Capital Punishment: Ongoing Debate

Capital Punishment: Ongoing Debate

Capital punishment has been in circulation from very ancient times. It was used to punish thieves and liars or those disloyal to their country. It was carried out in a barbaric way before; lopping off heads, feeding people to animals, or burning at a steak. Even back in those ages, people were protesting it at a small level. They knew it was cruel, but the way it was carried out did not change much because if people questioned it, they might end up being killed themselves. The death penalty has now evolved in to more humane methods; lethal injection, toxic gases, and electrocution. Yet there are still those who question the humanity of it. There are those who still believe it is cruel and unusual and just an unnecessary measure to take. They feel it is better to just let them rot in life imprisonment, living out their years, while the other group feels life is something they do not deserve. The truth is that capital punishment is full of controversy that will never die for all time.

Before getting into the controversy, one must understand the history and origin of capital punishment, which dates back to the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammaurabi of Babylon. This code made twenty five different crimes punishable by death. The sentence was carried out in many barbaric ways which would be completely unacceptable in today's world. These ways of execution were: crucifixion, drowning, beating to death, burning alive, and impalement. The popular form of execution, hanging, became the accepted form of execution first in Britain in the tenth century. However, methods like boiling, burning at the stake, hanging, beheading, and drawing and quartering were still being used all the way up to the Sixteenth century. Britain finally reformed their policies and eliminated many crimes punishable by death (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org).

In America, the death penalty was greatly influenced by the British practices. The first recorded execution was the accused spy Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. The death penalty was still being used for less minor offenses like theft or defiance of ones parents, so it was far from being a humane practice. Early opposition towards the death penalty became apparent during the abolitionist movement in the colonies. In 1767, Cesare Beccaria wrote an essay titled, "On Crimes and Punishment," stating that no state has the right to take a person life. More and more opposition and the need for reform were arising in the late 1700s and early 1800s until change finally happened. Capital punishment was limited to a few major crimes like murder and treason and the executions themselves were held in privacy, eliminating the cruelty of making a show out of executions. Execution was now limited to lethal injection, lethal gas, and electrocution. Some states even took it to the extreme completely abolished it even to this day. In the mid 1900s, capital punishment advocates were declining in numbers, to about 42% support nationwide. In 1972, it was actually deemed cruel and unusual and temporarily unconstitutional until it was reinstated not long after (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org). That sums up the origin of capital punishment and how it was developed in the United States of America.

As it is known, there are advocates and there are opponents of the death penalty and how it is practiced. Both sides must be examined to fully understand their plights. Firstly, the supporters, which I am one of, will be heard. Strong advocates of the death penalty have many reasons why it is a necessary measure and why it is good for America. One reason is deterrence. Supporters claim that a potential murderer will think twice before killing somebody when they understand that the consequence means death. They feel that by putting murderers down, they are saving many would-be victims. When states use the death penalty it sends the message to criminals: "Hey if you do something dumb like this guy did, you will end up just like him." Delaware, which executes more murderers per capita than any other state in the U.S.A., has a low homicide rate, which can prove the deterrence factor. They feel that the death penalty is an advantage even if it does not deter. If it does not deter, all that is happening is that horrible people are dying which is good. If it does deter, horrible people are dying and innocent lives are being saved. Besides, deterrence is not the main goal of the death penalty. It is about serving justice and doing what is right (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/).

Another point to look at is that the death penalty is the only way to ensure that a killer will not kill another time. They can kill other inmates whom don't deserve death, like thieves and drug abusers. When under life imprisonment, criminals begin to plot over ways to escape, and sometimes they succeed and kill innocent people again.

"Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives." (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153)

If they were put down in the first place, lives would have been saved and the world would be a better place without them. In states without the death penalty, major crimes are punished by life without parole. So if the murderers kill again, a heavier punishment will not be pushed onto them. Therefore they can go on and kill ten more people after their initial crime and still not get anymore punishment (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/).

What must be taken under consideration is the victim's family. The opponents make the criminal out to be the victim. Families are tortured when they killers of their loved ones are allowed to live. Those families find it unfair that they have to visit their lost ones in a cemetery while the murderer can be visited in prison alive and well. It is known that when murders are executed, the families' recovering is helped a little bit. Opposition tries to save the killers, supporters say. They feel that the opposition fails to take into account the victim and their family and instead focus on having pity for the killer. Supporters scoff at the anti-death sentencing claim of it being vengeance. What it really is about is justice, not vengeance (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/).

Another point for the advocates is countering the opponents claim that innocent people have been executed. There has surly been wrongful convictions. However, these accidents were in the past when the justice system did not have DNA evidence or other technological advances. A lot of the

...