In Favor Of Corporate Punishment
Essay Preview: In Favor Of Corporate Punishment
Report this essay
The death penalty is a deterrent to someone who may consider committing a capital crime. Victims of capital crimes are entitled to retribution. Criminals committing capital crimes deserve severe punishment. If the crime was heinous, deliberate and multiple then capital punishment is the answer. The subject should be approached rationally and without emotion. It is not unfair and inhumane to execute another human being. For those who would unfairly, inhumanely and premeditate the demise of others, the death penalty is a necessary punishment.
Many religions and religious leaders consider corporal punishment to be cruel and a unnecessary punishment. The late Pope John Paul II felt the death penalty should never be used. In an article by Anonymous (1999) the Pope is quoted as stating corporal punishment should not be used, “even in the case of someone who has done a great evil” (1999.) Corporal punishment is not cruel or unnecessary. It is a moral manner to punish someone who has committed a heinous crime. The death penalty is only used in judgment of the very worst crimes. Murderers and rapists are examples of the types of criminals who might receive the death penalty. The death penalty is the only way to react to such horrible crimes. It is the ultimate punishment. Inflicting corporal punishment ensures these types of criminals will no longer prey on society.
In the racially motivated murder of James Byrd Jr. the death penalty was rightfully imposed. Mr. Byrd, an African American male, was walking home one evening when he was brutally murdered by three professed white supremacists. He was forced into their pickup truck and beaten. He was chained to the back of the pickup by his ankles and then drug for three miles. In the court trial, “A pathologist testified that Byrd was alive until his head and right arm were severed from his torsoД (Jet, 1999). One can not deny that the death penalty was not deserved in this instance.
A recent Texas case in which the death penalty was imposed involved the brutal 1991 rape and murder of a single mother, Felicia Prechtl. Prechtl, unfortunately, lived next door to Karl Eugene Chamberlain. Under the pretense of borrowing a cup of sugar Chamberlain went to Prechtls apartment where he bound and raped Prechtl. He then shot her in the head. Her body was found by two people, one being her five year old son. Chamberlain was not apprehended for the crime until 1997 when he confessed. At his trial a psychiatrist testified to have found Chamberlain to have a “sexually sadistic, antisocial personality” (United Press International, 1998). The rape and murder of Prechtl was not Chamberlains only crime. He had other periods of violent and destructive behavior (United Press International, 1998). This is the type of person for whom the death penalty was written and should be imposed upon. Society needs to be protected from those who would commit a crime as heinous as this.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote “A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law.” Justice Scalia has an opinion on what the death penalty means in this country. Anastaplo questions what the founding fathers meant by the term “cruel and unusual” and whether the death penalty fits that description (Anastaplo, 1999). Justice Scalia said,
“Professor Anastaplo thinks Ðcruel and unusual may not mean the same today as it did before. Well, I suppose we may not think it cruel today when they may have before. Why does it have to be a one-way street? Do you think that maybe the framers had it in their minds to really oppose cruel and unusual punishmentsЖnot any particular ones, we just dont want punishments to be cruel and unusual, whatever that might mean? If a future generation might think that thumbscrews are not cruel and unusual, and we think they are, then thats okay. The only thing were really against is cruel and unusual, in the abstract. Thats surely not what they meant. They meant to stop those things that they found abhorrent in the future, not just an invitation to the courts to make up the rules from age to age” (Anastaplo, 1999).
The Supreme Court, the highest court in the nation has determined that it was necessary to bring back the death penalty. If it were cruel and unusual punishment as some would like for others to believe, it would not have been brought back. Capital punishment is the only means to guarantee that those who commit heinous crimes will abstain from that type of criminal behavior.
Cardinal Bernard Law agrees with the late Pope John Paul II and is of the opinion that supporting the death penalty is a sin. He is “the most influential of all U. S. Roman Catholic churchmen” (Kennedy, 2003). This attitude concerning capital punishment is wrong although the subject has one of much debate. Many do not even consider the family members of the victims. The death penalty allows them the freedom to know that the person who committed the crime against their family will never be able to do such a thing again. The prisoner on death row should have no more rights than the family members who had their loved one taken away so brutally at the hands of another. Ones that have not experienced such an ordeal simply can not relate to what it is like for the victims families. Said Kennedy, “They are seldom at peace, for what happens when a family member is murdered is, in fact, not a temporal experience. One does not Ðget over it with time because such damage to our innermost beings is outside the framework of time, does not follow its rules and throbs continually as if it had just been inflicted” (Kennedy, 2003).
The families of the victims must have some sort of closure. If this is to happen it is necessary for the criminal to receive the ultimate punishment. The families have suffered enough. Their very hearts have been wrenched from them at the hand of a brutal criminal. The family members have suffered a grief that is unbearable. They need to know that the criminal will not be back out on the street doing the same thing to another victim. The only way to guarantee this is to impose corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is a combination of restitution and punishment. It makes a statement. That statement is that such activity will not be tolerated in America. The legislature in Nebraska has attempted a moratorium on executions (Anonymous, 2001). This moratorium was vetoed by then Governor Mike Johanns. The moratorium was suggested in order to determine whether capital punishment is fairly applied in Nebraska. Unlike many Catholics, Johanns, a Republican, suggests that the moratorium will be used by the inmates on death row to constitute