“And If I Die Before I Wake…”
An Essay on Capital Punishment
Corinne Hanson
US Gov. and Politics 8:00 am
Professor J. Ferlo
November 16, 2011
Capital Punishment
An issue that has continually created tension in today's society is whether the
death penalty serves as a justified and valid form of punishment. Whenever the word
"death penalty" comes up, extremists from both sides start yelling out their
arguments. One side says deterrence, the other side says there's a potential of executing
an innocent man; one says justice, retribution, and punishment; the other side says
execution is murder. Crime is an evident part of society, and everyone is aware that
something must be done about it. Most people know the threat of crime to their lives, but
the question lies in the methods and action in which it should be dealt with. In several
parts of the world, the death penalty has been apportioned to those who have committed a
variety of offenses from the time of ancient Babylon to present-day America. The
Roman Empire made use of the death penalty liberally, as did the Church of the middle
Ages. As history tells us, capital punishment, whose definition is "the use of death as a
legally sanctioned punishment," is an acceptable and efficient means of deterring
crime. Today, the death penalty remains an effective method of punishment for murder
and other heinous crimes.
There is debate over the morals and effectiveness of such a harsh sentence. Most
commonly, the death penalty is challenged as a violation of the Eighth Amendment,
which says that the U.S. cannot use "cruel and unusual" punishment. Due to the fact that
"punishment" is a legal infliction of suffering, it must be somewhat "cruel.” As for being
unusual, it is anything but, due to the long history of its usage. People will plunder, take
advantage of others, and commit crimes as long as it is in their best interest to do so. The
purpose of our entire criminal justice system is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and
property for all its citizens. To do this, the punishment for crime must be harsh enough to
deter potential criminals. Under this mindset, the death penalty makes perfect
sense. Here is a punishment that truly makes a criminal pay for his crime, stops the
criminal from committing it again, and deters other criminals from committing the same
crime.
The punishment for murder is getting to be shorter and shorter. A judge could
sentence a man to life in prison. That same man could be out of jail with 15 years. How
has life in jail become known as ten to fifteen years? If the judge says life with no parole,
then the criminal could stay in jail a bit longer, but that would mean the state and it's
voters would have to take care of the prisoner for twenty to twenty five years. How can
we trust the murderers and thieves of our country to a judicial system that will either let
them out in ten years or have us take care of them for twenty years, and then let them
go? The criminals do not fear the punishment anymore, because they know they will not
die. Punishment is meant to give justice to the wrongdoer and to keep him from doing it
again. I am not saying we execute all of the criminals in the world, but it has to remain
an option for the courts to use and to scare the criminals of the country. Many criminals
don't fear the judicial system. They know that they will get out in ten years if they
murder someone. They are not afraid of jail or their punishment. How can we force
them to stop killing or stealing if they are not afraid of the punishment we give
them. Most rational men are afraid of death. They don't want to die. There are also men
that don't fear death, but enjoy killing. They must be controlled, but if they are sentenced
to life, they are soon free to kill again. We must have the death penalty as an option so
that they will be afraid to break the law, and to control those who don't fear death but
love to break the law.
While attorneys are protecting the rights of the accused, the family of the
victim often gets lost in the legal proceedings. While the accused is protected by laws
and is the center of the scuffle between various lawyers, the mourning family receives
little more than the media circus for their grief. They receive inadequate compensation
for their loss, but with a death penalty, they can at least be assured that that person who
murdered their loved one will never kill again. Capital punishment should remain in use
and delivered more frequently. Only too often are death penalties reduced to life
sentences or less and more condemned inmates die in death row than by execution. The
effectiveness of capital punishment rests largely on the willingness of officials to use it
liberally and thus exerting the power of the government. This penalty would serve as a
deterrent of violent crimes and restore justice. Increased use would prod people to stay
away from violent crimes. Would-be criminals would think twice before committing an
offense punishable by death, and because of this, societies would gain a sense of "moral
security.” As we can see from previous civilizations such as the Babylonian and Roman
Empires, death penalty is effective and much more efficient than spending millions of
society’s tax dollars to upkeep their prison stay. Killers who have showed themselves
capable of savage brutality need to be prevented from repeating their crimes and act as a
lesson to others. Capital punishment is the most effective way.
Given the benefits of capital punishment, it is hard to imagine why anyone
would be against it, but there are several arguments against the death sentence that need
to be addressed. Opponents of the death penalty point out that there is a possibility of
wrongly executing an innocent man. Of course, there is a possibility of wrongly sending
an innocent man to prison, or wrongly fining an innocent man, but they contend that
because of the finality and severity of the death penalty, the consequences of wrongly
executing an innocent person are much more wrong. There has never been any proof of
an innocent man being executed.
Although it is very unlikely that an innocent person would be executed, the
question arises about whether the execution of an innocent man is a strong enough
argument to abolish the death penalty. Before deciding, one must remember the lives that
the death penalty saves. Repeat murderers are eliminated, and potential murderers are
deterred. As mentioned earlier, one must consider the victims as well as the
defendant. Is it worth it to lose forty-five innocent lives so that no innocent person is
executed? This practice is considered acceptable. Risking the possibility that someone
might be wrongly executed is worth it to save the lives of thousands of innocent people
who might be the next victims of murder.
Capital punishment has proven to have good benefits upon the country in
determining the consequences that criminals deserve. This is needed to ensure the safety
and moral values of society. If this is the case, there is no need for us to consider the
expenses involved in the death penalty. Certainly human lives are more important, for it
may easily be yours. We should not abolish capital punishment, but hold our country
accountable for properly exercising the death penalty upon those who deserve it.