Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs the death penalty just or unjust?
Results so far:
| Just | 58% | 570 votes | Total: 989 votes | |
| Unjust | 42% | 419 votes |
Just
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesThe death penalty is not only just, but practical. Since the bleeding heart do-gooders have been getting their way, the crime rate in America has skyrocketed. The perception that human life is valuable has fallen by the wayside as pro choice activists brainwash the youth of America into thinking that Abortion is a women's issue when it is in fact a human rights issue.
It seems that there are a lot more people in the media, in Hollywood, and in our school systems who are making more and more excuses for bad behaviour rather then punishing it. More and more criminals are being made to look like victims themselves rather then the monsters they are. As a result, countless groups have popped up all over that are anti capital punishment. It doesn't matter what these monsters do because it's not their fault. It was their upbringing, their childhood experiences, the company they keep, the victim's fault. Everyone else is to blame but them.
The death penalty used to serve two main purposes. It was used as a deterrent and it brought a sense of justice and closure to the victim's families. Now it seems to be another political tool in the tool box, to be used when they think it will help their chances of winning.
Let's take a practical look at the prison systems today. For starters, the punishments rarely seem to fit the crime. In the case of murderers, they are often far to lenient. Someone who takes the life of another is sentenced to prison where he gets three nutritious meals a day, can exercise and do weight training, often has telly and internet, can have visitors come to see them, has the best healthcare around at no cost to them (because they're not paying taxes while they're in jail not working), has free education (high school and college/vocational) and (because he's a murderer) is typically left alone. Do you know the cost of all these "benefits"? Gone are the days of people losing their rights while they were serving their sentences. Now they practically have more rights then the people who behave.
The shift from "Prisons" and "Penitentiaries" to "Correctional Facilities" has cost the tax payers a ton of money. Sadly, most of the offenders soon become repeat offenders, often evolving into more violent and dangerous individuals. A good many of the more "minor" offenders are often given early release due to over crowding. If the death sentences were carried out a little quicker and the states that didn't have the death penalty adopted it, it would certainly help to clear out the prisons some.
It sounds absolutely harsh but it's the logical conclusion. Why pay to support a vile, violent criminal who isn't the least bit remorseful for the lives (s)he's destroyed be supported by the tax payers for the rest of his/her natural born days? The only life these people see as valuable is their own. If there is overwhelming forensic evidence that says without a doubt that this person committed first degree murder, they should be sentenced to death and that sentence should be carried out in a more reasonable time. Twenty years on death row is unacceptable.
It's utterly disgusting to see these people fighting so hard to preserve their own lives when they often didn't just murder, but raped and or tortured their victims. Ted Bundy did unspeakable things to his victims, as did the Green River Killer. yet when it came to them, all of a sudden life had value.
I think we need to start bringing back the old forms of punishment a bit. Prison shouldn't be a vacation. When you're in prison, you lose your rights. You cannot vote, you do not get cable or the internet, you do not get free higher education, you do not get rushed to the hospital over a splinter. (True story as told to me by my cousin, a prison guard. They'd rather risk the expense of an ambulance trip to the emergency room then be sued in a frivolous lawsuit that the criminal will probably win.)
People who callously take the lives of others should pay with their own lives. They should not be allowed to live while their victims are dead and their victim's families are broken. More over, I don't think the tax payers should be supporting these criminals indefinitely! That money can go toward something useful like education and children's programmes. Perhaps the money saved by executing 1st degree murders can be used to prevent another youth from ending up in the criminal justice system.
Learn more about this author, Cailin Mcglory.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Unjust
Is the death penalty justice? No. It is vengeance - plain and simple.
What is the purpose of the justice system?
In medieval times, the justice system did one of two things. It fined criminals for the enrichment of the king... or it killed them. Jails were too expensive and few people were imprisoned for any length of time.
In the 1830's, Alexis de Tocqueville traveled to America and wrote his famous book Democracy in America. However, he came to study something more mundane - prison reform. Americans were beginning to implement a wonderful new idea - the penitentiary.
In this system, prisoners were housed in prisons, held to strict moral codes, and rehabilitated. It is a clear departure from the old European method of execution, and it certainly foreshadows today's goal - to rehabilitate criminals.
What does the death penalty achieve?
The death penalty can never rehabilitate a criminal. It simply isn't designed to do it. Instead of attempting to make someone a productive member of society, it kills them.
The death penalty is designed at odds with the rest of the justice system. It aims to provide vengeance and closure for victims - not to rehabilitate criminals.
Arguments Against
Of course, some would argue that certain criminals are beyond rehabilitation. If violent rapists and murderers can never become productive members of society, why not just kill them?
A major argument against the death penalty in this case is that it is applied unequally. The 1987 Supreme Court case McClesky v. Kemp provided data showing that in southern courts, blacks that committed crimes against whites were far more likely to receive the death penalty than whites that committed crimes against whites. Since then, there have been repeated studies showing the capricious and unequal application of capital punishment.
In addition, there is always the possibility that a criminal is not guilty. Criminals are investigated, judged, and sentenced by humans - who are fallible. Every year, cases of false convictions come to light. If a man is in prison, he can be set free. If he has been killed, there's no recourse.
What Else Could Be Done?
There is a perfectly acceptable alternative - life imprisonment. It provides an answer for all of these contingencies.
Althou gh a criminal wouldn't be eligible for parole, he or she would still be able to be rehabilitated from prison. While in the confines of a prison it is possible to be a productive member of society - reading, writing, creating art, etc.
By standardizing sentencing for these types of crimes, one possibility for unequal treatment is eliminated. There is still the possibility that prosecutions and convictions are impacted by the race or identity of the accused - but no one will be put to death at the hands of subconscious racism.
Sentencing a criminal to life imprisonment also leaves open the possibility for vindication. If at any time - 10, 20, 30 years after the conviction - new evidence is found that exonerates the convicted person, he or she can simply be set free. Nothing irreversible has been done.
Bottom Line
The death penalty is out of line with the philosophy of the American justice system. Rehabilitation is the goal - not vengeance. Life imprisonment is a superior form of punishment, because it allows a criminal to be a productive member of society, it prevents some unequal treatment, and it allows for exonerations.
It preserves the rights of the accused without trampling on the rights of the victims.
Learn more about this author, B. Rock.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Justice System
- Should the U.S. Senate confirm Sonia Sotomayor as President Obama's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court?
- Should a felony conviction automatically prevent someone from obtaining employment?
- Should the government create a DNA database for better police enforcement?
- The state should force the mentally ill into treatment even if they are not an "imminent threat" to themselves or others
- Should prisoners receive sex-change surgery at taxpayers' expense?
