args

The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Intro- Throughout the course of the justice system as we know it, humanity has sought to find appropriate means in which a punishment might fit the crime. As it stands, with proper adjudication, we have found a workable model in which the tried and guilty of humanity have ability to contest their sentence, contest their trial, and prove their innocence or their situation being worthy of leniency before the sentence. The most extreme crimes in this world really don’t have the ability to have justice meted out. As we discuss this topic, seemingly in my back yard, one of the worst premeditated shootings to have occurred on American soil was just perpetrated in which 49 people were killed by the acts of one man. There really is no way that should this killer have been taken alive that there is a balance he could have paid back to society. The Death Penalty as we discuss it represents the last potential for a heinous perpetrator to find justice, for our laws to have a function, and our punishments to have meaning. It’s a clear statement that should your actions take the lives of others, you must pay in the only meaningful way for the evil that has been committed. Here are what I feel are the most compelling reasons for keeping the Death penalty as a real punishment, and an appreciably, viable deterrent. Right to Death- While the reader might puzzle over this, the rationale is quite simple. Currently, we do have capital punishment in certain states. I suggest a hypothetical to prove my point: if the offender in question knowingly pleads guilty, knowingly instructs his/her defense and the court that he/she knows his crime is horrible, does not feel he/she is worth rehabilitation, would prefer to die rather than risk potential release and commit this crime again, is this not a clear cut case of legally enacted right to die? If the offender states as such so plainly, the resolution as stated denies the right to die. Purpose of Justice- It has been stated that the reason for a justice system is as follows: “'The purpose of the Criminal Justice System... is to deliver justice for all, by convicting and punishing the guilty and helping them to stop offending, while protecting the innocent.” (1) What is injustice? I contend we all know what that is when we see it. When Ponzi schemes are revealed and billions of dollars of people’s retirement disappear. When valuables are stolen and destroyed, leaving the victim with no recourse even when the offender is found guilty. Injustice is that sense of understanding that a void has been created by the offender, and no matter what platitudes might be offered, that thing, whatever it was that the offender acted on, is gone, and no reasonable efforts can replace it. Cars and money are replaceable. Justice is easy to find in a situation where a few thousand dollars are stolen from a robbed bank, and it’s easy to take that out of the perpetrator to attempt to make the victims whole. People, however, are not so easily replaced. There is no reasonable means a murderer can replace what they took from the victim’s family, or the victim themselves. Is it really possible to call a life time incarceration in which the most basic needs of life are provided to the offender as a just circumstance when such was not provided to the victim by the offender? Justice incarnate is represented by holding a balance. At its most basic of understanding, justice is the ability for equality to be achieved again, to find balance in the offense to right the wrong that was done. The resolution simply doesn’t allow for that. It gives carte blanche to an offender, that no matter how much they take and take and take of this most precious gift, life, it will never be in turn taken from them. That is simply not just. Accrued cost- I have no doubt this seems cavalier to state, but to the tax payer, as it stands, expedience in conducting sentence and proper appeals would prevent the tax payer (of which the victim’s family might be present) from paying for the lifestyle of the offender, however diminished it might be. I have no desire to support convicts in general, much less convicts that have been found guilty of killing those I love. I can’t imagine that sentiment would be unpopular amongst all the families of have killers of their family on death row. Numbers for incarceration vs execution vary widely, however from what casual inspection I have done, admittedly due to legal process, it costs more to attempt to execute an inmate than it does to keep them incarcerated permanently. This, however, assumes that the inmate makes use of all their appeals (a likely prospect). This also assumes that an inmate that is effectively a dependent of the state expires in a succinct fashion: that is to say they die quickly. Given the state of affairs regarding healthcare costs, such a statement of execution being a less expensive alternative can very much be a reality, and is more likely to be so as time goes on. (2) Deterrent- Given a majority of states that have specific law regarding crimes conducted with firearms, it is quite possible to rack up a life sentence by brandishing a firearm, shooting into the air, and using one in the commission of a felony. Ten/20/Life rules virtually guarantee that a poorly conducted robbery will result a life time of incarceration. Speaking logically, then… what does it matter if you kill some one in the commission of the crime? The deterrent effect of the death penalty is obviously widely debated, however a few conclusions can be drawn: -“Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).” -“Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.”