Lee 1
Jun Hyung Lee
Criminal Justice 1010
Greg Butler
Research Paper
4/25/2012
Capital Punishment
*What is capital punishment?
Capital punishment, which is called in other words, death penalty, death sentence, or
execution, is a “legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as punishment for a
crime.” (Wikipedia) It is the maximum penalty allowable by law in a number of countries these
days. Because of many factors such as the consideration of the dignity of human being, chances
of misjudgment, or political abuse and etcetera, controversies over capital punishment has
existed since the origin of capital punishment.
*History/origin of capital punishment.
A number of arguments of the origin of capital punishment make it unclear which story is
the right story and which is not. There are some people who argue that it started from Europe and
it was propagated around the world. However, most of the historians put more weights more on
the opinion that says back in the old days before any legal nation was established, such thing as
human rights was not a very important thing to consider; in fact no such thing existed and
therefore, it was “killing,” rather than giving a death penalty. The exact numerical fact about
when it started does not exist. The first record of a nation that adopted death penalty was found
Lee 2
in the Greek Empire or the Roman Empire. Death penalty was legally stated and legally
supported, but still, the concept was “eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Criminals were punished by
getting their hands cut off for stealing, or by getting killed for killing another guy. Problems such
as putting personal feelings to kill other people were controlled as the government took over the
right to punish legally.
As entering the Enlightenment Period, death penalty remained in the center of the
punishments to form a fear and threat to the public not to commit a crime or “you will die.” Then
the rational discussion on legal punishment and penalties started in the time period. The pure
purpose of the punishment, the essence of it, and its content and who the subject is were debated.
Then the punishment including death penalty started modernizing and showing rational
characteristic; now it was not only to punish the criminals but also to fix and improve the
criminals’ life.
In 1764, an Italian jurist, philosopher and politician named Cesare Beccaria wrote “On
Crimes and Punishments.” After his mention and insists about that capital punishment should be
abolished for many different reasons, the abolition of capital punishment has been one of the
biggest, endless social issues.
*Arguments for capital punishment
There is no doubt that capital punishment is one of the most common topics that brings
up big controversies. People who are for capital punishment argue that the government has the
obligation to secure and guarantee the citizen’s safety and keep the public order. Nowadays,
people are exposed to the danger of murder, rape, robbery, or kidnapping and more. They say it
is not realistic at all to abolish capital punishment which still remains as a threat to those who
Lee 3
commit severe crimes. Also, they claim that it is rather a crime and a deviation from the law to
respect the criminals’ human rights when they completely trampled on the victims’ human rights.
This “crime” and flaw cannot be committed by a nation. The death penalty supporters say from a
common sense that it is almost the same as murdering the families, friends and the people who
loved the victim of a murder.
The studies and the researches state that about 60% of the citizens still want to keep the
capital punishment in the law. The supporters say that it should be done in the way more people
want it to be. Also, people for death penalty say that one of the arguments that the abolitionists
bring up does not make sense anymore in these days. One of the abolitionists’ opinions is that the
chances for misjudgment exist. However, the death penalty supporters insist that the possibilities
of misjudgment have decreased tremendously in modern days. They say as the society and
technology developed, and the public’s awareness and recognition over the society increased,
judges became able to make even better and more accurate judgments and therefor, the number
of the rate of misjudgment or miscalculation has gone down a lot. On top of that, they say that
tax can be saved by not having to spend the money or food on those criminals; they say they do
not want to support the criminals with the tax they pay. Additionally, if the death penalty was
abolished and life imprisonment-system takes the place, financial issue would have to be solved.
*Arguments against capital punishment
The most commonly known reason that the people who are for the abolition of capital punishment
bring up is that human rights even for the criminals have to be secured. The law states that every citizen has
the majesty and values just for being a human being. The abolition supporters say that murderers still is a
citizen of a country and still is a human being and they should have their values and human rights secured.
Lee 4
The abolitionists also say that the essence of punishment at first had the characteristic of retribution for the
crimes the criminals had committed. However, as time flows, the characteristics and the purpose of
punishment has been changed to crime prevention and the reformation of criminals. Then, the abolitionists
claim that capital punishment does not necessarily reduce the rate of heinous crimes. One of the examples I
found while researching the abolitionists’ points takes place in Canada. Canada abolished death penalty in
1975. The rate of murder out of 100,000 people kept decreasing. In 1975, the rate of murder was 3.09
victims, then in 1980s, it dropped down to 2.41 victims. In 2003, 27 years after the abolition of death penalty,
the rate of murder was 1.73 victims out of 100,000 people. The research shows that the rate of murder had
dropped by 44%. Also, another example that the abolitionists bring up with their argument that I found
while researching for this paper was from the result of the studies from the Harvard University and the
University of Pennsylvania. The law school in Harvard and the U of Penn. States that no experiential data
can prove that death penalty restricts the brutal crimes. They say that it does not mean the death penalty does
not have any effects on restriction of the crimes. Then, if there is no rate difference of crimes with the death
penalty and without it, why not abolish it? The abolition supporters, as mentioned before, also bring up an
idea that the possibility of misjudgment exists. Death penalty is an irrevocable punishment; once it is
executed, that is it. Killing the murderer does not bring the life of the victim back. It is understandable that
the people around the victims are also victims of the murder. However, the abolitionists say that the people
and families around the murderer who dies from death penalty would end up as victims as well.
*My personal thoughts over capital punishment
The society has responsibility to assure the freedom of the people in that society as much
as possible and to secure the human rights even for the minorities. However, at the same time,
the society has to resolutely ask for the consequences from those who break the law. As the time
Lee 5
flows, more countries and states had abolished capital punishment. Nonetheless, in my opinion,
capital punishment is a necessary punishment method that should be left legal.
I have a feeling that the people in these days stress the importance of human rights a little
too much. It is true that disabled people, elderly people, poor people, or any kind of people have
to be treated the same with the same human rights. However, a question raises inside of me very
strongly if the human rights of those people who broke the law the society has made which
everybody is following should be secured the same way as well. Securing the civil rights of the
people who threaten other people’s civil rights is not as important.
Police officers say it is very difficult to take care of the drunken people on the street who
is causing troubles or who is close to cause any trouble. If there is anything the officers can arrest
those people for, they would do it. Getting drunk is a freedom of anybody. However, harming
other innocent people by being violent, annoying, or in any form is not a freedom. In the end, the
boundary of the freedom has to be inside the circle that does not invade other people’s rights and
violate other people. Consequences have to follow if anyone could not keep it under the law no
matter what. If the consequence is to be removed from the society eternally to secure the human
rights and the safety of other innocent people, then the criminal who deserves death, judged by
the law, have to take the consequence.
*References
_http://cafe.naver.com/helloibk/380
_http://terms.naver.com/entry.nhn?docId=941438
_http://cafe.naver.com/law4/41
_http://kin.naver.com/qna/detail.nhn?d1id=6&dirId=60214&docId=46864210&qb=7IKs7ZiV7K
Lee 6
CcIOywrOyEsQ==&enc=utf8&section=kin&rank=8&search_sort=0&spq=0&sp=1
_ http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/alternative-sentencing
_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
_http://www.dictionary.com
_http://www.dic.naver.com