Arguments for and against abolishing the death penalty

Philosophy

The Death Penalty

The purpose of this paper is to introduce and analyze the topic of the death penalty in America. Specifically it will discuss why the death penalty should not be abolished; using the article "Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?" "No." By Ernest van den Haag. The death penalty is one of those controversial and pivotal issues in America today. Like other controversial issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, there are volatile and emotional arguments on either side. The death penalty can help deter crime, and since it is used for the most heinous of crimes, it sends a clear message to criminals that murder will not be tolerated in our society. The death penalty should not be abolished because it is a valid form of punishment in an increasingly violent society.

Several arguments exist against using the death penalty as a punishment and crime deterrent, but they do not outweigh the fact that the death penalty exists because it works, and because a majority (more than 70%) (van den Haag 293) of the American people approve of the death penalty. One argument against the death penalty states that it is unconstitutional, but author Ernest van den Haag indicates this is simply not the case. The Constitution states that no one will be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (van den Haag 292), and the death penalty is not imposed until the due process of law has been served. Thus, the unconstitutional argument does not hold water. In addition, the Constitution gives the power to the states to decide whether to implement the death penalty; it does not command it. As the author notes, "Elected bodies are left to decide whether to use the authorization" (van den Haas 293). Thus, no state or judicial system is required to utilize the death penalty; they enact these laws by choice, and according to the will of the people.

There are those that argue the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" punishment, as well. While the death penalty is certainly punishment, every effort has been made to ensure the punishment is quick and painless. In fact, some states have modified their death penalty procedures when they have been found to be too painful or take too long to take effect. Thus, the punishment is not cruel and unusual, and the Supreme Court has ruled as such (van den Haag 292). While there are many reasons not to perpetuate the "getting even" philosophy of crime, the death penalty is a permanent type of punishment given to those who have committed the very worst of murders and violence.

There are many societies that punish crime by a like punishment, for example, in many Arab countries a thief is punished by losing a hand. Some people compare this to the death penalty, and maintain it is cruel and unusual because it perpetuates that "eye for an eye" type of punishment. However, some crimes are simply so heinous and violent that no other type of punishment seems valid. A person who violently murders an entire family, or a child, or a pregnant mother deserves to pay the ultimate price for their crimes. They took a life, and they should pay with their life, because it seems to be the only way to truly punish them for their deeds. A good example is Timothy McVeigh, who was convicted of the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing. He killed over 160 innocent adults and children, and received the death penalty for his crime. In addition, he did not fight or appeal the penalty, and was eventually executed for the crime.

There are those that maintain the death penalty also discriminates against minorities and the poor, who cannot afford adequate representation and who tend to be the majority of inmates in most prisons. As the author notes, this is a criticism of the criminal justice system itself and how it operates, rather than a criticism of the death penalty. If a person is proven guilty of a violent crime that warrants the death penalty, it should be used, no matter who the perpetrator is, or what race. Violence does not know race or economics, it is simply a crime against another human being, and it should be punished as such. There is evidence that blacks who kill whites may be more discriminated against when it comes to the death penalty, however. This means that blacks may be subject to the death penalty if they murder a white victim, and may not be subject to it if they murder a black victim, but this is also a problem with the courts, rather than a problem with the death penalty itself. The author notes, "Discrimination against one group (here, blacks who kill whites) is necessarily discrimination in favor of another (here, blacks who kill blacks)" (van den Haag 294). Thus, if there is discrimination in the death penalty system, it exists because of penalties from the courts, rather than the death penalty itself.

One of the most pervasive and debated arguments for the death penalty is that it deters crime, especially violent crime. The theory holds that at least some criminals will think twice before they commit a murder, knowing they could face the death penalty. Even the author admits that there is no conclusive statistical evidence that the death penalty deters crime. However, there are many arguments and examples that the death penalty does deter crime and does save lives. The author notes, "To me, the life of any innocent victim who might be spared has great value; the life of a convicted murderer does not" (van den Haag 297). Indeed, many proponents of the death penalty really do not assess whether the punishment is a deterrence to crime or not, they would still support it because it serves justice and fits the crimes committed. In addition, even if statistics do not prove that the death penalty is a deterrence, the author believes that it does deter at least some people from committing violent crimes. Society, the author notes, fears death as a whole, and they tend to avoid what they fear most, so it must be a deterrent for at least a part of the population (van den Haag 297). In addition, many crimes of murder, as the author notes, are "crimes of passion," and these crimes probably could not be stopped no matter what. Thus, the threat of capital punishment might not deter these types of crimes, but used against the perpetrator, they bring justice and ensure this type of crime will not occur again by this person. The fact that so many convicted killers attempt to avoid the death penalty at all costs also indicates the punishment is a deterrent, as well.

Life in prison does not guarantee that the convicted killer will not kill again, either. There are many cases of murders inside prison walls, and many cases of convicts making daring escapes, as well. Thus, the only way of truly deterring these most violent criminals from killing again is by imposing the death penalty. Finally, while many people do not like to mention this element of the death penalty, life imprisonment is extremely expensive to the taxpayers of the country. Keeping an inmate for life can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, while the death penalty saves many of those tax dollars, even after appeals and court appearances are factored in. At a time when prison overcrowding is at an all time high, the death penalty metes out appropriate justice, saves money, and makes more room available for those who commit lesser crimes.

No arguments for or against the death penalty can exist without some flaws or weaknesses. The problem with the death penalty and its use is that it is not always handed down in the same manner for the same types of crimes. The author notes "Still equality and justice are not the same. 'Equal justice' is not a redundant phrase" (van den Haag 295). Again, the problem lies directly with the court system, rather than the penalty itself. No two court procedures, juries, defendants, and legal advisors are the same, even though the crimes may be very similar in nature. Thus, one defendant may receive the death penalty for a crime, while another may receive life in prison or another punishment. There are also extradition laws and other issues at play in some cases, no matter how heinous they are.