Against Capital Punishment Capital Punishment,

¶ … Against Capital Punishment

Capital punishment, more commonly known as 'the death penalty' is both a moral as well as a legal blemish upon the principles that there should be no cruel and unusual punishment in America, as outlined in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States. Capital punishment is 'unusual' in the sense that it is immoral and goes against both national and world standards of what constitutes effective and ethical forms of punishment for crimes. It is cruel because it is applied arbitrarily, often dependant upon a defendant's race rather than the seriousness of his or her crime, and because it fails to have an added deterrent capability in contrast to sentencing a defendant to life in prison.

Not only is capital punishment immoral, but it is also an ineffective way for the United States to curtail the spread of crime. There are three arguments frequently made in favor of the death penalty -- one, that it is just retribution for the taking of a life. The second is that it acts as a deterrent. The third is that it is cheaper to kill a man or woman than it is to keep him or her alive in jail, and the taxpayers should not have to subsidize the life of a criminal. But in fact the death penalty has little ethical support in philosophical moral teachings, has little logical or statistical support as a deterrence, and finally, is actually more expensive to the taxpayer in the long run.

Gardner C. Hanks book Against the Death Penalty specifically addresses the question of the death penalty's morality. Hanks points out that while the Hebrew Scriptures give some support to the use of the death penalty, the scriptures also demand that justices apply high standards regarding judicial procedures, administering justice with fairness towards all and protecting the innocent rather than the guilty. If someone is sentenced to death, there is no way that he or she can ever prove his or her innocence -- the sentence is final, unlike other forms of judicial sentencing. This issue is further addressed in the film "The Life of David Gale," which shows a real-life example of a man who lost his life to the state for a crime he did not commit. Hanks also points out that there is more to the Bible than the frequently cited phrase that one must take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. In fact, the use of capital punishment as it is currently practiced in the United States does not even meet the standards of the Old Testament. The United States is one of the few modern, secular nations that still practice the use of capital punishment. Only last year, Bhutan, Greece, Samoa, Senegal and Turkey joined a growing list of countries that have abandoned capital punishment for all crimes. (the Death Penalty, 2005 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/)the United States stands alone in administering capital punishment of most nations that call themselves moral, just, and embracers of a wide variety of ethical systems.

Lastly, notes that despite the frequent popularity of capital punishment amongst the Christian right, the death penalty is not really compatible with Jesus' call for love and forgiveness or of America's contention that the rights of the individual outweigh the interests of the collective. Thus, even those individuals who defend the death penalty's existence as upholding the Judeo-Christian ethic, Hanks concludes, are sadly misguided, and the death penalty runs contrary to the moral principle, as upheld by former Chief Justice Holmes, that it is better to let the guilty go than to condemn the innocent to punishment. There is no appeals process after death.

The death penalty is also an ineffective crime-fighting tool. There is no correlation between instituting the death penalty and a lower crime rate. The Death Penalty Information web site: (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/)supports this, noting as well that in many states, non-capital crimes are punishable by death, such as "capital sexual battery" in Florida. (the Death Penalty, 2005, (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144&scid=10)Logically, the notion of the death penalty as deterrence seems irrational, given that even crime depicted in "The Life of David Gale" would not be deterred by the death penalty. The film revolves around the tale of David Gale, a college professor in Texas, who is accused of murder and rape of a fellow activist. The film takes place while Gale is on death row, recounting his final testimony for a curious reporter. Even if Gale were guilty, which he is not, the crime is not one which death could act as a deterrent. The alleged crime is motivated by passion as much as premeditation, according to Gale's accusers. Gale claims to have been framed by right-wing supporters of capital punishment because his death via the arm of the state would be ironic, but the real irony is Gale's supposed cold-blooded killing demonstrates that the death penalty is not a deterrent to those who would murder others, any more than the other option of death in prison.