Capital Punishment Essay - America Needs a Tougher Death Penalty Argumentative Persuasive Essays

America Needs a Tougher Death Penalty

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is one of the oldest and most

famous sayings in the world. It comes from the Mosaic Law in the Bible and it

is an edict that has ruled millions for thousands of years. Today the issue of

capital punishment has our nation split down the middle. The two sides have

drawn lines in the sand and are emphatically holding their ground. The need for

capital punishment is greater today then it has been at anytime in the past for

several reasons. The crime rate is soaring out of control. Murders are tearing

our people, our cities, and country apart. Many people have the same belief as

Thomas Draper, an author on the book called Capital Punishment, that no society

can abolish crime, so their only hope is to do everything they can to control it.

It is time for the United States to mandate the death penalty for the crime of

murder in all 50 states and to carry out the executions of those sentenced to

death. Capital Punishment is the lawful infliction of the death penalty. In

England, by 1500, only major felonies carried the death penalty: treason,

murder, larceny, burglary, rape, and arson. The American colonies adhered with

Englands' view on the death penalty, for there was little they could do about it.

However in the 1750's reform movements spread through Europe, and in 1847 they

reached the United States. In 1847, Michigan became the first state to abolish

the death penalty for murder.

Beginning in 1967, executions were suspended to allow the appellate

courts to decide whether the death penalty was unconstitutional. In 1972, the

Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty for murder or

for rape violated the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" (Bedau

1). Four years later the Supreme Court reversed its decision in Gregg v. Georgia.

They held the death penalty for murder and rape was not unconstitutional. The

next year executions resumed, and by 1991, some 2,350 person were under death

sentences in 36 states. About 150 prisoners including one woman, had been

executed. Current capital statutes authorize a trial court to impose either a

life or death sentence only after a post conviction hearing. Evidence is

submitted to establish which 'aggravating' or 'migrating' factors were present

in the crime" (Bedau 1). If it is in the courts mind that "aggravating" factors

prevail and hand down the death sentence, then the case is automatically

reviewed by an appellate court. Also in 1977, the Supreme Court held that death

sentences for rape were "grossly disproportionate and excessive." The methods

for carrying out a death sentence in the United States today are hanging,

electrocution, gas chamber, firing, squad, and lethal injection.

Americans feel strongly about the death penalty, but it is something

they know very little about. Their attitudes are based on emotion rather than

information or rational argument. People see the death penalty as something you

are either for or against. This idea is supported by the fact that the wording

of questions about the death penalty in public opinion polls change the

percentages by the smallest amount (Ellsworth). Hugo A. Bedau, author of Facing

the Death Penalty, states that 70% of Americans favor the death penalty for

murder. The people who favor the death penalty, favor it because they have a

goal in mind, the reduction of crime. Whether it does or not will be discussed

later. Thomas Draper, author of Capital Punishment, states that there are

certain people who do not belong in our society. There are some who have

committed such hevious crime that they don't deserve to live. Phoebe Ellsworth,

author of "Hardening of Attitudes", took a poll that stated the support declined

through the 1950's to a low of 47% in 1966, but increased steadily from 1966

through 1982 and has remained stable in the range of 70-75%. Another poll taken

by Tom Kuntz, author of "Should We Kill Those Who Kill" reflects the public view

on the deterrent effect of the death penalty. According to a poll of 651

registered voters in New York, 57% feel the death penalty does deter murder, 40%

feel it does not, and 3% had no answer. What citizens feel and why they feel

it is up for debate, one thing there is no debating, though, is that they most

definitely feel.

Those in opposition to the death penalty give several reasons for the

United States to abolish capital punishment. First, it is more expensive to the

tax payer to execute a murder than have them serve a life sentence. "A Duke

University study of 77 murder cases in North Carolina in 1991 and 1992 concluded

that the average cost to try a noncapital murder case $166,000, while the

average cost to convict and execute was $329,000" (Kuntz 3). Once the death

penalty becomes a federal law and all 50 states must abide by it the cost of

capital trials will drop dramatically. The high cost is due to long litigation

procedures and retrials that stem from the uncertainty of the law. Second, "The

death penalty has been shown to have been administered with racial bias"

(Bedau,179). On the other hand, "Evidence of racial discrimination proves it to

be no worse than the discrimination in convictions on lesser crimes" (Bedau,

180). So the problem is not the death penalty, but rather an unfortunate trend

in all legal cases. Third, even murders have a right to life. Does a murder

have more right to life than the person or persons he killed. They are no

longer with us, should he/she be allowed to continue his/her life. "If a murder

is not executed he will eventually die anyway. The death penalty only hastens

the inevitable. Death of old age and disease are quite often more painful the

execution" (Draper,130). Opponents will also say that the death penalty

cheapens human life. "On the contrary to what some might argue, capital

punishment does not cheapen human life, rather by making the penalty so high it

strengthens the value of human life" (Draper,139). Some people feel it is

wrong for the state to kill at anytime, but they do not oppose war. "If a

foreign enemy did 1/10 of what our own criminal did to us they would be appalled.

Let them consider this a war on crime" (Draper,121). They do not deem it right

for the government to execute it's own citizens, but by doing so the government

is saving many innocent lives. Fourth, Americans who follow the teaching of

Jesus Christ believe it is morally wrong to take the life of anyone at anytime.

Some people invoke religious reasons why they will not support capital

punishment. "Jesus forebode murder as a form of retaliation, not as a form of

punishment. Jesus also said to forgive your enemies, but what if the wrong was

not done onto you" (Draper, 119). One of the 10 Commandment states, "Thou shalt

not kill". Is it not also written in the Old Testament" An eye for an eye, a

tooth for a tooth." Fifth, opponents cite lines from the Constitution take out

of context. "No person is to be deprived of . . . life . . . without due

process of law," according to the Constitution. If due process of law is given,

then according to the very same document, life can be deprived. Next is the

Eight Amendment which forebodes "cruel and unusual punishment," by the

government. The Eight Amend meant was made part of the Constitution in 1791.

It was aimed at preventingmethods of execution which tried to inflict maximum

suffering such as: burning, drawing and quartering, and impalement. Today's

method of execution are painless, depending upon which method is chosen. Lastly

is the deterrent affect. Anti-death penalty supports claim that capital

punishment has no deterrent affect on future murders. "The flaw people make

when speaking of deterrence is looking at states with capital punishment statues

rather than states where execution are carried out" (Draper 115). If the

statistics are looked at from that angle a different result follows. "A study

by econometrican Isaac Ehrlich contended for each execution carried out, between

seven and eight murders were prevented" (Draper,115). Each one of the other

sides seemingly solid arguments has an Achilles heal, and when it is exposed the

argument loses much of its validity.

The argument in favor of capital punishment are based less on emotion

and more on rational thought and fact. Draper states in the late 1960's and

early 1970's when there was a reluctance by judges to use the death penalty, the

homicide rate doubled from 4.7 to 9.4 murders per 100,000 persons. According to

human nature, The question is not do threats deter, but how much more does one

threat deter composed to another. Society believes that punishment is a

deterrent. Draper concludes if it can be said that any punishment at all is a

deterrent, then it would seem to me that the most severe punishment would be the

best deterrent This is what author Walter Berns had to say, take a moment to

reflect on this hypothetical situation. If life imprisonment was the sentence

for murders committed on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and death was the

sentence for murders committed on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, we would

quickly see the deterrent affect of the death penalty. To look at the legal

side of thedebate, "The law has two purposes: to forestall criminal behavior,

and to punish it. All sentencing is based on the principal that punishment

should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime" (Draper 111). What

good is punishment if it does ratify the harm and injustice caused by crime.

Quotes by convicted killers before they were put to death make it curious to

know what made them speak out against killing right before they lost their own

life". On the side of capital punishment are many great thinkers in our history,

Rousseau, Kent, Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, Locke, and Hobbes' (Draper 113).

French philosopher Montesquieu went as far as to say "The death penalty shall be

prescribed as the medicine for a social malady". "Data shows that some

murderers have killed again after a convinction and prison sentence for murder.

This indicates a risk it will happen again" (Bedau, 179). So the problem lies

in the risk of either executing the innocent or a recidivist murderer.

Nobody knows how long the debate over capital punishment will continue.

Long after a law is passed, either for or against the death penalty, the

argument will still go on. In my mind, anti-death penalty supports are trying to

avoid a very serious problem, the problem of brutal crimes in America.