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, 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. 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. 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”).
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”).
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 (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 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.