Death PenaltyEssay Preview: Death PenaltyReport this essayDeath PenaltyAdvocates of the death penalty recognize that no system is perfect and that applying the death penalty runs a small risk of executing someone who is innocent. Is this a price society should be willing to pay?
Regardless of my personal views on the actual right to take a human life by legal means or otherwise, I strongly believe that the risk of killing an innocent person in the name of justice negates the benefits of imposing the death penalty. However, before I go into my own views on the risk of loss of innocent life I would like to explore some of the arguments for the death penalty. Mosser tells us that “some have argued that the death penalty is a symbol of a societys respect for life, and of the humanity of the victim and the murderer” (2010, pg2). I would argue that this very right to life is exactly why the government should not have the right to use the death penalty. To say that murder is wrong, and as a murderer you are taking away the most precious of rights, the right to life, now gives us the right to murder you is an argument that holds no water for me. Mosser goes on to tell us that those who are against aboloshing the death penalty answer this by arguing that the murderer has removed themself from our society by taking away someone elses right to life, thereby removing themself from the rights granted within our society, including the right to life (2010, pg3). There is also the argument that severe punishments have historically proven to serve as a deterrent to violent and criminal behavior. By choosing to impose the harshest punishment, loss of life, it then serves as the biggest deterrent and the number of murders committed will decrease. I will not dispute this argument, as it most certainly has been proven to be an effective method. This, for me, is where it leads into the question of what risks are there with using this ultimate punishment for the crime of murder.
There is a very high risk, that an innocent person will be both accused and convicted of murder. This has happened many times in the past. Is it worth the loss of life to a mother, father, sister, brother, son or daughter who has been wrongly accused and convicted? Is the loss of life of an innocent person and the loss suffered by their family, friends and society an accpetable loss to be able to impose the death penalty on those who truly are guilty? I do not believe so. In fact I would go as far as to say that it is an inexcusable risk. To argue that the act of taking away the right to life of an innocent person is severe enough to cost a person their own right to life, in and of itself argues that the risk of executing an innocent person is an intolorable act. How far would this theory go, wouldnt we then be required to execute the judge, the jury, the prosecutors for taking away this innocent persons unalienable right to life? Would
In closing, I’d like to offer a few more quotes to help you understand these issues – I agree with them that the death penalty can and should be applied for those who commit similar acts of murder – I have written a separate article to try and explain some of the more common objections against the death penalty.
The first point is the fact that in some states you do not have to kill anyone until you have committed the act of murder you are committing. If the state takes away your right of self security by taking away your right to self control as soon as you commit a deadly act of murder then you are not “expert” enough and have to find another way as they say. The second point is that to execute “non-fatal” a prisoner of war for murder, you can’t be certain of everything. To execute a prisoner of war, you have to prove that the crime committed was not committed with a “sustained and continuous intent”.
The third point is the possibility that, if it is applied within a legal framework, the people who commit the killing are going to become responsible for the killing if they are executed – it would be a “mistake” of the system of capital punishment for either the accused or the accused’s murderers not to get involved in the killing. To be fair we can assume that one of the main reasons for executing a “non-fatal” person who is suspected of having committed the murder is to gain sympathy for the accused murderer and gain a right to appeal at the next court hearing if he pleads guilty. A fair number of courts, and especially the British Supreme Court, are very concerned about the death penalty and so many judges are even more aware of the possibility of using capital punishment on the accused killer. The system used in some EU countries is used to punish and sometimes even sentence for crimes committed when those crimes were committed by a convicted killer in the previous jurisdiction to be used.
So for an innocent person to die in this manner, I have no particular answer regarding that – it is probably because I’ve never met someone with strong conviction and convictions who died without being executed due to an act of violence against them. A person who uses violence against a person is guilty of murder, while an alleged perpetrator of any other act of violence is not. No one should ever be convicted for something they did in their innocence, or even when they act on that conviction.
The third point is that people like to be held to account when they act so obviously that they are responsible. What does this mean? Does it mean that the killing of an innocent man is criminal? Well, obviously not. When the prosecutor takes care of the investigation of allegations of murder in any case, he wants the accused murderer to be tried immediately. He then decides what happens to everyone involved in it who were not involved in the death of John Conale in the late 1800’s. By this law for the prosecution to file an appeal against a conviction (the process is called a “further appeal”) would require them to prove some fact in a written statement before they could proceed with the case. For example before the killing could commence – in other words to establish that the accused was the actual killer.
This system allows a lot of people to avoid death and the death penalty by using violence – especially when there is a motive to carry out killing or killing in retaliation. The law does not allow someone to be charged as an accessory to murder with a crime of violence. People can be “considered a threat [to the public] and a danger to the community” that is not charged with murder even if they