for a murderer to receive. In the movie Dead Man Walking, the main character Matthew Poncelet, is on death row waiting for the lethal injection that will soon put him to death for good.
man from killing again then so be it. I don't know if it is immoral
murder rates in given areas both before and after an execution. Clear and cole(2000) have
The death penalty dates back to the eighteenth century. Criminals received many punishments throughout the centuries such as hangings, quartering, and burning at the stake. The death penalty consists of lethal injections today. The death penalty is a controversial topic because some people are for the death penalty and some people are against the death penalty. There is no one consensus for or against the death penalty. Although there have been many studies on the immorality of the death penalty and whether or not to limit the death penalty in some ways or just completely abolish it all together. It appears that more people are leading towards getting rid of the death penalty, but the courts want to keep it because the courts argue that that it is a successful fear tactic and may prevent future crimes. The death penalty is inhumane, biased, arbitrary, and an unsuccessful fear tactic so it should be abolished.
Murder is a crime whether you look at the Bible - Thou shalt not kill
On July 2, 1976, almost two hundred years since the United States of America passed the Declaration of Independence, the Supreme Court legalized capital punishment (Appendix 1). Capital punishment executed for the crime of theft. Since then there have been an estimated 18,000 to 20,000 people lawfully executed(Espy pp.194). In the eighteenth century, England would punish by death for crimes such as pick pocketing and petty theft. After the 1650's colonist could be put to death for denying the true god or cursing their parents advocates.
Capital Punishment I recently read an article from the ACLU, written by Adam Bedau. It explained, quite eloquently, that for society to execute a murderer made society no better than the murderer himself. He said, “The executioner is no better than the criminal.” I was impressed by this moral stance, but I was surprised to read that he failed to apply this logic consistently. For example, the he went on to argue that life imprisonment would be a more appropriate penalty for murder than death. Using this ACLU logic, it appears that for our society to lock someone in a room against his will and not free him for a considerable length of time makes our society no better than the everyday kidnapper. But if an individual locked another up against his will, wouldn’t the ACLU view this as kidnapping. Being from the Methodist faith I found this argument somewhat difficult. For in the Bible there is a scripture that states, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” I presume the ACLU would agree that beatings or torture are also unacceptable forms of punishment for crimes. They seem to be inhumane. Yet in Eastern cultures, if one steals something, they lose a finger or two and sometimes an entire hand depending on the severity of the crime. This seems to be reason enough not to steal, as in these cultures there is a very low theft rate. Maybe the ACLU would find a monetary fine a more appropriate punishment? For society to take money away from someone against his will without giving him any tangible goods in return would make society a thief. Of course, the Bedau also explains that capital punishment brutalizes society, leading to even more murders. If we, as a society, adopt this no-punishment position, it logically follows that there would be less crime. Once criminals realized that no matter what they did, no fellow citizen would lift a finger to stop them, why, they’d just be so overcome with the generosity of their neighbors that they’d naturally be inclined to become upstanding, productive citizens.
Capital punishment is a very controversial subject in today’s world. People should think about what will happen to them if they commit a crime, and the consequences that will follow the crime. Society has enough problems to deal with without people committing crimes, Therefore capital punishment is desperately needed.
didn't happen. He got word, though, that there was a search of his home, and
years. It has always been considered a relatively cheap and effective way to punish the
He is escorted down to a room with handcuffs on both arms and feet. The tension in the room causes nervousness and a stirring in his stomach, which entombs his dinner from the night before. He is told to take a seat. Still in doubt of his fate he notices the witnesses and their various expressions. His family is grief-stricken, a sharp contrast to the family of the brutally murdered, for which he was found guilty of. If only they knew what he knew; for they would not be strapping him into the chair, soaking a sponge, and placing it on top of his head along with the metal skullcap. If they knew the truth there would be someone in his place today. But alas, the truth dies along with the innocent.
Capital Punishment is regarded by most as a successful deterrent to murder, but that is because these people don’t look at it as it is applied. According to retributivists such as Kant and Van Den Haag the guilty deserves to be punished. On the other hand, people against the death penalty like Bedau think that the death penalty is just as much an effective deterrent as life in prison.