Murder is presented to society everyday on the news and in the newspaper, but there are very few instances where justice is served. While capital punishment is legal in some states currently and for federal offenses, it is rarely used over life imprisonment. From the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 up to December 2008, 1,136 executions have occurred while 3,308 inmates remain on Death Row; according to America.gov. Nearly 17,000 murders occurred in 2007 alone. (Disastercenter.com) Capital Punishment should be carried out for convicted murderers.
Some may feel that issuing capital punishment only places others on the same level as the convicted; as George Orwell states in A Hanging, “I had never realized what it means to destroy a healthy, conscious man. When I saw the prisoner step aside to avoid the puddle, I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide.” Why is the same sentiment often not considered for the victim? The murderer did not consider what was being taken away from the world when he took his victim’s life; so it does not seem fair that he garners more consideration and a second chance.
Capital Punishment may seem inhumane, but the processes used, electric chair, gas, injection, firing squad, and hanging, are more humane than numerous ways a person could kill another person. All of the processes are designed to be as efficient as possible so that the murderer feels as little as possible. Nearly all of the states that do use capital punishment use lethal injection; which is the most efficient and humane method. If only the victims had received consideration in their final moments, or got to choose how they wanted to die, as some convicts do in certain states.
Giving convicted murderers multiple year sentences spanning to multiple life sentences in prison is a mistake. There are some convicted murderers that receive parole for good behavior or are acquitted. How can any amount of good behavior in prison make up for taking a person’s life? Life is supposed to be sacred and valued. Murderers do not value lives that they take. They do not deserve to have their own valued. Putting a murderer back on the streets is endangering the lives of others. There is no way to prove that someone has changed, and with an issue as important as life, no chances should be taken.
Imprisonment may seem like a good alternative to capital punishment because the convicted has to live with guilt everyday, for the rest of their lives, but very few people actually want to die. As long as the convicted is living, they have hope that something might change for them. Numerous people are afraid of death because no one is certain about what is after death; it all depends on personal beliefs. Allowing a murderer to obtain any hope or possible pleasure they may still have in prison, whether it is as simple as reading a book, is unfair to the victims who can have nothing.
Not only is imprisonment unfair to the victims, it is extremely costly. Imprisoned people can not work to support themselves, so their lives are paid for by the government; meaning you and I are supporting them with our taxes. It costs approximately 22,650 dollars to house one inmate per year according to the federal government. If capital punishment is not considered because of justice, it should be considered because of economical reasons. The money spent to support these individuals that have been so detrimental to society could be used to better infrastructure, social programs, or a number of other causes.
Capital Punishment is the most efficient and fair solution to dealing with convicted murderers. Assuming that our justice system has afforded someone a fair trial, they deserve no further consideration. Any consideration given to a murderer is more than they gave to any of their victims or their victim’s family. Justice should be served in the capital punishment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It is obvious that you feel very strongly about this topic and you back that up with very strong statistics. However, in the third paragraph you say, "Capital Punishment may seem inhumane, but the processes used, electric chair, gas, injection, firing squad, and hanging, are more humane than numerous ways a person could kill another person". Being less horrific than murder does not make capital punishment humane, merely a better choice. This statement is also very controversial because it all depends on someone's point of view. Therefore, to some, capital punishment is just the same a murder.
The following comes from http://law.jrank.org/pages/5002/Capital-Punishment-COSTS-CAPITAL-PUNISHMENT.html : "Based on a sentence term of 40 to 45 years, one inmate would cost the taxpayer only slightly more than $1 million—less than a third of what it would take to pay for the process that culminates in execution. A twenty-five-year-old woman convicted of first-degree murder would need to serve a life term to the age of 145before the costs of incarcerating her would surpass those of executing her." According to this source, it is in fact more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in jail. Now of course this is just one website and there are probably others that cite quite the opposite, but you should have prepared more of an argument.
I really enjoyed reading your blog. It was an intriguing topic and you did an excellent job defending your side!
Thank you for your criticism.
Your point about my statement "Capital Punishment may seem inhumane, but the processes used, electric chair, gas, injection, firing squad, and hanging, are more humane than numerous ways a person could kill another person" is well taken. This statement could definitely be interpreted in various ways depending on someone's opinion, but couldn't this entire topic?
The source you gave me on costs is a bit dated. If you notice, the majority of the extra costs cited in the source are do to numerous appeals and retrials.
'"Immediately following the execution of Bundy, Chief Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST called for changes in the procedure for appealing death sentences. Noting that the Supreme Court had turned down three emergency appeals by Bundy in the hours just prior to his execution, the chief justice said, "Surely it would be a bold person to say that this system could not be improved."'
This source is pointing to problems with our justice system; which I would agree are there. It seems the actual costs of Death Row prisoner depend on how they fight their sentencing. I was going for the costs solely of taking care of these prisoners for whate ever their sentence may be because I knew the cost per individual could vary dramatically. I guess that is a hole in my argument, but bringing up the justice system starts an entire new argument. Maybe it will be my next blog. ;)
You have inspired me.
http://apmonastery.blogspot.com/2009/01/against-capital-punishment.html
You write:
but bringing up the justice system starts an entire new argument. Maybe it will be my next blog. ;)
I look forward to reading your thoughts.
We never will reconcile to everyone's satisfaction the problem of capital punishment. As our population increases, so too will crime. Convictions will increase. Costs in housing prisoners will increase. One problem we face today is the aging prison population. What do we do with those who become frail and chronically ill as they age? Do we create new facilities for this population? These are people not eligible for the death penalty.
Even though we have a lengthy appeal process for death row inmates, we do not always succeed in clearing those who are not guilty. Governor Ryan of Illinois created quite an uproar when he commuted the sentences of various people on death row. He also pardoned men wrongly convicted.
When I learn that an individual has been sentenced to death, I wonder if we can be sure he/she is guilty. I also ask myself, who gives me or my fellow citizens the right to declare a person should die.
Post a Comment