Capital punishment has been used throughout history; there have always been and always will be individuals who oppose the practice. Some issues raised in opposition are: capital punishment is not an effective deterrent of crime; the practice of capital punishment is racist, because more African Americans are given the death penalty due to impoverishment; and it is immoral to take another's life, regardless of what that person has done. Sentencing a person to death is difficult to contemplate, until one considers the horrible atrocities one person is capable of perpetrating against another. Capital punishment is a necessary part of justice, to safeguard society against human maliciousness, and it should be preserved.
The premise of using the death penalty to deter crime implies that it is reasonable to assume a rational individual, who understands the consequence of committing murder is the forfeiture of his own life, will not commit murder. "Murder rates, which had trended downward since 1935, took off almost vertically after 1963, the year the Supreme Court started overturning state death penalty convictions on a routine basis" (Tucker, 2001, p. 2). One problem with studies stating capital punishment is ineffective in deterring crime is the statistics are divided into two categories: states that use the death penalty and states that do not (Tucker, 2001). Tucker (2001) states, "Homicide rates have...fallen steadily in states that...performed executions...States with capital punishment but no executions have lowered their homicide rate...States with no capital punishment saw a slight decline that was almost completely wiped out by an upswing in 1999" (p. 11). Since numerous persons fear dying, it is preposterous to suggest that capital punishment does not deter crime.
Racism is not as prevalent today, as in years past. Prior to 1976, claiming that capital punishment was meted out more to African Americans would be correct; however, from 1976 to 2005, the numbers of prisoners on death row have been white, without exception (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2006). Another aspect of this argument is that the impoverished are more apt to be dealt the death penalty. There may be substance to the argument that the poor and minorities may not receive the best representation, than the rich and powerful; however, this is a separate issue. While this bias is wrong, it is an argument against the court system that does not ensure fair representation, regardless of economic circumstances. Claiming race is a factor in deciding if a case qualifies for the death penalty, sets the racial equality movement back decades.
Some may say that morality, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder; however, morality is conforming to the conduct of right and wrong. Murder is indisputably wrong, thus the argument that murdering a murderer is immoral; it could just as easily be argued that not murdering a murderer is immoral. Berns (1979) argues that retribution is moral: "Punishment arises out of the demand for justice, and justice is demanded by angry, morally indignant men; its purpose is to satisfy that moral indignation and thereby promote the law-abidingness that...accompanies it" (p. 16). The fact is punishment for crimes are proportionate to the crimes committed; a shoplifter would not be sentenced to life in prison, nor would a rapist be sentenced to community service; the death penalty is the only punishment comparable to pre-meditated murder (Bidinotto, 1997). To condemn all murder on the basis that it is immoral means that one would not be able to defend oneself against an intruder who intends to commit vile acts upon one's person; a policeman would not be able to justify shooting a perpetrator who has aimed a gun at his chest.
There will always be individuals who will not be persuaded from criminal activity, regardless of the penalty, for example: those who steal due to economic necessity, the criminally insane, terrorists, and spies. These people kill because they believe, however erroneously, that they have no choice. We feel frustration and horror at the senseless and brutal crimes that too frequently disrupt an otherwise peaceful society. We feel sympathy for the victim and the victim's families, while thanking God that it did not happen to us. Capital punishment is one measure employed to safeguard our families and communities; criminals found guilty of vile crimes should pay the ultimate price for their actions.
References
Berns, W. (1979). Retribution is a moral reason for capital punishment. The Ethics of Capital Punishment, Ed. Nick Fisanick, At Issue Series, San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005.
Bidinotto, R. J. (1997). Capital punishment is moral. Capital Punishment, Ed. Mary E. Williams, Current Controversies Series, San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Key Facts at a Glance: Prisoners on death row by race. Click here.
Tucker, W. (2001). Capital punishment reduces murder rates. Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? Ed. Roman Espejo, At Issue Series, San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003.
Comments