Smith 1
Chris Smith
Mrs. Studer
College English 2516
22 March 2000
America Should Continue Administering Capital Punishment
Justice is defined as the maintenance or administration of what is just (Webster
655). The death penalty certainly is the ultimate form of justice for victims of heinous
crimes and their families. To do away with it would undermine the principles and
safeguards of modern society. Indeed, when carefully observed, capital punishment is an
effective and appropriate reprimand for capital crimes.
As times have changed so has support for capital punishment. Americans have
overwhelmingly supported the death penalty during the last twenty years. With crime
rates high, public tolerance for unlawful behavior has dwindled. According to a 1999
Harris Poll, 71% of Americans are in favor of the death penalty (U.S. Dept. of Justice
37). Even if a life sentence without the possibility of parole were given as an alternative
to death, 56% of Americans asked in a 1999 Gallop poll would still favor the execution
of murderers (U.S. Dept. of Justice 37). This blatant support for capital punishment
demonstrates American desire to dispose of killers and their monstrous acts (Jacobs,
Landes, and Siegel 82).
There is a small but fervent minority in America that opposes the death penalty.
Although accounting for less than 1/3 of the general U.S. population, these abolitionists
are fiercely committed to putting an end to capital punishment (U.S. Dept. of Justice 37).
Their strong feelings are a result of misinterpretations and incorrect views. In addition,
Smith 2
many abolitionists seem to forget the terrible anguish that the victims’ families suffer
through. Instead, they think only of the “plight” of the monstrous individuals they seek
to protect. Those opposed to capital punishment have come to several conclusions. First,
they find the death penalty to be inhumane and against God’s will. They believe that
today’s methods of execution are unconstitutional and contradict Christian principles. In
addition, abolitionists feel that there is no evidence of the death penalty deterring crime
and that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment will cost taxpayers less money than a
prisoner on death row. Finally, their most serious accusations are that the death penalty
is administered unfairly in regards to minorities and the poor and that innocent people are
executed every year. Each argument can be discounted using accurate studies and simple
reasoning (“Death Penalty and Sentencing Information”).
The Supreme Court has, like most Americans, consistently backed the use of
capital punishment through its setting of legal precedents. In 1976, after a nine-year
moratorium of executions, the Court ruled that the death penalty was once again
constitutional. That 1976 legal case, Gregg v. Georgia, allowed the use of capital
punishment only if strict and universal statutes were followed by states in death penalty
trials. A bifurcated (two part) trial system has been used in trials involving the death
penalty since that case. An initial trial is held to establish guilt, and then a post
conviction hearing is used to find if the aggravated and mitigating circumstances
surrounding the crime warrant the death penalty. In 1977, the Court ruled that rape could
no longer be punished by execution. The only acts now defined as capital crimes are
murder and certain crimes against the state such as treason, sabotage, and espionage.
Smith 3
Along with these recent precedents, other cases have set the strict standard for when
capital punishment may be used, and have made it completely fair (Bedau).
The Holy Bible and Christianity play a part in capital punishment for many
devote conservatives in America. The Bible preaches that the death penalty is not
necessarily immoral. Throughout the Old Testament, several verses apply the “eye for an
eye” philosophy. These verses draw a clear line between the killing of innocent and evil
beings. Opponents of capital punishment may point out that verses from the New
Testament such as, "You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right
cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5.38-39) are anti-death penalty in their
meaning. Verses similar to and including this particular one seem to symbolize and
represent the abandonment of capital punishment by Jesus Christ. Although this verse is
a good philosophy for individuals to follow, it would be impractical for governing
authorities to do the same. If it were, any and all crimes committed would not be
punishable but instead would be welcomed with mercy (“Death Penalty and Sentencing
Information”).
Because of religion, it is common for death row inmates to change for the better
while awaiting their executions. Knowing that soon they may have to face the
consequences of their acts not only on Earth but also after their death, many inmates turn
to God for forgiveness and become born-again Christians. The book Dead Man Walking
is an excellent example of this. If rapist and murderer Matthew Poncelet had not been
persuaded to give up his unholy nature and take responsibility for his actions before being
executed, then he would never have received any form of salvation from the Lord.
Smith 4
Conversely, if one were imprisoned for life, a reconciled death row inmate would
continue to behave as a savage knowing he had a life still ahead of him (Vanauken 123).
Along with Biblical references, simple principles can prove the death penalty to
be perfectly and morally just when applied to murder cases. Many believe that by
executing killers, death penalty proponents are just as bad as the criminals themselves.
This logic can easily be dismissed as unfounded. When a thief steals and is fined for his
crime, is that morally unjust? Both acts result in the loss of possessions. When one
guilty of kidnapping is incarcerated against his wishes, does this punishment not result in
the same thing as what he is guilty of doing? (“Death Penalty and Sentencing
Information”). Hence, it is clearly inaccurate to equate a crime and punishment as
identical and therefore immoral.
Effective and completely unlike time in prison, the death penalty deters many
from killing. There have been many studies with conflicting results over whether the
death penalty does deter future capital crimes. A recent study done by University of
Chicago professor Isaac Ehrlich concluded that each death row execution deters eight
future murders. The publicity that abolitionists bring each execution as a result of their
protests actually frightens off future murderers. Studies that show capital punishment
does not deter future crime are erroneous because of the statistics used. These incorrect
studies include accidental killings, such as auto accidents, when compiling the number of
murders in states with the death penalty. If only true killings were counted as murders,
then these opposing studies would have different results (“Death Penalty and Sentencing
Information”).
Smith 5
The fear of dying for their crimes may frighten off potential murderers, but the
methods of execution used today are quite humane. Death by lethal injection is the most
common way for death row inmates to be executed. It first involves sedation and then
arrests the lungs and heart by injection of certain chemicals. No pain is felt and few, if
any, complications can result. The most brutal form of execution still used today is the
electric chair. Some say that when freak accidents happen, one may catch fire or bleed
excessively. On the other hand, some feel the electric chair is necessary because lethal
injection is far too humane for cold-blooded killers (“Debate Over the Electric Chair” 3).
Even though mishaps may occur during executions, the death penalty still serves as a way
to quickly, and almost painlessly, rid society of its menaces.
Death penalty opponents do make a strong point when arguing that capital
punishment is very expensive. Each prisoner, before he is executed, will cost U.S.
taxpayers on average between one and two million dollars. The bulk of this expense is
due to the trials and appeals that every inmate is by law entitled. With the opportunity to
make seventeen separate appeals to federal and state courts, those on death row are able
to extend the duration of their sentences for many years (Jacobs, Siegel, and Jones 29). If
abolitionists did not demand so many automatic and required reviews and appeals for
prisoners, then the cost element of the death penalty that they argue against would not be
a factor. When an inmate stretches out his prison stay for as long as possible, questions
of his supposed innocence might also be raised. What innocent or improperly convicted
person on death row would want his appointed counsel to move along with appeals as
slowly as possible to remain incarcerated for the maximum time possible? (“Death
Penalty and Sentencing Information”).
Smith 6
If a murderer is sentenced to life imprisonment, many incorrectly say that it will
be cheaper than trying to execute him. Once again, like the deterrence argument, death
penalty opponents use inaccurate statistics to come to this conclusion. In studies that find
life imprisonment cheaper, factors such as inflation, increases in future prison
construction costs, and rising healthcare costs are not taken into consideration. Many
studies simply take the cost of housing an inmate for the present year, and then multiply
that annual cost by however many years they believe the average prisoner will continue
living after being sentenced. Studies that take inflationary factors into account exhibit a
cost of several million per prisoner. So in actuality, a prisoner sentenced to life without
parole will cost as much, if not more than a prisoner on death row (“Death Penalty and
Sentencing Information”).
For many years there have been claims that the American judicial system is often
racist against minority groups and biased towards the poor when deciding if the death
penalty should be applied. Those who make these claims must feel that the protection
against the arbitrary administration of death sentences established in the 1972 Supreme
Court case, Furman v. Georgia is ignored. It is true that the percentage of minorities
currently on death row is disproportionate to the percentage of minorities in the U.S.
population. However, this can be explained by the simple fact that minorities commit the
majority of crime. United States laws dictate that an attorney will be appointed to any
person being tried for a crime who cannot otherwise afford one. These laws ensure fair
trials for the impoverished. If a poor individual was given an unfair trial, then that person
has 17 different opportunities to have his case retried through the appeals process
Smith 7
(Winters 155). These safeguards are an excellent reason why capital punishment is fair
and does not endanger innocent people.
The nightmare of executing a wrongly convicted person may make even the most
hardened of death penalty supporters feel uneasy. Thanks to a judicial system that gives
a defendant the benefit of the doubt, the notion that an innocent person accused of murder
could be found guilty and put to death is fortunately very unlikely. Since the death
penalty was reinstated in 1976, not a single case has proven an executed prisoner was
innocent of the crime charged against him. If even the remotest possibility of innocence
is present, most prisoners are given retrials or reviews in a court with appellate
jurisdiction. Legal protection has become so extraordinary that nearly 1/3 of all death
sentences are commuted to time in prison even though an inmate’s guilt is usually well
established (“Death Penalty and Sentencing Information”). The governor of Illinois has
suspended all scheduled executions in his state so that a special commission may
reexamine how the death penalty is administered. This act was in response to an outcry
that innocent men were being put to death (Macklin). The governor’s decision shows
how carefully American officials monitor the system of capital punishment. Executions
are serious matters, and the few that have taken place over the last 25 years have
reaffirmed that the current system of capital punishment is a just and fair system.
Without capital punishment, many families of murdered victims would not get the
retribution that they are entitled. By setting so many legal statutes, the courts and state
legislatures have permitted executions only in cases that produce an extreme moral
outrage. The slaughter of a close family member has to be one of the worst experiences
imaginable. A premeditated, gruesome, or torturous murder can only worsen each
Smith 8
incident. One thing can help these families. Their inner peace will be restored and a
sense of closure can be reached when the murderer is executed (Kennedy 21).
Therefore, it would be foolish to say that a family is more concerned with the
rehabilitation of the victim’s killer than getting their just revenge. In a 1994 article,
columnist George Pettinico concluded that many Americans are evolving this same
philosophy of punishment over rehabilitation by stating,
The current result of this trend can be seen in a September 1993 Los
Angeles Times national survey which asked people where government
should make a greater effort—trying to “rehabilitate criminals who
commit violent crimes” or “punish and put away criminals who commit
violent crimes.” 61% opted for punishment, while only 25% favored
rehabilitation (31).
Criminals who commit atrocious crimes deserve no sympathy and should suffer the
consequences that suit their crimes (Wolf 64).
Whether a supporter or not, any open-minded and rational person can find
reasoning in each argument for capital punishment. America has become one of only a
handful of first world countries to still administer executions. While other similar
Western countries call for the end of this practice, the United States must stand firm
behind its people’s wishes. If the majority of Americans one day rally against capital
punishment, then it should be promptly abolished. However, as of now the majority
favors the death penalty. Capital punishment, therefore, has a place in American society
regardless of any opposition.
Smith 9
Works Cited
Bedau, Hugo. “Capital Punishment.” Grolier World Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. 1998.
Death Penalty and Sentencing Information. WWW: http//www.prodeathpenalty.com,
October 1, 1997.
“Debate Over the Electric Chair.” Current Events. 17 December 1999 3 March 1999
<http//www.mel.org>
Jacobs, Nancy R., Alison Landes, and Mark A. Siegel. Capital Punishment—Cruel and
Unusual?. Wylie: Information Plus, 1996.
Jacobs, Nancy R., Mark A. Siegel, and Norma Jones. Capital Punishment—An Effective
Punishment?. Wylie: Information Plus, 1994.
Kennedy, Eugene. “Inner peace restored for victims’ families when murdered is
Executed.” National Catholic Reporter. 2 July 1999: 21.
Macklin, William R. “Illinois suspension of death penalty potent gift for death penalty
Opponents.” Knight-Ridder Tribune News Service. 4 February 2000: K2720.
Pettinico, George. “Crime and Punishment: America Changes its Mind.” Public
Perspectives Sept./Oct. 1994: 29-32. Corrections. Eleanor Goldstein. Volume 5.
Boca Raton: SIRS, 1996. Art. 39.
United States. Dept. of Justice. Public Opinion on Crime and Criminology.
Washington: GPO, 1999.
Vanauken, Sheldon. “The Death Penalty: What Should be the Christian Attitude?”
Crisis September 1987: 123.
Webster, Merriam. Webster’s ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield: MerriamWebster Inc., 1983.
Smith 10
Winters, Paul A. The Death Penalty/ Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven
Press, Inc, 1997.
Wolf, Robert V. Capital Punishment. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 1997.