Death Penalty
Essay title: Death Penalty
A popular bumper sticker says, “We kill people to show people that killing people is wrong.” Seems a bit hypocritical, doesn’t it? It sounds as if society is scolding us: “Do as I say, and not as I do! If I tell you not to murder, then don’t…and pay no attention to that man (in the electric chair) behind the curtain!” As quoted by Albert Camus: “What then is capital punishment but the most premeditated of murders?”
We put murderers away for taking another person’s life – it’s against the law. So why isn’t it illegal to take his/her life? Is it all for the sake of poetic justice? Abolitionists often insist that if we argue for “eye for an eye” justice we must be prepared to rape rapists, beat sadists, and burn down the houses of arsonists. (Carmical).
The government justifies capital punishment as self-defense or self-defense for society as a whole. Suppose one applies the same standards to civilians that are had by the government. A civilian at home can legally shoot an intruder, but if the civilian catches the intruder, lock him up in a cage, count down the time that he will die and then shoot him, that act would be considered cruel and inhumane. Most would call that murder. (“Against Death Penalty”).
Let us put aside for now the fact that putting convicted felons on death row is a staggering contradiction, and focus our attention instead on how cruel and unusual of a punishment it is. Are we to believe that a human being’s actions can be so abhorrent that their very life is worth snuffing out? In other words, the death penalty is a permanent solution to a behavioral problem. So if it’s a question of mental stability, why not treat them as you would any other mentally ill person – with therapy and rehab?
According to “Punishment and the Death Penalty: The Current Debate”, a very thorough book by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, “The
functional equivalent to the treatment of a disease is the rehabilitation of
an offender, and it is a rehabilitative system, not a punishment system, that
we ought to have if we are to respond, even to criminals, in anything like
a decent, morally defensible fashion.” (Baird and Rosenbaum 51).
And let us not forget that sometimes things don’t always go as planned the first time around – think of how horrific it must be to not only be sentence to death, but to die twice? Here are two such cases: On May 3, 1946, convicted seventeen year old felon Willie Francis was placed in the electric chair and the switch was thrown. Due to faulty equipment, he survived (even though he was severely shocked), was removed from the chair and returned to his cell. A new death warrant was issued six days later. The Court ruled 5-4 that it was not “cruel and unusual” to finish carrying out the sentence since the state acted in good faith in the first attempt.” The cruelty against which the Constitution protects a convicted man is cruelty inherent in the method of punishment,” said the Court, “not the necessary suffering involved in any method employed to extinguish life humanely.” He was then executed. (“SCOUTUS Cases”).
An eyewitness to the execution of John Evans in Alabama describes this scene from the final moments of a death penalty sentence being carried out: “The first jolt of 1900 volts of electricity passed through Mr. Evans body. It lasted thirty seconds. Sparks and flame erupted from the electrode tied to his leg. His body slammed against the straps holding him in the electric chair and his fist