The Value of Capital Punishment
|
Contact the author. 1998. Putting people to death who have committed certain heinous acts of crime is a practice of ancient standing, but, in the United States, in the latter half of the Twentieth Century and into the Twenty-first Century, it has become a very controversial issue. Changing views on this difficult issue led the supreme Court to abolish capital punishment in 1972 but later to uphold it in 1977, with certain conditions. Indeed, restoring capital punishment is the will of the people, as, according to Ernest Van Den Haag in "The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints," over 70 percent of the American populous support the death penalty in one form or another. As Van Den Haag triumphantly declared: "Show no mercy to the merciless." Yet many other voices have risen against it. Heated public debate centers on questions of public safety, sentencing equity, and the execution of innocents, among others issues. After reviewing the arguments of those opposed to capital punishment, it only strengthens my position that capital punishment must be implemented against those convicted of immoral and counter-productive acts against society. Within the below, the reader will see why. First and foremost, the morality issue behind capital punishment is often in question. Many believers wonder what God would want. Taking a quick peruse through scriptures, one cannot help but note the following primary examples of why the death penalty must be implemented in certain cases of senseless violence: "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed..." -- Genesis 9:6 "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." -- Exodus 21:12 "And he who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." -- Exodus 21:15 "He who kidnaps a man and sells him shall surely be put to death." -- Exodus 21:16 "Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death." -- Numbers 35:31 Hand-in-hand with the scriptural morality are the benefits and values of capital punishment on our youth’s education. If youngsters are told from a young age that, if they commit any crime, they will be punished by death, the crime ratio will heavily decrease. Another consideration is that killing a convicted criminal immediately will protect society greater in the future, while still costing society the life of the convicted. In 1985, a study was published by economist Stephen K. Layson at the University of North Carolina that showed that every execution of a murderer deters, on average, 18 murders. The study also showed that raising the number of death sentences by one percent would prevent 105 murders. However, only 38 percent of all murder cases result in a death sentence, and of those, only one percent are actually executed. Economics and ecology Professor Isaac Ehrlich found similar results in a comprehensive statistical analysis he recently completed. During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M University came up with these statistics; in 1960, there were 56 executions in the United States, and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. Spence said: "While some [death penalty] abolitionists try to face down the results of their disastrous experiment and still argue to the contrary, the...[data] concludes that a substantial deterrent effect has been observed... In six months, more Americans are murdered than have killed by execution in this entire century... Until we begin to fight crime in earnest [by using the death penalty], every person who dies at a criminal's hands is a victim of our inaction." And, more recently, there have been 56 executions in the United States in 1995; more in one year since executions resumed in 1976. And, there was a twelve percent drop in the murder rate nationwide. Amazing! Thus, to conclude this vital point of consideration, while the death penalty will kill some, it certainly will save an unknown number of lives. Another point is that this country, and all other countries, have laws. The laws were created to be followed. When someone fails to follow the laws of the country, that individual is jeopardizing his/her life values in society. For instance, when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed fifteen Columbine High School students, they lost the benefit of the doubt. They disobeyed the laws of this country, and, thus, their life values in this country (if they were still alive) would be lowered. Branching off of this point, is apparent that the victim is more important than the criminal. In our current system of law, the convicted individual always gets the benefit of the doubt. Why shouldn’t the victim(s), or the victim’s family get the benefit of the doubt? After all, the victim and his/her family members are the individuals who have been jeopardized. Thus, those arguing against capital punishment are solely taking the criminal into consideration. I am certain that, if the victim were a sibling of the anti-capital punishment guru, that individual would want the death penalty instituted. A fourth justification for use of the death penalty is that our current prison system does not work effectively. Taking into consideration the statistics above, which indicate that prison doesn’t effectively work, I am fully certain that you, the reader, will come to the same conclusion I have. A valid conclusion is that life imprisonment, contrary to popular thought, is easily swayed to parole. In fact, according to "The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints," the "average time served on life sentence is six years." In all honesty, why should someone convicted by a jury of brutally murdering an innocent human being be allowed the opportunity to escape from prison? Why should that same individual, if not able to escape, be allowed parole in such a short period of time? The answer; the criminal should not be allowed either of the above opportunities. Furthermore, to refute those arguing for life imprisonment, who maintain that imprisonment makes criminals suffer more, I bring forth the following points: (1) life imprisonment may have improved conditions (e.g. free food, free shelter, free cable television) for the individuals and (2) prison facilities give the criminal too much freedom (e.g. weight room, cable television). Is the prison facility really supposed to be a spa and resort, or is it supposed to be a housing plant for vicious animals who kill our children? And, of course, the death penalty stops dangerous criminals, and protects future generations, by (1) stopping the repetition of violent criminal acts, and (2) stopping criminals from handing down their criminal genes to the next generation. Capital punishment will, furthermore, put the convicted defendant through the precise fear and agony that the victim(s) had to go through upon his/her (their) death(s). Many opposed to capital punishment resort to figures which, to them, prove that the death penalty costs far more than executing the victim. Unfortunately for such opponents, the figures are not in their favor. Justice for All, a criminal justice reform organization, estimates that life without parole cases will cost $1.2 million to $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases. Similarly, capital punishment advocate Wesley Lowe found figures indicating that each year, for each prisoner, from $40,000 to $50,000 are spent. This is MORE money than spent on each of our children for education. Take into account that most sentenced to life without parole are in prison for thirty or forty years, and we have a number well into the millions. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent life without parole cases are much more expensive -- from $1.2 to $3.6 million -- than death penalty cases. A Time Magazine research team found that, nationwide, the average cell cost is $24,000 per year, while the maximum security cell cost is around $75,000 each year (as of 12/95). Whatever the arguments of those opposed to capital punishment may be, value can never be put on a fellow human being's life. Their arguments are severely weak, as they are attempting to put a price on human lives. And, that, my friends, simply cannot be done. Finally, antagonists of the death penalty bring forth a good question: "what if the convicted is innocent?" As for the penal system accidentally executing an innocent person, I must point out that in this imperfect world, citizens are required to take certain risks in exchange for relative safety. After all, far more innocent lives have been taken by convicted murderers than the supposedly 23 innocents mistakenly executed this century. For instance, over 600 repeat offenses occur within prison walls each year in this country. Not only that, but over 13,000 American citizens are murdered each year by released and paroled criminals. These are the serious flaws in life sentences that abolitionists prefer to trivialize to nonexistence. One United States Senate report stated this position this way: "All that can be expected of [human authorities] is that they take every reasonable precaution against the danger of error... If errors are made, this is the necessary price that must be paid within a society which is made up of human beings." Also, the death penalty isn't the only institution that require that we accept risks in exchange for social benefits. We, in fact, mindlessly use far more dangerous institutions that take the lives of innocents by the hundreds every day, like the three or four tons of lethal metal we call automobiles, for example. After all, how can we accept the average 45,000 person a year death toll in this nation due to car wrecks for our personal conveniences when we can't accept the few risks of wrongful executions for the sake of defending public safety? Following the lines of that logic, we not only would have to sacrifice our vehicles, we would have to sacrifice the personal conveniences of using electricity and fire because of the lives they cost by accidents. We would have to go back to living in caves like Neanderthals because of our fear of taking risks for social benefits. To enjoy the privilege of using cars, airplanes, or any other device that improve the quality of our lives, we accept the risks and deaths that are caused by them completely in order to reap their full benefits. The same concept applies for the death penalty only on a far lesser scale. As long as we're entitled to recklessly endanger hundreds of innocent lives daily for our personal conveniences, then surely we should be allowed to take on lesser risks for something far less selfish and self serving like public safety. Every institution that is of great benefit to society always contain risks so that we may enjoy a better world. The death penalty happens to be the least dangerous of them, yet it is focused on with the most paranoia. Such an attitude is completely irrational. In summation, the overall motivation of this document can be summarized by an 1868 parliamentary plea voiced by Mr. Gregory: "It is better that the murderer should perish than that innocent men and women should have their throats cut." (The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints) The death penalty is a must for society for many reasons reviewed in the above; the morality factor, the deterrence factor, the jeopordization of the criminal’s self-value in society, the lack of justice in our current prison system, the halting of dangerous criminals, the giving of the criminal a taste of his/her own medicine, and the overall cheapness of capital punishment each weigh into the argument for capital punishment. These factors, most of which were instituted at one time or another, have proved effective. They have lasted for thousands of years, withstood the test of time, and are a must in our society. Works Cited (1) Bragdon, David. Give Us Liberty, And Give Them Death. OnLine. Internet. 1998. Available WWW: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5258/deathpen.html. (2) Szumski, Bonnie. The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints. California: Greenhaven Press, 1986. (3) Zimring, Franklin and Gordon Hawkins. Capital Punishment & the American Agenda. Massachusetts: Cambridge Press, 1987. |
 |
Essays Index |