Introduction and Background Information
The death penalty remains one of the controversial topics in the United States and other democracies around the world. A section of the community believe that capital punishment is the most appropriate way of punishing some crimes in the society. On the other hand, others argue that it is a barbaric practice that does not help in addressing some crimes in the society. Some states in the country abolished the practice only to reintroduce it. Others have opted to commute death sentence into serving life in prison (Mackey & Elvey, 2021). Despite the sharp differences, it is necessary to face reality and determine the relevance of this form of punishment. The United States have witnessed some of the worst crimes that a human being can commit. They include mass murders, serial killers, and cannibals who subject their victims to immense pan before killing them. Ebury (2021) explains that some of these dangerous criminals would deliberately hunt down their victims as a hunter for a wild animal. Their targets are often the weak and defenseless individuals who happen to be in the wrong place at a wrong time (Mackey & Elvey, 2021). It is necessary to determine if such individuals deserve the same punishment as those who commit crimes that do not result into death of a person.
Thesis Statement
Some forms of crime such as serial murders can only be properly punished through capital punishment. As such, death penalty is ethical and most appropriate form of punishing some forms of crime in the society.
Argument in Support of Death Penalty
Death penalty has been criticized by a section of the society as being the most barbaric and outdated practice that ought to be eliminated from the criminal justice system. However, there is the other section of the community that strongly believes that it is the only way of punishing some forms of crime. As Pollock (2021) observes, the nature of punishment that one gets should be commensurate to the crime committed. For instance, rape is one of the worst crimes one can commit and in many states it is classified as Class A felony, depending on the victim and the manner in which it was committed (Haider-Markel, 2019). Although such a criminal is undesirable in the society, the degree of crime is different from a serial killer who abducts, tortures and rapes the victims for a period, before subjecting them to death. The level of derangement and brutality of such a serial killer is much higher than the rapid. If the rapid can be sentenced to death, then the punishment for the serial killer should be different. The following are some of the strong arguments in support of death penalty.
Deterrent
This harsh penalty is meant to deter people from committing some forms of crime. The United States has reported some of the worst cases of mass murders committed by both local and foreign criminals. On September 11, 2001, the United States faced one of the worst terror attacks in its history, where about 3,000 people lost their lives (Steffen & Hinerman, 2019). The terrorists had a message to pass to the America government, but those who lost their lives had to pay the ultimate price. It caused great physical, emotional, and financial pain to the victims and their families. They or their sympathizers had every intention of committing the same heinous offence if they are given the opportunity. It is necessary to discuss the pros of this strategy as a way of deterring some of the worst forms of crime.
A death sentence is the only appropriate punishment for such an individual because they no longer reason as human beings. It is easy for an individual who has not gone through the pain caused by such criminals to think that the punishment is harsh. If such a criminal was able to think, plan, and execute mass murders, then it is justifiable for them to face the same fate. Death sentence is the harshest punishment that one can get (Mackey & Elvey, 2021). Criminal elements in the country will be reminded that if they engage in such criminal activities, then they will face the same fate. The knowledge that the government will investigate and execute such a punishment will force these criminals to rethink their actions. Capital punishment also eliminates these criminal elements from the society.
The cons of death penalty as a means of deterring crime is that it will not completely eliminate the problem. They argue that death penalty has failed to effectively deter crimes such as robbery with violence or mass murders. Although the claims may be true, the truth is that many people have avoided committing these crimes because of the grace consequences that they may face. Some may have the intention and the ability to commit such crimes, but the nature of punishment that they may face forces them to rethink their actions.
Cost
The cost of incarceration is another major cause of concern that cannot be ignored. According to Haider-Markel (2019), when a convict has to be kept in a maximum security prison, the cost can be as high as $ 70,000 annually. The average income of American worker is slightly more than $ 50,000 annually. It means that it costs the government more money to have these criminal held in prison than what a citizen makes. Some of those who pay the tax used to take care of these prisoners are families of those who they killed. The government has to take them to hospital when necessary and ensure that they get all the basic needs. Pollock (2021) argues that in many cases, the only thing that these prisoners lack is the freedom of movement. The benefits that they enjoy is at the expense of some of those affected by their heinous acts. The Oklahoma bombing of 1995 lead to the death of more than 168 people and over 680 others sustained varying degrees of injuries (Belew, 2018). It also lead to the destruction of properties worth over $ 652 million. Terry Lynn Nichols and Timothy McVeigh were responsible for the attack. Such individuals do not deserve to use tax payers’ money to sustain their lives after such crimes. Although Timothy McVeigh was finally executed through lethal injection, Terry Lynn Nichols was sentenced to life in prison. Despite having caused such massive destruction of property and loss of lives, he is still using public resources. It is not fair for the government to continue bearing such costs at a time when families of the breadwinners killed in the attack continue to suffer. The government is not offering regular financial support to those who sustained varying degrees of injury during the attacks. Some of the victims are incapacitated and can no longer do what they were doing before the attack.
Justice to Family
The pain of losing a loved one in a brutal crime is so immense that one may not understand and appreciate unless they have gone through the same. In many traditions around the world, family members would be allowed to kill the perpetrator, in what was considered seeking for justice (Ebury, 2021). However, civilization and increasing power of the government led to a system where such punishments can only be mated by the government. It is important to ensure that when passing a sentence, the punishment given is commensurate to the crime committed in a way that satisfies the affected family. On July 22, 1977, Lorne Acquin attacked and killed 29-year-old Cheryl Beaudoin and her seven children (Steffen & Hinerman, 2019). Most of his victims had their hands bound to ensure that they could not escape from the house. He then set the house ablaze, leading to the painful death of the entire family. He was sentenced to 105 years in prison. However, some family members of the victims felt that the sentence was not the adequate punishment. They felt that Lorne deserved to be subjected to a painful death. He was not merciful when he murdered family members of his foster brother. Some of his victims were young children who considered him a trusted uncle who would protect them from any form of harm. However, he mercilessly took their lives in the most brutal manner possible. Such a person should not be treated with any mercy. He should be subjected to a painful death, just to remind the society that some actions have painful consequences. Although the family of such victims may not have their loved one back, they will get the closure they need and a feeling that the perpetrator will no longer expose them to any form of pain anymore.
Prevent Reoffending
Capital punishment remains the best way of eliminating the possibility of a dangerous criminal committing the same heinous crime again. Pollock (2021) explains that a sentence of life in prison does not mean the criminal will remain in prison for the rest of their lives. Several cases have been reported of daring prison breaks. Such individuals would go back and commit even worse crimes. A case in point is the escape of Gonzalo Lopez, a convicted murderer. Lavandera and Wolfe (2022) report that Lopez escaped from a prisoner bus and disappeared into a local neighborhood on May 12, 2022. After escaping capture for about 3 weeks, he murdered a family of 5 before the police were able to kill him in a shootout. If Lopez had been killed for his original murder crime in 2005, the last five victims would have been safe. It is not morally right to expose innocent citizens to danger by allowing some criminals to live.
Incentive to Police
The police are tasked with the dangerous responsibility of arresting, assisting in the prosecution, and detaining prisoners. At every stage of undertaking these activities, these officers are exposed to various forms of threats because these criminals are violent. Many police officers have lost their lives trying to arrest or detain these criminals. During the arrest of some of these dangerous criminals, it is common to have a shootout. Several law enforcement agents have lost their lives in such processes. Other criminals would escape from prison with the singular goal of tracking the arresting officer and killing them (Jones, Farnham & Saxon, 2021). Inside the prisons, there is a constant fear that prisoners would kill the waders if they have the opportunity. When a criminal is sentenced to death, and the sentenced is saved soon after, the law enforcement agencies will feel safe. The fear that such individuals would come out of prison and attack them is eliminated. It will be a motivation for them to continue with the good work of eliminating criminal elements from the society.
Discussion and Summary
Death penalty has remained a controversial topic not only in the United States but also in other parts of the world. The arguments presented above articulates the pros of death sentence. They explain why it is necessary for the state to execute an individual who is found to have committed some of the worst crimes. However, some people have vehemently opposed this sentence, explaining that it is a barbaric act that does not address any problem. They have provided numerous cons of the death sentence. Ioanna (2020) explains that death penalty goes against the fundamental right to life that every human being has. They argue that irrespective of one’s crime, they should not be denied the right to life. Some of them also explain that some of those who are found guilty of specific crimes are actually innocent. They explain that several cases have been reported where innocent people are found guilty of serious crimes such as murder. The only mistake of such individuals would be the fact that they are unable to prove their innocence in court. A death penalty would permanently deny them the opportunity to prove their innocence. The state will be taking away the life of an innocent person. The opponents of death sentence believe that capital punishment brings to a closure, a case that may possibly have a different conclusion if all the facts and evidence are properly presented in court.
Conclusion
The proponents and opponents of capital punishment have presented conflicting explanation to support their arguments. The proponents argue that death penalty is the only way of eliminating death threats that some criminals expose their victims to if they are not eliminated. Several cases have been presented where convicted murderers would escape from prison and commit worse crimes later. Many lives would be protected if such individuals are subjected to the death penalty. This harsh sentence would be a deterrent to other criminals who might want to commit similar crimes. They will be reminded that such actions would have painful consequences. The proponents also argue that capital punishment helps in protecting the police by ensuring that once a dangerous criminal is arrested, they will not get back to the streets and expose them to harm. The opponents argue that death penalty is inhuman and that it takes away the fundamental right to life. What they forget is that these criminals inhumane in their acts, they take away lives of their victims in the worst way possible, and if given opportunity, would kill again. The researcher supports death penalty only for those convicted of aggravated murder.
References
Belew, K. (2018). Bring the war home: The white power movement and paramilitary America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ebury, K. (2021). Modern literature and the death penalty 1890-1950. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Haider-Markel, D. (2019). Legislating morality in America: Debating the morality of controversial U.S. laws and policies. Santa Barbara: CA: Praeger.
Ioanna, K. (Ed.). (2020). The death penalty: Justice or revenge? Zurich: Lit Verlag.
Jones, M., Farnham, J., & Saxon, D. L. (2021). Talking about ethics: A conversational approach to moral dilemmas. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic.
Lavandera, E., & Wolfe, E. (2022). New details emerge on how a convicted murderer managed to escape and later kill a family of 5, police say. CNN. Web.
Mackey, D., & Elvey, K. (2021). Society, ethics, and the law: A reader. Burlington: MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Pollock, J. (2021). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. New York, NY: Cengage Learning Custom.
Steffen, L., & Hinerman, N. (Eds.). (2019). Death dying culture. London: BRILL.