Capital Punishment (Also Called Death

Capital Punishment (also called Death Penalty) is a highly contentious issue with both the advocates and opponents advancing numerous ethical, moral, and economic arguments for and against the continuance of the practice. Supporters of the death penalty argue that it is an effective deterrent against serious crime, conforms to the just principle of retribution for taking of a human life, and prevents recidivism. Its opponents claim that the deterrent argument is unsustainable; death penalty violates a criminal's right to life, frequently results in executions of innocent people, and discriminates against minorities and the poor. While respecting the views of some of the committed pacifists who oppose the capital punishment, I firmly believe that we should maintain the Death Penalty in the United States for serious crime. In this essay, I shall support my contention by refuting some of the major arguments against capital punishment, besides presenting a few valid points in support of continuing the death penalty.

One of the main arguments against the practice of death penalty is that it violates the 'right of life' of every individual. This argument, to my mind is preposterous, and an insult to the memory of the victims of serious crimes such as pre-meditated murders and rape of young children. How can a vicious murderer who has knowingly taken away an innocent life and callously disregarded the victims 'right to life' still lay claim to his own 'right to life'? I believe that such criminals, after taking away the life of another human being, forfeit their right to live, and the society then has an obligation to judge whether the crime was serious enough to deserve a death penalty.

Another oft-repeated argument against the death penalty is that it is a cruel punishment which brutalizes the community; it is a relic of ancient times having no place in a modern, civilized society. I believe that this anti-death penalty argument is completely misdirected. How can a 'civilized society' put an innocent life and the life of a murderer on the same moral plane? It is the duty of a civilized society to differentiate between the lives of a murderer and his victim and to protect the innocent and the weak against the predators, murderers and rapists. By instituting the capital punishment, a civilized society sends a clear signal to the criminals and potential murderers among us that it values an innocent life above all else. In the words of David Gelernter - a Yale professor, "We execute murderers in order to make a communal proclamation: that murder is intolerable... A deliberate murderer embodies evil so terrible that it defiles the community." (Quoted by Jacoby, 1998) in fact, a civilized society would 'brutalize' itself more by doing away with capital punishment for the most serious crimes rather than by asserting its serious resolve not to tolerate murder by instituting the ultimate punishment for the taking of an innocent life.

The 'deterrent' argument about capital punishment has also been unnecessarily clouded in controversy mainly through the efforts of the anti-death penalty lobby and a number of inconclusive studies on the subject. For example, the abolitionists often argue that some death penalty states in the U.S.A. have higher crime rates than certain non-death penalty states. ("Deterrence..." 2006). Such studies ignore the fact that urbanized states are more likely to have higher crime rates and the less urbanized states are often the ones without capital punishment laws. (Lowe, 2006) the deterrent effect of capital punishment on murders is more accurately reflected in the co-relation between the actual number of executions and the murders committed in the U.S. between 1960 and 2000. Statistics show that in 1960, there were 56 executions in the U.S. And 9,140 murders; between 1969 and 1980, when only 2 executions occurred the annual murder rate had progressively skyrocketed to 23, 040. As the number of executions started to increase after 1980, there was a 44% drop in the murder rate up to the year 2000 (Ibid). Another study by Paul R. Zimmermann, a staff economist at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, carried out in 2002, estimates that a single state execution in the U.S., "deters approximately fourteen murders per year on average." (Zimmermann, 2002). These statistics clearly show that there is a strong deterrent effect of capital punishment on murders.

The deterrence effect of capital punishment also finds support in history. For example, an Indian gang of murderers and thieves called the Thuggees had thrived in India for over 350 years, murdeing and looting travellers on the roads by the thousands until the British government decided to eliminate the menace through speedy trials and prompt executions. Within a short period, the problem was solved as the executions discouraged others from joining the gangs. (Lowe, 2006). Currently, the deterrent effect of the death penalty can be seen in countries such as Singapore and Saudi Arabia, which follow a policy of prompt executions for serious crimes such as murder, and have very low the crime rates.

Another important reason why we should maintain the death penalty for serious crime is the issue of recidivism. Death penalty is the only punishment that gives a 100% guarantee that the murderer would not repeat his crime again. Sufficient evidence exists to suggest that a person who has committed a capital homicide once will kill again if given the opportunity to do so. There are numerous examples of such murders in the U.S. history of crimes. Law Professor Paul Cassell, of the University of Utah, while giving his statement before the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives in 1993, revealed:

Out of a sample of 164 paroled Georgia murderers, eight committed subsequent murders within seven years of release...another study found that of 11,404 persons originally convicted of "willful homicide" and released during 1965 and 1974, 34 were returned to prison for commission of a subsequent criminal homicide during the first year alone... ("Statement of Paul G. Cassell..." 1993)

Opponents of capital punishment would of course argue that they are suggesting "life imprisonment without parole" as an alternative to the death penalty; a remedy in which the prisoner would not be freed and be given an opportunity to repeat his crime. The answer to this argument lies in the fact that a murderer who is serving a life sentence without parole can murder fellow prisoners and/or the prison guards. Quoting Professor Cassell once again: "At least five federal prison officers have been killed since December 1982 [up to July 1993], and the inmates in at least three of the incidents were already serving life sentences for murder." Moreover, there have been cases in which sentences of 'life imprisonment without parole' have subsequently been overturned and the convicted murderer released from prison. Hence, the only foolproof method to prevent recidivism of serious crimes such as premeditated murder is the death penalty.