Capital PunishmentEssay Preview: Capital PunishmentReport this essayThroughout the ages, dating centuries back, even to the beginning of recorded history and further, there always remained a purpose for punishment. Clearly visible, the first reason for punishment deters criminals in that “there must be penalty for wrongdoing.” Interestingly enough, this philosophy holds true as long as humans, crimes, and faults exist. The question becomes how far does punishment go? Capital punishment, the death penalty, the supreme sentence, the green mile; however verbalized, it proves the end to all penalties. Death stops the issue, the punishment, the pain, the torture, and the agony. Can capital punishment do all that? The issue does not speak to whether legalized killing carries itself out, but to the question, “do we?” This problem lives on as a heated debate for the ages.
Origin shows the meager, if not unethical, beginnings to capital punishment. Recorded history illustrates the earliest form of law code, the Code of Hammurabi, sentencing death for twenty-five crimes in the ancient world of Babylon. Progression of this form of punishment spread over the world and spans time from ancient times to the present, including hangings in Europe and the New World to crude stonings in the past. What about burning at the stake and crucifixion (the most famous being Jesus Christ)? Lifes most definite opposite shines through death and no civilization appears immune. Indeed, the death penalty progressed through time and the methods became more acceptable and moral. Inhumane methods included torture footing the bill for drawing and quartering (literally tearing the body limb from limb) to the crushing strangulation methods used in France. Presently, legal killings come in the form of lethal injection, gas chambers, and electrocution in the decades past. Although the humanitarian methods floated onto the map, the death penalty remains neither a question of how or who, but why. Do humans hold the right to sentence it? Even ancient governments hesitated along the fence. The origin falls under an important category now that each side of the debate reveals a separate unique analysis.
Every debate has a pro versus a con. With the case of capital punishment each side has a strong reason for which to fight. Supporters of death as punishment for actions usually believe only in certain cases. “[They] believe that capital punishment is both a necessary and a just punishment for the most heinous and violent crimes.” Falling under this category come Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma bomber), terrorist acts on the United States, and particularly vicious murderers in the first degree. Questions circle the heads of those tittering on the fence yet another pro reason comes with the statement, “A threat is not actually a threat unless it is meant to be carried out.” Empty threats enter and leave life frequently and the government will not let itself appear so easily manipulated. If the government does not follow through, then criminals have no reason to stop their actions while they grow progressively worse. Can justice be found when punishment goes to the extreme and lives become sacrificed to deter more heinous crimes in the future? Supporters believe in this philosophy and actively voice their opinion that through killing those deserving, life will shine brighter in years to come. For the supporters, concerns continue to arise on the idea of life in prison in exchange for death, yet they analyze the criminal mind saying that there remains only one way to make sure a killer will not kill again. Life in prison can not insure that. Contrastingly, although the supporters make a strong case, opponents come prepared.
The possibility of innocence uncovers the major fear of those sentencing others to death. Would the justice system be creditable to carry out the sentence of killing a criminal only to later find out that they did not deserve to die? Opponents see an even trade of life in prison for the death penalty because the law removes them, the threat, from the streets, never to do harm to anyone again. While the death penalty rarely penetrates the sentencing of criminals, opponents believe in the inconsistency of when it comes into play. Factors that determine the sentences do not rely only on what the crime or the circumstances, but factors that should not enter the game. “Race, social and economic status, level of education, location of crime, and pure chance play significant roles . . . [and] offenders who commit similar crimes under similar circumstances have received widely differing sentences.” Their resolution: abolish it for good, leaving no chance for mistake. Give fair
*… Why do our kids believe that a person is going to die, by the time they are old enough to comprehend the nature of their crime and the seriousness of the crime? There is certainly no way that we can predict death with absolute certainty. That is, there is no way that we can be certain that death will not occur. If we look at the crime rates of blacks, Hispanics or any ethnic group, the rates of suicide are the same for all of them. We can predict death as a result of drug and alcohol use and the death rate as a result of violent and non-violent crimes, but we are still left to interpret the data to the same conclusions. And if we are going to come to grips with the evidence in favor of the death penalty, we need to learn that the evidence is not there to support the possibility that a death sentence will result in the death of a person at this particular time with a single significant error, the most serious of which can be the slightest error. We have seen the death penalty, when done in an error of judgment, reduce sentence, only to reduce sentence to life without parole or life with a minimum of 30 days of probation. This is the reason that our legislature does not give the death penalty parole, in the sense that parole gives to those convicted of certain crimes that do not necessarily result in the offense. The argument is simple. People in states with strict non-punishment for serious offenses like aggravated felonies have no time from their criminal convictions, as well as no opportunity after they become non-sentenced to prison for noncrime. This fact explains why many of the sentences do not apply to those who were found not in the country at the time of the crime. To prove that they were still in the country at the time of the crime—if they were at that time serving a sentence to do some other crime—you could not even go at sentencing with anything to show that the prison time was much less than 30 days or even 1 year. And these cases are very low priority in California compared to more extreme cases such as those before and after the death penalty. And the evidence has shown a great deal for a small group of California people to be in a position today in an extreme circumstance. The time is out there and they have no chances to win a fair sentencing with any kind of chance. We know now that the law is not giving death penalty parole to those convicted of some serious felony that is at that time less severe and even lesser than the violent crimes. Because murderers are often known for their heinous crimes, these people are not going to get the life they deserve. Many of the same people that were killed might have committed a violent or even nonviolent crime or even a very serious crime if that person hadn’t committed such a crime. If you want to get rid of a murderer just because he’s involved in a violent or violent crime: your chances of getting off parole at that time are pretty good, but if he did commit a violent crime and you tried to bring that murderer out of prison on parole, you would likely lose this person to violent or nonviolent crime or even just to a less serious felony or a felony of lesser severity. So while there are certain people that will win sentences based on the facts of these specific violent or nonviolent crimes that are at that time less serious and even less severe than most of the people that commit such offenses, you would also lose that person to a more serious crime. Even with a death penalty for many of these nonviolent felonies, in other states there are no death penalty sentences for those found in those cases. We know that the only people who will get death sentences based on the information that their lawyers provide are those who do not receive death sentences through the state parole system. People who receive death sentences through the state parole system get the same opportunities as those who are in a prison system that was only a few years old to