The Death Penalty in the United States The death penalty is a controversial topic in the United States today and has been for a number of years. The death penalty is currently legal in 38 states and two federal jurisdictions (Winters 97). The death penalty statutes were overturned and then reinstated in the United States during the 1970's due to questions concerning its fairness (Flanders 50). The death penalty began to be reinstated slowly, but the rate of executions has increased during the 1990's (Winters 103-107). There are a number of arguments in favor of the death penalty. Many death penalty proponents feel that the death penalty reduces crime because it deters people from committing murder if they know that they will receive the death penalty if they are caught. Others in favor of the death penalty feel that even if it doesn't deter others from committing crimes, it will eliminate repeat offenders. Death penalty opponents feel that the death penalty actually leads to an increase in crime because the death penalty desensitizes people to violence, and it sends the message that violence is a suitable way to resolve conflicts. Death penalty opponents also condemn the death penalty because of the possibility of an innocent person being put to death, and because it can be unfairly applied. Death penalty opponents feel that the death penalty must be abolished because it cheapens the value of human life. The death penalty desensitizes people to murder and violence because, by executing people, the state sends the message that violence is an acceptable means of resolving conflicts. The death penalty also reduces the gravity of the loss of human life by making it legal for the state to kill people it deems to be beyond reform (Winters 57). Death penalty opponents defend their claims that the death penalty actually causes an increase in crime citing statistics such as that in California, between 1952 and 1967 there were an average of 6 executions per year. From 1968 until 1991, there were no executions. In the period from 1952 to 1967 the murder rate was double that of the murder rate in the years from 1968 to 1991. Also the average murder rate in states with the death penalty is 8%, whereas in states without the death penalty the murder rate is only 4.4% ("Deterrence"). Another argument that death penalty opponents point to is the fact that states that abolish and then reintroduce the death penalty do not seem to have any change in their murder rates (Bedau). Death penalty opponents also point to the fact that over half of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, including all other major industrialized, democratic nations (Flanders 35). In the five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty, the murder rate is 21.6 murders per 100,000 people. In the five countries with the highest homicide rates that do impose the death penalty, the murder rate is 41.6 murders per 100,000 people ("Deterrence"). Furthermore, the United States has the highest crime and murder rates of any of the other major democratic nations, all of which have abandoned the death penalty (Hauss 53). In 1965, Great Britain called for a five-year moratorium on executions following a recent decline in the imposition of the death penalty and growing anti- death penalty sentiments in the country. In 1969, the government abolished the death penalty altogether because there had been no surge in homicides or crime (Flanders 45). Death penalty opponents feel that these statistics lend credence to the argument that the death penalty does not cause a decrease in homicides and in some instances may even lead to an increase in murders. Death penalty statutes currently in place in the United States are also said to violate contemporary standards of decency and various international treaties, because they allow the execution of the mentally disabled and minors. According to the National Bar Association, the current laws that allow the mentally retarded to be put to death violate contemporary standards of decency ("U.S."). The National Coalition Against the Death Penalty states that people with mental disabilities often may be unaware of what they are doing, and can often be easily coerced into confessing. A case in point is Jerome Bowden who signed a statement confessing to murder even though he was illiterate. He signed it because police had told him that signing it would be to his benefit. He was later convicted and executed ("Mental"). Another example of a mentally retarded person receiving the death penalty was when Morris Odell Mason was executed in 1985. On his way to the death chamber he told another inmate, "When I get back, I'm gonna show him how I can play basketball as good as he can." He clearly did not understand his impending fate ("Mental"). At present over 10% of the death row population are said to be afflicted by mental retardation ("Mental"). The current statutes that allow the execution of minors are in contradiction of every major human rights treaty on the subject of capital punishment ("U.S."). The United States is one of only six countries that have executed juveniles since 1990. The other five are Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran ("Stop"). The US has sentenced to death the most juveniles of any of these countries. Even China, famous for its human rights abuses, has criticized the US for this practice ("U.S."). In 1996, prosecutors in some states sought the death penalty for children as young as 13. This has brought about widespread criticism from other nations of the world ("Stop"). Death penalty opponents use these facts as evidence that society is not competent enough to carry out the death penalty. Death penalty opponents also feel that the judicial system is not flawless, and that in the United States the death penalty is handed down unfairly ("Executing"). One example of the unfair application of the death penalty is that women make up only 1% of the death row population in the U.S., even though women are responsible for 20% of the homicides that occur in the United States (Bedau). In addition, minorities are far more likely to receive the death penalty than whites. For example, 90% of the people that Federal prosecutors seek to execute are black. These statistics are blown even further out of proportion when one looks at the punishments that killers of whites receive versus killers of blacks. In Maryland, a person who kills a white person is 7 times as likely to receive the death penalty as the killer of a black person. Furthermore, 90% of people executed in The United States were convicted of killing whites, even though minorities account for over half of the homicide victims in The United States. According to the National Coalition For the Abolition of the Death Penalty, of the 486 people executed in the United States only 6 were whites convicted of killing blacks ("Executing"). The death penalty is also applied almost exclusively on those who are from the poorest segments of society and are unable to afford to defend themselves. According to Nick Dispoldo, author of "Capital Punishment and the Poor," "In researching a book in progress about the 300 year history of the death penalty in The United States, I have discovered only 6 cases in which those executed were individuals of influence or affluence." There have been 7,000 executions in this century alone (Winters 164). Over 50% of people on death row were unemployed at the time of their conviction, and almost all of the people on death row were unskilled. This is problematic because often their court appointed attorneys are overworked and underpaid, and thus they are unable to provide the same quality of defense as a private lawyer. Many states, such as Louisiana, also pay the public defenders very little. Public defenders are paid up to $1000.00 for pre- trial work. The average amount of pre-trial time put into a capita l case is 2000 hours; this comes out to $0.50 an hour pay for the public defenders. The amount of money that can be spent for investigative purposes is often limited at $500.00; this is not nearly enough to pay for expensive blood and DNA tests (Star). The State, on the other hand, has nearly unlimited resources at its disposal to bring about a conviction. Despite the fact that the defendants in capital murder trials are given so little money to defend themselves, the death penalty is extremely expensive. Various state government studies, according to an NCADP fact sheet, have stated that a single death penalty case costs taxpayers between 1 and 3 million dollars. The cost of life imprisonment costs taxpayers $500,000 ("Millions"). The high cost of the death penalty is another one of the concerns expressed by death penalty critics because the $1,000,000,000 that has been spent on the death penalty over the last 18 years could often be used more effectively. In 1991 the state of New Jersey spent $16,000,000 to impose the death penalty. The next year the state was forced to lay off 500 police officers because it could not afford to pay them (Winters 134- 138). Perhaps the gravest concern expressed by opponents of capital punishment is that innocent people can be executed. According to ex- Supreme Court justice Harry Blackmun, 23 innocent people have been executed this century (Winters 84). In 1994, the state of Texas executed Robert Nelson Drew even after another man confessed to the murder and exonerated Drew ("Guilty"). Cases as clear cut as this are admittedly rare, but there are other cases where people have been executed for crimes that would be considered by many to be less than first degree murder or have mitigating circumstances. One such example of this is the case of Alan Jeffery Bannister, who was executed on October 22, 1997. He was charged and convicted of murder for hire. Alan Bannister stated that he had killed in self- defense. This defense seemed to many people to be pretty strong. The investigating officer, who had testified against him in his trial, later admitted that the police had no conclusive evidence proving that the murder had b een for hire or even that Bannister had committed murder in the first degree. (Matthews). Death penalty opponents feel that since there is no conclusive proof that the death penalty has no deterrent effect, it is unfairly administered, and because there is a risk of executing innocent people; the death penalty must be eliminated. Death penalty proponents hold that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime despite what critics of the death penalty may think . They also feel that the death penalty eliminates the possibility that any murderer will murder again. Death penalty supporters support their claim that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime with statistics. One of the most widely cited studies in favor of the death penalty is the study conducted by Isaac Erlich at the University of Chicago. His findings stated that each imposition of the death penalty saved between 1 and 8 innocent lives (Ortman). The death penalty saves lives by deterring would-be murderers from committing crimes. It does this, according to those in favor of the death penalty, by making people fear that if they kill somebody they could be executed themselves. It was based on Erlich's studies that the Supreme Court decided to reinstate the death penalty in the United States (Flanders 50). The response to death penalty opponents' arguments that claim that the death penalty does not save lives is that if the death penalty were properly enforced more lives would be saved. Since there have been 333,000 murders and only 486 executions since 1977, the death penalty is not being adequately enforced. Death penalty opponents feel that the reason that murderers don't fear the death penalty enough is because they know that there is an extremely slim chance that they will be executed (Winters 114- 119). Death penalty supporters have attributed the drop in murder rates between 1993 and 1998 to the increase in executions during that same period. Most studies conducted by death penalty opponents were conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s. During this period there were relatively few executions per year as compared to the amount of executions in the late 1990s. For example, there were only 21 executions in 1989, as opposed to 79 in 1997. Death penalty supporters feel that if the rate of executions increases, the murder rate will drop accordingly (Winters 114-119). Death penalty proponents feel that the death penalty is worthwhile despite its monetary costs because of the priceless lives that it saves. They also contend that the reason it costs so much is because death row inmates file so many frivolous appeals. One death penalty expert, Kent Scheidegger, states numerous examples of people spending up to 20 years on death row repeatedly filing redundant appeals to state and federal judges, hoping that one judge would finally agree with the appeal [Winters 126-129). For example, Duncan McKenzie remained on death row filing appeal after appeal for 20 years. Ironically his last appeal was on the grounds that the extremely long amount of time that he had spent on death row constituted cruel and unusual punishment. This appeal was overturned in 1995 (Winters 108). Scheidegger and many other supporters of the death penalty feel that this was a great abuse of the system, and a waste of millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Death penalty supporters also feel that the likelihood of an innocent person being put to death is very low due to the safeguards in place. They claim that the release of many people on death row demonstrates the success of these safeguards. The recent release of Rolando Cruz serves as an example of the system finding its mistakes and then fixing them. As pointed out in the preceding paragraph, condemned inmates are given more than enough appeals to prove their innocence. Some inmates have even remained on death row for twenty years or more while their cases are exhaustively reviewed and appealed at both the state and federal levels. The death penalty is considered by proponents to be justifiable, even if there is a chance that an innocent person could be executed. This is because the enforcement of the death penalty would save far more innocent lives by deterring people from murdering than would be lost from the execution of innocent people. Furthermore, in the article of Stephen Markman, a former U.S. Attorney General; in a Gallup poll taken in June of 1995, 57% of Americans stated that they would still be in favor of the death penalty even if 1% of those executed were in fact innocent (Winters 85). Death penalty supporters claim that even if the death penalty were not a deterrent to crime, it should still be the penalty for first degree murder. This belief is based on the assumption that it is only fair that if a person kills somebody, he or she should pay for the crime with his or her life. The death penalty also ensures that murders will never be able to kill again, because they will be dead. For example according to John DiIulio, a noted professor at Princeton University, the average murderer spends only 8.5 years in prison. This makes it likely that they will kill again because reform is nearly impossible in that amount of time (Winters 106). Death penalty supporters also have stated that the death penalty prevents people from committing murder while in prison. Without the death penalty, prisoners facing life imprisonment may attempt daring escapes that might involve the murder of prison guards if they know that they can get no worse of a penalty. The death penalty remains a controversial issue in the United States, even though 80% of the population is in favor of it, because of the numerous ethical and practical issues that must be taken into consideration (Winters 139-144). Experts on both sides of the argument have numerous statistics and studies to back up their claims and to refute the claims of their opponents. Death penalty supporters hold that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime, and brings justice to killers. However, death penalty opponents maintain that the death penalty does not deter criminals, and desensitizes people to violence. There are no easy answers to the questions surrounding the imposition of the death penalty in the United States. Thus one should pursue this question with an open mind and consider all sides of the argument, because as Thomas Jefferson once said, "difference of opinion leads to inquiry, and inquiry leads to truth" (Winters 11)
“Ex-basketball Player” seems to have a more negative tone than “To an Athlete Dying Young.” Though, both a talk about former athlete’s glorious past when the runner in the first dies and the athlete in the second retired. In the poem ‘To an Athlete Dying Young” the runner dies at a young age of natural causes even though his fame does not but while in “Ex-Basketball Player” the fame of Flick washes away in his growing of age. The tone of “To an Athlete Dying Young” overall is much more positive since the poet praises the young athlete as "smart" to leave a world where glory does not remain and can only vanish. It is far better to die young, as Houseman suggests, than to join the many who had enjoyed glory but now have faded. Dying young
There are arguments that are for the death penalty and those against it. One of the
Igor Primoratz defends the retributivist idea that a punishment is justified only if it gives a criminal his just deserts. But what do criminals deserve? Primoratz argues for the following principle: criminals deserve to be deprived of the same value that they deprived their victims of. Primoratz regards all human beings as possessed of lives of equal moral worth, and believes that the human life is the most valuable thing. He thinks that murders deserve to die. Since justice is a matter of giving people what they deserve, it follows that justice demands for murderers to be executed.
A. E. Housman's "To an Athlete Dying Young," also known as Lyric XIX in A
Homer's great epic, "The Odyssey" was written several thousands of years ago, a time in human history when men played the dominant role in society. The entire structure of civilization was organized and controlled by men; It was an accepted fact that women held an inferior position in society. Society was constructed as if women were around only to serve the men. The involvement of women in any circumstance was almost completely dominated by what the men allowed. The women were valued in society, only they were not given important roles or any decision making power. It is as if they held no power in the ancient Greek society. This is why Homer's Odyssey is very unique, Homer put women into roles that were previously unheard of for women to possess. Unlike in The Iliad, where women served merely as an object to men; female characters of Odyssey are distinctive because they possess personality, and have intricate relationships with the male characters of the Odyssey. By characterizing the women in "The Odyssey", a reader may come to some conclusions about the role of women in this epic. Along with the belief that women played a secondary role to men in society, the female characters displayed certain traits that could not be exhibited by the men. Athena demonstrated the most intelligence and valor out of all the characters in "The Odyssey." The male characters play the most significant roles in this epic, but without the support of the females in "The Odyssey", Odysseus would not have made it through his journey.
The title, “To an Athlete Dying Young,” is relevant to the poem and the central theme because the entire poem is about a young athlete who has just passed away. The poem provides the reader with a point of view that praises this athlete for dying at a young age. “To an Athlete Dying Young,” is considered to be a lyric poem because of its rhythm and is classified as an elegy, “A somber poem or song that praises or laments the dead” (Cummings 1). The title impacts the central theme of the poem because of the first word, “To.” The word “To” implies that the poem is a toast or a salute to those athletes who die young. Also, it creates a more personal bond between the speaker and the athlete. This is crucial because this title correlates with the theme. In the poem “To an Athlete Dying Young,” the speaker, ...
According to Brian O’Neill, “On one hand, it has a righteous appeal as the only fitting punishment for the most egregious crimes. On the other, it is arguably hypocritical to use the underlying crime itself as punishment for the act” (Balancing Ethics and the Death Penalty). This quote argues how there are two sides and that there is no equal punishment to murder besides murder in itself. But at the same time, to commit a crime as a punishment for the same crime is very hypocritical and essentially supports the crime. This is a major issue because although capital punishment has the possibility to solve the problem, as in it makes certain there will be no re-offenders, it also stands as a negative influence because it gives the idea that murder is acceptable in society. When considering if murder is unethical, one should also consider the moral side of it. Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez believe that, “The case against capital punishment is often made on the basis that society has a moral obligation to
Stanza 1 is the view of the poem is to say that the young boy won a race and was carried through the town with the crowds cheering for him and showing their pride in him. In stanza 2 the boy had run his final race and has passed away. The town’s people have now taken him to the cemetery and left the casket at the edge of his grave. Stanza 3 there is an unusual stance toward his death, the boy is lucky that he died when he was still wearing his “wreath of victory,” because glory doesn’t last. In stanza 4 since the boy has died he will not have to deal with the pain of another athlete breaking his records and having to listen to everyone cheer for the new athlete. In stanza 5 the fame is fleeting, the boy will not be added to the list of boys that had outlived their glory before they had died, but will be added to the list of those who had died while being in glory. In stanza 6, holding up the trophy that he had won when doing his race remembers the boy. In stanza 7 the “wreath of victory” will never wither, when the townspeople think of the boy his “wreath of victory will be as fresh as
Another way that some argue against pure restitution is to say that is does not have an acceptable implication that punishment does have. Pure restitution lacks implications that are backed with punishment. Additionally, it is argued that pure restitution has an unacceptable implication that punishment also shares. Some say that pure restitution is too individualistic. It is also argued that some harm is beyond repair, and restitution will not solve or make these issues better, and the theory of pure restitution allows us to do nothing at all to the offender. A very controversial issue here is the question of murder.
When a person inquires about death, they never expect that it will arrive early to meet them. A part of these innocent people never see it coming, but they are reconciled with death early as a result of another person’s malicious behavior. These people need to be punished by paying an equal price for what they stole from someone else: their life. Once a person is deemed a killer they are no longer a use to a society, they are a threat. Keeping them alive costs money that could be put to better use. Insurance is granted to them, even though they do not have a job and there are other hard working people who deserve it. They are given a decent home with accommodations that homeless people are forced to live without. There is an abundant amount of gray area in making a decision of this magnitude. The argument of being falsely accused often arises because once a mistake like this is made it obviously can not be undone. However, the Death Penalty is essential to keep the innocent citizens of the country safe.
Avery, Luther. “Top 10 Arguments for the Death Penalty.” Akkora (2010): 1. Web. 1 Apr. 2014. http://akorra.com/2010/03/04/top-10-arguments-for-the-death-penalty/
... and execute someone for killing another person. Killing one person for the killing of another does not justify the means to the problem. Many times innocent people has been sent to prison for crimes not committed by them, so if they are sent to prison by erroneous information, convicted but did not commit the crime, executed who pays for the mistake?
There are numerous way of conducting a study on death penalty but the right way should be researched ahead of time before conclusion are made. Proving current and accurate information on death penalty statistics should be researched based on new information found, using previous studies will only hurt the new research and provide false information to the public and the government’s database. Approaching the right subjects who fit the requirements for the study and have characteristics that carry out criminal behavior will provided the right statistics for the study.
He constantly questioned his faith. In the poem “XXXV,” Housman related that the ultimate punishment was equal for those who disobeyed God, as well as those who obeyed. The question begs, why should anyone obey? This is one of the reasons that Housman abandoned religion. In many of his poems he denies that there ever existed an everlasting soul. In the poem, “The Immortal Part,” Housman suggests that when human beings die, their soul and flesh die and only the bones will stay.
Crime is everywhere. Wherever we look, we find criminals and crime. Criminals have become a part of our daily lives. Does this mean we let them be the darkness of our society? No, definitely not. Eliminating crime and criminals is our duty, and we cannot ignore it. Getting the rightly accused to a just punishment is very important. Some criminals commit a crime because they have no other option to survive, but some do it for fun. I do not advocate death penalty for everybody. A person, who stole bread from a grocery store, definitely does not deserve death penalty. However, a serial killer, who kills people for fun or for his personal gain, definitely deserves death penalty. Death penalty should continue in order to eliminate the garbage of our society. Not everybody deserves to die, but some people definitely do. I support death penalty because of several reasons. Firstly, I believe that death penalty serves as a deterrent and helps in reducing crime. Secondly, it is true that death penalty is irreversible, but it is hard to kill a wrongly convicted person due to the several chances given to the convicted to prove his innocence. Thirdly, death penalty assures safety of the society by eliminating these criminals. Finally, I believe in "lex tallionis" - a life for a life.