There will be those that will agree or disagree with my thoughts. This is a paper that I wrote last year for Criminal Law I.
Since there have been many great discussions on here lately, I thought it would be a good idea to post it.
America, in the company of Iraq, Iran, and China, is one of the very last supporters of capital punishment in the world. Even in a country founded upon the principle of life as an unalienable right, it is hard for us to imagine a society without the death penalty. Since 1976, more than 700 people have been executed in the US. The federal government has left death penalty legislation and utilization up to the states. The Supreme Court has supported its use, citing the 5th amendment?s due process clause. Evidence has been gathered suggesting that death sentences have been more commonly given to minorities and the poor, as was found in the 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia. Even ignoring the probable discrimination within capital cases, the death penalty itself, and the philosophy behind it, is flawed.
There are two sides to the death penalty issue. There are retentionists who support the use of the death penalty, and abolitionists who oppose it. For both groups there are many different arguments supporting the respective theories. Retentionists differ regarding when the death penalty should be used and what criteria should determine its use. Igor Primoratz is a retentionist who believes that once someone has killed another person they loose their rights, specifically their right to live. He argues that the death penalty is not contradictory and that justice must be served, even if it means an innocent person may be put to death by mistake. Louis P. Pojman, also a retentionist, argues differently. He endorses the ?best bet? argument, that in order to save innocent lives the death penalty must be in effect. He also argues that even though there is no statistical proof, the death penalty is a deterrent because commonsense proves it?s the ?most feared humane punishment.? Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist, argues that both equality & proportional retributivism fail as retentionist theories, as well as pointing out the psychological effects the abolition of the death penalty would have on American citizens.
What is truly disappointing about society is that people actually want to see others die. Whatever the circumstances, what doesn?t make sense to me is this need to see others suffering and in pain. This goes for both murderers and supporters of the death penalty. No matter what a person has done, do they really deserve death? Or are we taking the easy way out, instead of trying to find out what?s so wrong with society and individual morality that would drive a person to such a horrible crime. Primoratz sates, ?If I violate the rights of others, I thereby lose those same rights. If I am a murderer, I have no right to live.? If we, as Americans, really do have ?certain unalienable rights,? how can we ever say that someone looses the ?right to live?? The question of life and death is a decision far beyond the actual comprehension that we have as human beings. We don?t have the right to take away life, simply because we decide it?s time to. I?m not going to justify a murderer?s actions, but to kill again isn?t going to make things right. As Nathanson argues, ?this person remains a human being, and we think that there is something in him that we must continue to respect in spite of his terrible acts.? Life is not a toy; it?s not something we can give and take as we please. In order to live in a decent society we must respect life in all forms, and at all times.
The eye for an eye argument is antiquated and barbaric. If we actually believed in such a philosophy, then why is murder the only crime disputed? Why do we not, ?rape rapists, torture torturers, and burn arsonists whose acts have led to deaths?? Nathanson claims, ?Kant?s view recommends punishments that are not morally acceptable.? Why then, is capital punishment morally acceptable? What makes rape, torture, arson, and many other crimes so different that we punish these acts with imprisonment and fines? You can?t use one philosophy for one crime and another for everything else. Judgement must be standardized in order to avoid prejudices and random sentencing.
The death penalty is the only punishment that can not be reversed. If someone is put in jail and found innocent, they can be released. There is no going back once someone is dead. Within the last century 400 people, who were convicted of murder, were found innocent, of those, 23 were executed. For this reason, there is no justifiable explanation for upholding the death penalty. Man is fallible. The government, and in particular the judicial system, is made up of men and is thus equally fallible. Until the judiciary is perfect, we can not knowingly give up our freedoms to such a system. If one innocent person is convicted unfairly and put to death, we are all in danger of facing the same fate. Pojman argues, ?If we value the saving of innocent lives more highly than the loss of the guilty, then to bet on a policy of capital punishment turns out to be rational.? If we sincerely do value saving the innocent then we must value all innocent lives; those taken by murderers, as well as those wrongly accused of such a crime. A person in jail will do as little harm to society as someone who has been executed, but allowing the death of an innocent man can never be forgiven.
The death penalty is not a deterrent. Not only has no conclusive evidence been found, but ?commonsense experience? proves otherwise, contrary to Pojman?s argument. Punishment is only a deterrent for misdemeanor crimes. A person will only weigh the risks into their actions if the morality of the crime is questionable. If it is within the realm of a person?s capability to commit heinous crimes such as rape, torture, and murder, the punishment will most likely not be a factor in their decisions. Law-abiding citizens don?t stop themselves from committing murder because they know that they could receive the death penalty for it. They don?t commit murder because they know it?s wrong, they value human life. If a person does not have this moral guidance, they will not be suede by the possible punishments.
The main problem with Pojman?s argument is his insistence that, ?some humans are worth more than others, and some have forfeited their right not to be killed, whereas most people have not.? It?s ridiculous to assume that life has no less than infinite worth, and therefore one person?s worth can not be weighed against another?s. Life, as we know it, is all we have, it?s all we know, and it?s equally important to everyone on earth. Even Primoratz rejects this idea, ?If, on the other hand, we allow that ? it can be claimed that the life of one person is more or less valuable than the life of another ? we shall thereby give up the principle of equality under the law.? You simply can not make such a judgment, the same judgement the KKK makes to justify race purification, and the same judgement Hitler used in Nazi Germany. By allowing this, our society has not evolved from such primitive attitudes, and can go no further.
The Supreme Court has been given many opportunities to make a final decision on the death penalty, but instead has consistently only added limitations. In Gregg v. Georgia the Supreme Court permitted the use of the death penalty if aggravated and mitigating circumstances were weighed in the jury?s decision. What kind of message would the Court send if it had gotten rid of the death penalty outright? By not using the death penalty the government sends a message to the people that violence is not the answer. As the highest form of authority in the country, our national government has the responsibility to set an example for its citizens. By ?control[ing] ourselves in a way he did not,? as Nathanson points out, we will further emphasize the value of human life. Reiterating that it is a right that all people have and will be protected no matter what. If you use violence to punish a violent criminal the cycle can only continue. Violence perpetuates itself. However, if you act diplomatically, real change can occur.
Even children are not safe from the sphere of capital punishment. In many states, the minimum age for being tried as an adult in a capital case is as young as 16. These children can be sentenced to death before they can have their first sip of alcohol, vote in their first election, or watch an R-rated movie without their parents. If we can?t trust children to act like adults, why do we punish them like adults? Yes, a 16-year-old child probably does know the difference between right and wrong, and they probably know that there are consequences for their actions. But, when we give up on a child, and let that child be put to death, not only is that immoral, but irresponsible. The death penalty should only be used as a last resort, if at all, and not when there is the possibility of reform. Children are much more likely to change than adults, and if our society doesn?t at least try, then the term ?due process? is meaningless.
The death penalty infringes upon everything that is moral and righteous about modern American society. There are certain rights that every human being has, and these rights can never be taken from us. To enforce such a cruel and inhumane punishment such as the death penalty only allows society to sink further into a cycle of violence and criminal behavior. A life can not be replaced, or reattributed, and certainly not by the taking of another life. To preserve human dignity, America must abolish the death penalty, and thus take the higher road. If not, the government is only as good as the criminals it seeks to punish.
Since there have been many great discussions on here lately, I thought it would be a good idea to post it.
America, in the company of Iraq, Iran, and China, is one of the very last supporters of capital punishment in the world. Even in a country founded upon the principle of life as an unalienable right, it is hard for us to imagine a society without the death penalty. Since 1976, more than 700 people have been executed in the US. The federal government has left death penalty legislation and utilization up to the states. The Supreme Court has supported its use, citing the 5th amendment?s due process clause. Evidence has been gathered suggesting that death sentences have been more commonly given to minorities and the poor, as was found in the 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia. Even ignoring the probable discrimination within capital cases, the death penalty itself, and the philosophy behind it, is flawed.
There are two sides to the death penalty issue. There are retentionists who support the use of the death penalty, and abolitionists who oppose it. For both groups there are many different arguments supporting the respective theories. Retentionists differ regarding when the death penalty should be used and what criteria should determine its use. Igor Primoratz is a retentionist who believes that once someone has killed another person they loose their rights, specifically their right to live. He argues that the death penalty is not contradictory and that justice must be served, even if it means an innocent person may be put to death by mistake. Louis P. Pojman, also a retentionist, argues differently. He endorses the ?best bet? argument, that in order to save innocent lives the death penalty must be in effect. He also argues that even though there is no statistical proof, the death penalty is a deterrent because commonsense proves it?s the ?most feared humane punishment.? Stephen Nathanson, an abolitionist, argues that both equality & proportional retributivism fail as retentionist theories, as well as pointing out the psychological effects the abolition of the death penalty would have on American citizens.
What is truly disappointing about society is that people actually want to see others die. Whatever the circumstances, what doesn?t make sense to me is this need to see others suffering and in pain. This goes for both murderers and supporters of the death penalty. No matter what a person has done, do they really deserve death? Or are we taking the easy way out, instead of trying to find out what?s so wrong with society and individual morality that would drive a person to such a horrible crime. Primoratz sates, ?If I violate the rights of others, I thereby lose those same rights. If I am a murderer, I have no right to live.? If we, as Americans, really do have ?certain unalienable rights,? how can we ever say that someone looses the ?right to live?? The question of life and death is a decision far beyond the actual comprehension that we have as human beings. We don?t have the right to take away life, simply because we decide it?s time to. I?m not going to justify a murderer?s actions, but to kill again isn?t going to make things right. As Nathanson argues, ?this person remains a human being, and we think that there is something in him that we must continue to respect in spite of his terrible acts.? Life is not a toy; it?s not something we can give and take as we please. In order to live in a decent society we must respect life in all forms, and at all times.
The eye for an eye argument is antiquated and barbaric. If we actually believed in such a philosophy, then why is murder the only crime disputed? Why do we not, ?rape rapists, torture torturers, and burn arsonists whose acts have led to deaths?? Nathanson claims, ?Kant?s view recommends punishments that are not morally acceptable.? Why then, is capital punishment morally acceptable? What makes rape, torture, arson, and many other crimes so different that we punish these acts with imprisonment and fines? You can?t use one philosophy for one crime and another for everything else. Judgement must be standardized in order to avoid prejudices and random sentencing.
The death penalty is the only punishment that can not be reversed. If someone is put in jail and found innocent, they can be released. There is no going back once someone is dead. Within the last century 400 people, who were convicted of murder, were found innocent, of those, 23 were executed. For this reason, there is no justifiable explanation for upholding the death penalty. Man is fallible. The government, and in particular the judicial system, is made up of men and is thus equally fallible. Until the judiciary is perfect, we can not knowingly give up our freedoms to such a system. If one innocent person is convicted unfairly and put to death, we are all in danger of facing the same fate. Pojman argues, ?If we value the saving of innocent lives more highly than the loss of the guilty, then to bet on a policy of capital punishment turns out to be rational.? If we sincerely do value saving the innocent then we must value all innocent lives; those taken by murderers, as well as those wrongly accused of such a crime. A person in jail will do as little harm to society as someone who has been executed, but allowing the death of an innocent man can never be forgiven.
The death penalty is not a deterrent. Not only has no conclusive evidence been found, but ?commonsense experience? proves otherwise, contrary to Pojman?s argument. Punishment is only a deterrent for misdemeanor crimes. A person will only weigh the risks into their actions if the morality of the crime is questionable. If it is within the realm of a person?s capability to commit heinous crimes such as rape, torture, and murder, the punishment will most likely not be a factor in their decisions. Law-abiding citizens don?t stop themselves from committing murder because they know that they could receive the death penalty for it. They don?t commit murder because they know it?s wrong, they value human life. If a person does not have this moral guidance, they will not be suede by the possible punishments.
The main problem with Pojman?s argument is his insistence that, ?some humans are worth more than others, and some have forfeited their right not to be killed, whereas most people have not.? It?s ridiculous to assume that life has no less than infinite worth, and therefore one person?s worth can not be weighed against another?s. Life, as we know it, is all we have, it?s all we know, and it?s equally important to everyone on earth. Even Primoratz rejects this idea, ?If, on the other hand, we allow that ? it can be claimed that the life of one person is more or less valuable than the life of another ? we shall thereby give up the principle of equality under the law.? You simply can not make such a judgment, the same judgement the KKK makes to justify race purification, and the same judgement Hitler used in Nazi Germany. By allowing this, our society has not evolved from such primitive attitudes, and can go no further.
The Supreme Court has been given many opportunities to make a final decision on the death penalty, but instead has consistently only added limitations. In Gregg v. Georgia the Supreme Court permitted the use of the death penalty if aggravated and mitigating circumstances were weighed in the jury?s decision. What kind of message would the Court send if it had gotten rid of the death penalty outright? By not using the death penalty the government sends a message to the people that violence is not the answer. As the highest form of authority in the country, our national government has the responsibility to set an example for its citizens. By ?control[ing] ourselves in a way he did not,? as Nathanson points out, we will further emphasize the value of human life. Reiterating that it is a right that all people have and will be protected no matter what. If you use violence to punish a violent criminal the cycle can only continue. Violence perpetuates itself. However, if you act diplomatically, real change can occur.
Even children are not safe from the sphere of capital punishment. In many states, the minimum age for being tried as an adult in a capital case is as young as 16. These children can be sentenced to death before they can have their first sip of alcohol, vote in their first election, or watch an R-rated movie without their parents. If we can?t trust children to act like adults, why do we punish them like adults? Yes, a 16-year-old child probably does know the difference between right and wrong, and they probably know that there are consequences for their actions. But, when we give up on a child, and let that child be put to death, not only is that immoral, but irresponsible. The death penalty should only be used as a last resort, if at all, and not when there is the possibility of reform. Children are much more likely to change than adults, and if our society doesn?t at least try, then the term ?due process? is meaningless.
The death penalty infringes upon everything that is moral and righteous about modern American society. There are certain rights that every human being has, and these rights can never be taken from us. To enforce such a cruel and inhumane punishment such as the death penalty only allows society to sink further into a cycle of violence and criminal behavior. A life can not be replaced, or reattributed, and certainly not by the taking of another life. To preserve human dignity, America must abolish the death penalty, and thus take the higher road. If not, the government is only as good as the criminals it seeks to punish.
