Death Penalty or Often Known as Capital Punishment

Death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has generated a heated debate for as long as it has existed. Globally, opinions are mixed with most industrialized democracies opposed to the practice. Within the United States there is tremendous controversy. The punishment is reserved for only the most serious of crimes such as premeditated murder or the assassination of a federal officer. Since 1976, the decision has been left to states; today most states formally allow for it, but only a few have an active death penalty record. Since 1977, there have been 1099 total executions (Arguments). Thirteen states have rendered capital punishment illegal, but since it is available in other states criminals may be tried in a different place than the origin of their crime. Here the arguments both for and against capital punishment will be reviewed.

Arguments For the Death Penalty

"The murderer shall surely be put to death" (Numbers 35: 16-18)

The two most common arguments for the death penalty are deterrence and revenge. In the former, it is argued that people may stop and reconsider their actions when they know their own life is on the line. That is, a potential murderer may be deterred from his crime if such a severe punishment awaits. In this view, the existence of the death penalty serves to reduce violent crime (Bailey, 1974). Furthermore, by eliminating violent criminals from society, our communities will know that they can trust in the government to create safer living conditions. However, even those who make the deterrence argument note that "the death penalty is much more likely to be a deterrent where the crime requires planning and the potential criminal has time to think about the possible consequences," (Arguments). That is, crimes committed in the heat of passion are unlikely to have any deterrence effect, including fines, jail time, or the death penalty.

The revenge argument makes a broader philosophical point in line with "an eye for an eye," arguing that murderers deserve to have their own lives ended, just like the lives they chose to end. In this view, only capital punishment can match the seriousness of the crime of murder. Similarly, only capital punishment can provide families and loved ones of the victim with closure and a sense of justice. This argument calls on the timeless and universal human urge to exact revenge for wrong-doing. It is an emotional and very powerful piece of this story, and many opponents of the death penalty become proponents when a loved one is murdered.

While deterrence and revenge are the most often cited arguments for the death penalty, other, more nuanced, arguments also exist. Proponents note that our legal system offers extensive appeal opportunities to protect the constitutional rights of the accused. Most prisoners who are sentenced to the death penalty spend many years on death row before they are executed; during this time, their cases are studied and appealed until there is no reasonable doubt of their guilt. Proponents of the death penalty feel that even this kind of controlled execution by the state isn't enough punishment for the cruel, violent acts committed against the innocent.

Arguments Against the Death Penalty

"Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus)

Those who oppose the death penalty usually begin by refuting the logic of both the deterrence and the revenge arguments. They note that very few murderers are taking the time to consider the consequences of their actions when they commit violent acts. It is difficult to imagine an angry, violent criminal making a calculated choice about how much harm to inflict based on a comparison of life in prison as opposed to death. Thus, the existence of the death penalty does little to deter the kinds of crimes to which it applies. Research supports this contention, showing that states with the death penalty do not enjoy lower crime rates than other states.

As a tool for revenge, the death penalty also fails to live up to its promise. Opponents note that violence and death rarely lead to feelings of satisfaction or closure. Unless the death of a violent criminal leads to tangible feelings of increased safety, it is unlikely that capital punishment helps to assuage the sadness felt by family members of a murdered loved one.

Opponents also provide evidence that the death penalty is unjust. Data show that death row prisoners are disproportionately low income, minority, and under-represented by the legal system. Thus, we many wonder if those who can't afford the best lawyers are more likely to be sentenced to death, and if so, then we may have effectively put a price on the life of a criminal. Similarly, if the flawed legal system convicts an innocent person and sentences him to death, there is no opportunity for justice to prevail when the prisoner's innocence is ultimately proven. Two states, Maine and Rhode Island, discovered that they had likely executed innocent men and subsequently abolished the death penalty.

Many note that the time and expenses associated with the death penalty are reasons enough to disallow it. Extensive review and judicial process is guaranteed for death row cases, with the intent of ensuring that innocent people do not get executed. In California alone, the cost of keeping an inmate on death row is approximately $90,000 per year more that it would be if that same inmate was sentenced to life in prison with an opportunity for parole (Death Penalty Focus). The aggregate numbers are even more powerful: again, in California the total cost of maintaining inmates on death row comes to $137 million per year. These costs can be broken down into basic food and shelter, plus appeals, medical needs, and the execution itself. Critics note that a lifetime in prison accomplishes many of the same goals as the death penalty: the criminal is removed from society, he will be unable to re-offend, and he has been punished in accordance with his crime. Life terms in prison are not cheap for the state, but they do amount to millions of dollars of annual savings that could be used to build healthier communities and a stronger social system.

Perhaps most powerfully, death penalty opponents argue that life is itself sacred. If we, as a society, agree that murder is a crime, then committing murder against a criminal is also a crime. We become not only hypocritical and inconsistent, but also guilty of the same crime that we detest. Our ethical system will become an empty shell if we assign different rules for different people; after all, "it must be remembered that criminals are real people too who have life and with it the capacity to feel pain, fear, and the loss of the their loved ones," (Arguments).