Death Penalty

Lethal injection has become the preferred method of execution in the United States since the early 80’s. But is lethal injection a harsh enough penalty for murder? The answer is no, it is not a good enough punishment for someone who has taken the life of another. Lethal injection is a process that allows a convict to be put down quickly and painlessly, but what happened to the older methods? Methods such as hanging, electrocution, and firing squads are not used in a large scale these days. These methods are the kind that makes the offender miserable for the last moments of their life; these are the methods I think that should be used today.

I am going to argue that the life in prison is not enough, the death penalty should be worse than what it is, and public executions have a greater deterrent effect. There are a lot of families that want more justice to the person who killed a family member then life imprisonment and that is just what they should get. For a family who has one of their own taken from them, the grief they feel is unimaginable. They need justice to be served to aid them to deal with their loss; they need the victim’s death to be avenged. Life imprisonment is not enough.

It is not a help to a grieving family to let the offender spend the rest of his days in jail, eating three square meals a day and watching TV. Quite frankly, it is not proper justice on behalf of the victim either. Ancient civilizations would not have thought twice about sentencing a person to death for taking the life of another. Opponents of the death penalty would argue that the death penalty is barbaric and inhuman, but what about the murder of innocent people? Is life in prison the punishment we want people to believe they will receive for murder?

Prisons these days are state of the art, with weight rooms, work programs, televisions, food, and warm beds. Prison is a step up from the conditions that some people live in. Life in prison is more of a gift to some people then a punishment. Some people say that life in prison is worse then death because the offender will have to think about what they did every day for the rest of their life. Just knowing what they did is not good enough. Executions do not happen the minute after they commit a crime, there is enough time for them to think about what they have done while they wait for their life to be ended.

Executing life prisoners will save money in long run. If a criminal committed a murder at 18 and lived to the average life expectancy of an American, taxpayers would have to pay for that convict for at least 50 years. If that same criminal was executed at 19 hundreds of thousands of dollars would be saved on that convict alone. In a system that is overworked and overcrowded it could be just the thing to aid the criminal justice system that it so desperately needs. Needed jail space would be freed up for criminals with lesser offenses who might receive probation and commit other offenses.

The money it would save would enable a lower amount of money to be allotted to prisons that have to house these inmates who could have received death. That money could in turn be used in programs to help deter people at and early age from committing all types of crimes. Some murderers will never feel remorse for what they have done, what will life in prison do for those people? There is an old saying “an eye for an eye” and only with that theory can justice be served. Since ancient times criminals have received the death penalty because the crimes they have committed have damaged people and families forever.

Murderers are not good enough to receive life in prison. They have committed the ultimate crime, taking the life of another. Allowing convicted murderers to receive the mercy of the courts and get life is the wrong message we want to tell the public. To let murders off easy is an insult to the victims, the families, and society as a whole. Lethal injection is too lenient of a death penalty for a harsh crime; criminals sentenced to death should receive harsh penalties like the crimes they committed.

We should punish a murderer more severely then we do today. It is hard for a family to just go watch a prisoner get an injection, after all, the victim most likely received a more violent death then an injection. Justice for murderers should be more violent. Why should they just give them a little injection when they did worse to their victim? The punishment system should be just the same as what the murderer did. For example, if a murderer shot somebody in the arm, and the next day they died, then he or she should be shot in front of their family.

Let them suffer. If he does not die, then shoot him again. The 8th amendment prevents cruel and unusual punishments. The amendment was established in part because Supreme Court justices felt that personal vengeance has no place in the criminal justice system. The fate of a murderer was left to a jury of people that did not know the victim, most likely have never had anyone they love taken from them in cold blood, and do not know what it feels like knowing someone they loved suffered the way the victim did.

I think the amendment should be abolished. Maybe it is time families got a little vengeance. There is no end in sight for murders so why not allow the families of victims to avenge the deaths of their loved ones, and allow them to get the proper justice they seek. The loss of a loved one to a horrible death is unimaginable, and then for the person who took that loved one away from a family to just go to sleep and never wake up again is not enough. “Robert E. Crowe, the Illinois state?s attorney” was a great supporter of the death penalty. I urge capital punishment for murder,” he once exclaimed, “not because I believe that society wishes to take the life of a murderer, but because society does not wish to lose its own” (Kronenwetter)”. In England, many years ago, they used a different kind of death penalty. Instead of using a regular death penalty, they would torture their prisoner until they were dead. In the late middle Ages, European countries executed people for minor offenses; England primarily reserved the death penalty for such relatively serious crimes as murder, treason, rape, arson, and robbery.

However, pick-pockets and other petty thieves were most often executed. Hanging and beheading were the most common executions. This is what the United States should start doing. If we would begin to hang and behead murderers, then their definitely would not be any more crimes committed. In England, the array of crimes punishable by death has increased over the years, until the early nineteenth century more than two hundred different crimes had become capital offenses. The death penalty in the American colonies was a little similar to ours in this day. Treason and murder is what made them give the death penalty.

Certain country’s have different regulations for the death penalty. Murder was the capital crime in the colonies, as was treason or rebellion. In the Massachusetts colony, cursing one’s parents was a capital crime. This information is a great help for our capital punishment system. We need to start following the laws from back then. The little crimes we can do away with, but to hang or behead someone would be a lot more deterrent. In the wake of the American Revolution, the U. S. Constitution gave both the states and the federal government the right to set their own criminal penalties. The very first congress of the United States passed federal laws making death the penalty for rape and murder, and each of the original states made other crimes punishable by death as well (Kronenwetter)”. These executions go a little to far for the crimes they committed back then, but if we use some of those punishments these day’s, then there definitely will not be any crimes. While the United States is seen as barbaric to other countries because most do not have the death penalty, they do not have the murder rates we do. Other countries do not have violent murderers like we do either.

If we can not prevent murders, we can at least use harsher penalties to punish offenders. Penalties like hanging, electrocution, firing squad, and the gas chamber need to be reintroduced. The current punishments would make us believe that people who take another person’s life should receive the same treatment as a sick family pet, a simple injection that brings about a quick, painless death. Is that really justice for a murder victim? If murder victims could have their say they would want murderers to suffer the same pain that they did, but unfortunately they cannot have their say because their lives were savagely cut short.

The only way for victims to receive the justice they deserve is for their assailant should suffer like they did. Executions alone are not enough of a deterrent. Executions that are opened to the public could be just the deterrent we need. The number of murderers committed increases everyday. Why can’t we stop them? This has been a question for as long as time. Putting the injection to them will not stop anything. Think about it, if everyone in the world could watch a murderer get executed, who would want to kill anyone anymore. They would not want to o through what they have seen, so maybe it will change their mind and make them think before they do so. In the old days when there were public executions there were no where near as many murders as there are today. All executions were public in the old days including hangings here in the United States. Public executions were done away with because they were seen as barbaric, but how will people in the world today realize the punishments for killing if they do not know what an execution is like? Just telling people killing is wrong is not enough.

They need a mental image to be able to put with the thought of murder. Public executions are just the thing that would make people learn murder is wrong and it carries with it a harsh penalty. Penalties such as hanging, electrocution, and the firing squad should be used more often. We do not have to go as far as some Arabic countries where people get mutilated until they die, but we do need to make harsher penalties viewable to the masses. The government should show the executions on television, and open the executions up to a public audience.

People would not even have to view the execution to get the effects of it. The media would talk about it enough that the message would be conveyed to everyone. The harsh penalties would be the deterrent they were always meant to be. The death penalty has been in murky water since the early 80’s. Even with the most painless method available used the country as a whole is still seen as barbaric throughout the world. The greatest civilizations in history all used the death penalty and a much harsher penalties then used today.

From the Egyptians to the Romans, and the Middle Ages until today the death penalty has always been used. While it has always been used, no civilization has ever used a painless method as such as we use today. That is why there were not murderers like there are today. Every one knew the punishment for murder was a painful and severe death. Now murderers can receive life imprisonment instead of the death penalty allowing them to spend the rest days behind bars watching TV. Harsher death penalties would help relieve the grief victims families will feel after the loss of their loved ones.

Death is the only right way to avenge the death of any victim that they can not get any other way. Death penalties have never been a great deterrent but they have been even less of a deterrent since they have been made less painful and private. Only a modified harsher death penalty can help severe crimes to been seen as morally wrong to the public as a whole. Robert Crowe said, “It is the finality of the death penalty which instills fear in the heart of every murderer, and it is this fear of punishment which protects society (Kronenwetter)”. ________________

Our professional custom writing service can provide you with a 100% non-plagiarized custom essay, research paper, term paper, thesis, dissertation or other assignment of high-quality. All custom papers are written from scratch by professional academic writers. Any topic, any discipline, any deadline. Feel free to order a custom research paper on Death Penalty now. POSTED BY TOM AT 3:39 AM 3 COMMENTS: LABELS: DEATH PENALTY RESEARCH PAPER EXAMPLES, DEATH PENALTY RESEARCH PAPER TOPICS, DEATH PENALTY RESEARCH PAPERS, FREE DEATH PENALTY RESEARCH PAPERS, WRITE DEATH PENALTY RESEARCH PAPER

The Death Penalty “If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call. ” (McAdams) The death penalty should be legalized in all fifty states, to avert from crime, keep repeat offenders off of the streets, and to reduce taxpayers the cost of keeping those found guilty of heinous crimes in prison low.

The death penalty can in fact deter heinous crimes from being committed when it is lawful in a state. Social scientists have stated that the act of general deterrence, which is when the punishment deters potential criminals from committing crimes, keeps criminals from going through with crimes. However, it is more shown that premeditated crimes are usually the ones stopped by general deterrence, not crimes under passion. Heinous crimes have been reduced highly in the states that have a capital punishment law.

The death penalty keeps repeat offenders off of the streets. In Michigan a case that represents this happened; “A man who was hired by Honeywell Inc. , after serving four years in prison for strangling a co-worker has been charged with killing another co-worker and a woman he allegedly stalked and threatened for weeks” (Sullum personal file). Had the death penalty been allowed in Michigan the woman’s life could have been sparred, for the male who murdered her would have been executed long before and never had the chance to murder her.

The death penalty may be a long process, but it does not give those on death row a hope of parole. By having the heinous criminals in prisons on death row keeps them from repeating crimes. In five out of seven cases it is said that criminals will once again commit crimes once released from prison of jail. The death penalty keeps the criminals in jail and executes them. This protects the general public from murderous crimes from repeat offenders.

The death penalty also keeps taxpayers costs low, because the prison looses members in which the state taxes would have to pay for. The citizens of the state pay for the prisoners, and my eliminating the criminals jailed for heinous crimes reduces cost by a high percent. The average cost per year per prison is about $1 billion. By enforcing the death penalty and making it lawful can reduce that cost by almost half. Half does not sound like much in such large terms, but in reality it is an immense amount of money that the taxpayers can be using somewhere else.

Struggling families still have to pay for imprisoned criminals and the death penalty can in turn have more money in that home, because it would not be put towards the prison. There is another side to the death penalty, however. Most people believe the death penalty is immoral and unjust. Some say that the idea of “an eye for an eye” should not apply to the death penalty. Capital punishment is still an act of murder, which is punishable by law. This is a major argument of those against capital punishment. There are also religious views that keep many opposed of the death penalty.

Christians view the death penalty as wrong because of the fact that killing a killer is still killing, which is a sin that breaks one of the Ten Commandments. The large population of Christians in the United States keeps the vote against capital punishment high, because this nation was built on that faith and it is also the highest religion in the nation. The death penalty keeps taxpayers cost low, keeps repeat offenders off of the street, and deters heinous crime, and therefore should be made lawful in all fifty states of the United States of America.

The world can be a dark and cruel place to live in. Proof of this cruelty can be easily determined just by watching the news, or reading a newspaper of current events. It seems like every day a horrendous crime is committed: murder, kidnapping, and child molestation, just to name a few. These crimes are sufficient proof that there is enough evil in the world to make even the atheists pray for divine intervention. Amazingly, the human species has survived long enough to see another day.

Perhaps the reason for our survival is sheer luck, but most of us would agree that luck has nothing to do with it. A more rational and logical answer for our survival may be linked to the rules that we have set to protect our lives. Without these rules, our world would be in a chaotic state of nature. Social contact theorist, Thomas Hobbes, believes that life in a state of nature is a “war of all against all,” and in the state of nature life is “nasty, brutish, and short. He believed that rules and regulations were very impertinent to keeping order within our society (Waller, 2008). To an extent, I agree with Hobbes. I believe that it is very important that we are advocates for the death penalty, because it is a vital factor to keeping our society under order.

The death penalty is the most severe form of punishment sentenced to a person who has been condemned by the law. Although it is unclear how far back this particular form of punishment has been practiced, the first recorded statistics of the death penalty in the United States dates back to the 1930s (Green, 2005).The controversy of whether the death penalty is an adequate form of punishment, or an unconstitutional one has been debated for centuries on end. History can verify the roller coaster decisions about the issues concerning the death penalty.

However, in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976), the death penalty was reinstated under a model of guided discretion.There are reasons why the death penalty was reinstated. It appears that the benefits of the death penalty outweigh the alleged detriments it presents.

It is important that we provide retribution due to the people who have been victimized in the most atrocious manner. Intentionally taking the life of an innocent human being is so evil that absent mitigating circumstances, the perpetrator forfeits their own right to life. The person deserves to die or be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime (Waller, 2008). A life taken prematurely by a criminal does not only affect the victim but the lives of their loved ones forever. If a society fails to punish these criminals in a way thought to be proportionate to the gravity of a crime, the danger arises that the public would take the law into its own hands. The outcome is likely to be an anarchistic, insecure state of injustice (Bedau, 2005). Envisioning yourself in the same situation, where there was no retribution for the crime committed against you or a loved one, an act of private retribution will likely take place.

The death penalty sentence could assist in alleviating these private acts of revenge. It is essential that we find a method of deterrence to assist in preventing people from committing dreadful crimes in the future. The death penalty provides a justified method of deterrence. Contrary to the idea that it promotes violence, the death penalty helps us think twice about carrying out our intentions of belligerent behavior. Crimes would run rampant as never before if there is not some way to deter people from committing repulsive acts of crime (Messerli, 2008). The death penalty serves as a reminder that there are consequences to our actions, which we are responsible for what we do, so that dire consequences for immoral actions are eminently appropriate (Waller, 2008). Growing up, I could remember being warned by my parents to refrain from participating in activities that would cause harm to me or another person.

If I did not abide by the rules, then I would be punished. The justice system with the punishment of the death penalty is similar to this analogy. The people as a whole are equivalent to the children in this ase, with the justice system being the parent, using the death penalty as a way to teach us to refrain from engaging in heinous acts that would hurt ourselves and others. If we do not adhere to the rules, then we suffer the consequences of our actions. It is vital that we have the death penalty to prevent the possibility of reoccurrence. A person sentenced to life in prison could be possible let out early through parole, making it possible for them to reoffend. A prime example of reoccurrence is presented in the current case regarding the kidnapping of Jaycee Duguard.

She was kidnapped and held captive for eighteen years by a repeated offender, Phillip Garrido. Philip Garrido was previously held in federal prison for eleven years for a similar case and was released early from prison on parole (Wohlsen and Rindels, 2009). In 2000 to 2005, the percentage of reoccurring violent and sexual crimes committed rose over twelve percent. In addition to this finding, more than half a million crimes committed a year are committed by serial offenders who have just been freed from jail or sentenced to community punishment (Hickley and Slack, 2008).It is appalling to thinking about crimes committed by repeated offenders. It makes a strong case for why the death penalty is very impertinent to our society. It will eliminate all chances of a repeated offense.

It is also a great preventive measure to securing the lives of innocent people. However, as with every controversial issue, there are always two sides to consider. Opponents of the death penalty argue that the death penalty violates the basic human right to life. They believe that prison sentences are a satisfactory alternative to the death penalty for criminals who commit even the most horrific crimes.They present their case by contradicting the very same reasons that validate the death penalty. In addition to their counter arguments, they further argue that it sometimes leads to the death of innocent people and that it discriminates by race. Even after considering objections made against it, I have addressed the statements of opposition to illustrate that the need for the death penalty exceeds these objections.

The people who oppose the death penalty argue that retribution is another ord for revenge and that killing someone who has killed someone close to you is simply to continue the cycle of violence (“Should the death penalty be used for retribution”, 2009). This is not true. According to Pojman, people often confuse retribution with revenge. Retributivism is the theory that the criminal deserves to be punished in proportion to the crime, whether or not the victim or anyone else desires it. Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what the criminal has done (Bedau, 2005). It is two completely different words, with two completely different meanings. As far as the idea that the death penalty is a continued cycle of violence, this statement is also false.

The death penalty is not a continued cycle of violence, but a way to bring closure to victims and their families. Otherwise, we run the risk of people taking matters into their own hands. Opponents of the death penalty also argue that it is not a significant deterrent of crimes. However, this is too strong of a claim. Sociological evidence does not show whether the death penalty deters or that it fails to deter.The evidence is simply inconclusive. It would be hard to provide statistics to tell us how many potential criminals have refrained from committing crimes that would put make them eligible for the death penalty sentence (Waller, 2008).

In this situation, probability could go a long way. Since the death penalty is a probable deterrent for crimes, its existence has earned its merit. Similar to the safety features we have installed in vehicles, it doesn’t always prevent us from death in a car accident, and it only increases our chances of survival.The death penalty could be viewed as a safety feature we use to increase our chances of simply living, by deterring criminals from committing irrational crimes out of fear for the possibility of dying themselves. We would be too gullible if we were to think that it would always work, but if it saves one life, it has proved its worth. Another argument presented by opponents of the death penalty is the death of innocent people that were wrongfully convicted. They support the idea that if we allow an innocent person to be executed, morally we are committing the same, or in some ways, a worse crime than the person who committed the murder.

However, this is an incorrect statement. Mistaken judicial execution is in no way the same or as worse than a person who has a deliberate intention to kill an innocent person, whereas no such intention of killing the innocent person occurs in wrongful capital punishment (Waller, 2008). Finally, but certainly not the least argument presented by those who oppose the death penalty, is the issue of unjust racial discriminatory action of the justice system concerning the death penalty. Opponents believe that the death penalty discriminates against the poor and minority groups over the rich people and whites. However, to counterattack this proposition, it is not true that the law applied in a discriminatory manner is unjust. Unequal justice is no less justice, however uneven its application. A just law is still just even if it is not applied consistently (Waller, 2008).

Although there may be more minorities considered for the death penalty, it does not make it an unreasonable, or a discriminative action against them because of race. There are other factors that contribute to who may be eligible for the death sentence, not the color of their skin.There are many other reasons that opponents would try to structure a plan to abolish the death penalty, but the truth of the matter is, eliminating it would create more problems than it would solve. Private acts of retribution, deterrence, and reoccurrence are just highlights as to why it is so important. Although opponents claim that the death penalty violates the right to life, did they forget that the very people they are defending violated the same rights for the victim? I am a proponent for the death penalty, but that does not mean that I do not value life. On the contrary, exactly like Pojman stated “it is not because proponents disvalue life that we defend the death penalty, rather it is because they value life so highly and that they support its continued use. ” (Waller, 2008, p. 260) I do not want to live in a society in which people are not afraid to violate the law because of a lenient judicial system. Even though my safety is not one hundred percent guaranteed, I am more comfortable with the proposition that there would be an equal form of punishment for a crime, if one were ever committed against me.

References

1. Bedau, A. (2005). Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment. New York. Oxford University Press.
2. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972) Green, M. (2005). History of the Death Penalty and Recent Developments. Retrieved September 8, 2009, from, http://justice. uaa. alaska. edu/death/history.
3.  Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153 (1976) Hickley, M. and Slack, J. (2008). Half a million crimes are committed each year by ex-convicts. Retrieved September 9, 2009, from, http://www. dailymail. co. uk/news/article-565139/Half-million-crimes-committed-year-ex-convicts. html
4. Messerli, J. (2008). Should the death penalty be banned as a form of punishment. Retrieved September 8, 2009, from, http://www. balancepolitics. org/death_penalty. htm.
5. “Should the Death Penalty be used for Retribution? ” (2009). Retrieved September 8, 2009, from, http://deathpenalty. procon. org/viewanswers. asp? questionID=001004 Waller, N. B.
6. (2008). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues. New York. Pearson Education Wohlsen M. , and Rindels, M. (2009). Police: Garrido was arrested in 1972 rape case. Retrieved September 9, 2009, from, http://news. yahoo. com/s/ap/20090904/ap_on_re_us/us_kidnapped_girl_found