Argumentative Essay: Guilty Or Innocent

In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed for the purported killing of his three daughters by intentionally setting fire to their house, in the state of Texas. Now, years after his execution, further investigation has been done, which proves that Mr. Willingham is innocent (Cameron). There have been many cases like this throughout history, where the person accused of a crime is executed and later proven innocent, or they are found innocent while serving their time on death row. Those who support the death penalty, believe that death is the best way of making a criminal suffer for their crimes. Although, death only puts an end to the misery they may feel, and the only suffering they would have for such a sentence would be the looming thought

of what death could bring and the fact that it will be the end of their life on this Earth. Whereas, someone who is sentenced to life-without-parole lives with the guilt of their crimes, along with the miserable living conditions one can only experience in a prison, where, eventually, the prisoner will die (Radelet).
Death is final, and there is no way of bringing one’s life back. In case where someone has been executed for a crime they did not commit, and are later proven to be innocent, people wish they could bring them back and let them finish the life they once lived. It is not possible to bring someone back after they have been killed. Should not then capital punishment be considered murder in situations where the person who was executed ends up being innocent? And what qualifies a crime as being justified by a capital sentence? If we were to say it was murder, then capital punishment would be rendered unconstitutional. In the book, Deathquest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States, Robert M. Bohm gives several examples of different cases where capital punishment was considered or enforced. During the time of these cases, the law’s establishing the legalization of capital punishment bounces back and forth between constitutional and unconstitutional. With the inconsistency of the laws throughout the cases given by Bohm, one is not able to form a valid perception of whether or not capital punishment is constitutional. If the government can’t decide if it is right or not, then why are these laws being enforced? When laws constantly change, they begin to lose their validity. Even the government isn’t entirely sure as to whether the practice of the death penalty should be continued.This poses a hole in the argument for continuing the practice of this form of punishment, especially when there are alternative ways of restraining these criminals. Also, if upon some circumstance someone is proven innocent they don’t have to be brought back from the dead to live their life freely, they only need be released from their prison sentence.
The Declaration of Independence states, “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (US 1776).” When someone is killed, they are deprived of the chance of a future, they no longer have the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness; because it will have been taken away from them.

A study done by Michael L. Radelet says that we can never truly be one hundred percent certain of one’s innocence or guilt, even though to be accused of a crime the jury must be sure “beyond a reasonable doubt,” does not mean that there is still no doubt in the matter. Radelet gives an example of this by saying that because the probability of error is multiplicative, if we were to take one hundred inmates and execute them upon the notion of being at least ninety-five percent confident of their guilt, then we are leaving a five percent gap for error to occur. We would be willing to execute at least five innocent people on the chance that they all may be guilty (Radelet). Does society truly believe that it is worth the risk of taking an innocent person’s life just to make someone suffer, especially when we consider the essence of life so sacred and dear? There is a simple way to avoid this availing concern; sentence all those who are now deserving of capital punishment to a lifetime of prison without the possibility of parole. Prison is in no way a pleasant place to spend your time, and is an adequate punishment for those who commit murder. Today we have very high-security containment facilities for criminals. We can punish them without having to worry about whether or not an innocent person is being executed or if the act of execution opposes the constitution and a person’s right to

life.
The main purpose the death penalty serves as a hope to reduce the crime rate. According to Ronald L. Akers in his book, Criminology Theories, “All individuals choose to obey or violate the law by a rational calculation of the risk of pain versus potential pleasure derived from an act” (Akers). Everyone has the freedom to choose. Every choice comes with its own consequences, whether they be good or bad. Some say that the punishment must “fit the crime,” this may can be compared to the old Bible saying, “an eye for an eye,” but to a man by the name of Bentham, referenced in Aker’s book, sees it more as what will fit the benefits of society best (Aker). At the time being, the death penalty has no contributing correlation with the crime rate in most areas. There is a point where some punishments go too far, and Aker says that capital punishment is pushing the limits of doing just that. Punishments for crime are created in an effort to prevent further crime from being committed as well as reforming those who have committed crimes; seeing their wrongdoings and righting them. Capital punishment does none of which, but instead takes away one’s life along with any chance of reformity. Part of the human experience is working to be better and help others do so as well. If we are to kill anyone who commits such crimes, then how can we give hope to the younger generation of criminals, who often feel they have already gone too deep to make their way back to doing what is right. People are constantly inspired by stories of people who have to work and fight to transform themselves into the people they are today. Criminals are people too, and if they can see someone who has, by law, committed crimes of the worst definition and has become a better person, then maybe they can as well. This is not to say that just because someone has had a change in their countenance that they should be freed from their imprisonment. They should not be freed, but instead should be able to contribute to society by helping other prisoners right their wrongs before they lose the chance to do so. The deterring of crime has nothing to do with taking one’s life. It is about reform and teaching people what is right and giving them a chance to prove themselves as someone making an effort to do something good. In many prisons it has been noticed that some of the in mates who are serving life sentences in prison, begin to humble themselves over a period of time. Afterward, the change of heart they have motivates them to put forth an effort to help others change their ways and become better, since they no longer have the chance to do so outside of prison (Bedau). Acknowledging the fact that some people will never change and is a fact of life that everyone must deal with. Imprisoning death row criminals rather than executing them may not fix all problems, but unlike capital punishment, it is doing something to correct them.
In a book by Hugo Bedau, he offers insight into how the general public feels about the death penalty as a punishment for severe crimes. When people were given the choice between capital punishment and the alternative of a life sentence without parole, the death penalty becomes a minority. It is reasonable to see why people are beginning to call it the “death of the death penalty,” due to the high costs, risks of executing innocent people and the fact that there is no effect in reducing the crime rate. The practice of the death penalty should be discontinued across the United States by a federally enforced law. In doing so, criminals deserving of harsh punishment should be sentenced to a lifetime of prison in an effort to reform all criminals. Life and death are sensitive elements in nature that are often better left untampered with, are you one to be willing to possibly put someone’s innocent life at risk?