| Parties talk life, death
in justice
Con: Penalty lacks mercy, equality Con: Penalty lacks mercy, equality Because it crosses traditional lines, such as liberal and conservative, and divides many religious leaders across the nation and even the world, no other issue in criminal justice is as controversial as capital punishment. However, to look objectively at capital punishment, we must examine the institution that exectues the punishment. The Supreme Court sets the mandates for all aspects of applying the death penalty. The court says a jury must find that a person is guilty and that the guilt warrants death. All other aspects of the trial must also meet the court's approval. Placing capital punishment in its legal context helps us understand the flaws of the death penalty. Daniel Polsby, a professor of law at Northwestern University, correctly points out that the courts cannot possibly carry out the death penalty often enough to deter crime. A shortened appeals process cannot even make the death penalty "swift and certain," a fundamental requirement of deterrence, or protect the civil rights of those accused, a principle of this nation. If the death penalty is not a deterrent, then why does the United States continue to use it, especially when most of the rest of the developed world has abandoned it? Many would argue Biblical support of the death penalty with references to the "eye for an eye" passage found in the Old Testament. However, this argument is at best contradictory and highly suspect. The death penalty under these laws was given not only for murder, but also for rebellious children and unfaithful wives. Many members of the current Christian community would also argue the teachings of Jesus, which are mercy and forgiveness, and the familiar passage, "If any among you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone" speak out against the death penalty. Even the Catechism of the Catholic Church is unclear on capital punishment. Section 2266 states capital punishment is permissible in situations of "extreme gravity," but section 2267 states public authority should limit itself to "bloodless means...to protect...the safety of society." Many leaders of Catholicism, including the pope, have denounced capital punishment. Another argument against the death penalty is the frightening possibility of killing an innocent person. On Jan. 4, 1995, Jesse Dewayne Jacobs was put to death in Texas, although his sister, not he, killed the victim. This sparked outrage among many in the theological world and led to the remark of Rev. Gino Concetti of Rome that the act was "not only incredible, but also monstrous and absurd." One final argument against the death penalty deals with the own injustices and biases of our judicial system. This factor caused Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun to reverse his longstanding position on capital punishment. Blackmun said not only was the system applied "unfairly, arbitrarily and with racial bias," but it also Òmust wrongly kill some defendants." Undoubtedly, Blackman understood wealth often plays a role in the accused's defense. The impact of wealth and status makes believing the death penalty meets all the requirements of justice impossible. The knowledge of our own shortcomings and failures as humans and in our human institutions should make us cautious about using the death penalty. Although the crimes of those in question are often severe and deserving of punishment, we should not forget the power of forgiveness and mercy. Pro: Punishment should fit crime Why is capital punishment necessary? Many people have asked this question throughout our nation's history, and they are not wrong to do so. Taking a person's life is a serious matter. Bearing that in mind, we should consider the issue before rendering judgment. Those who object to capital punishment will argue one of its flaws is that it's final. The idea of innocent people being executed for a crime they did not commit horrifies us all. However, our system of laws is senstive to that issue. That is why all capital convictions are automatically appealed. Furthermore, convictions in capital cases are based on hard evidence, not just circumstances. Our criminal justice system is not perfect, but it is full of protections and procedures to prevent wrongful convictions. Another argument is that life imprisonment is just as effective as capital punishment. The harsh reality is many criminals never serve their entire sentence. Although this form of punishment might seem more humane, it places an ecomonic burden on taxpayers. The result is society bearing the cost of sustaining a person who has no regard for society. To any rational person, this would be ludicrous. Some would justify the use of the death penalty by quoting the Bible. The expression "an eye for an eye" has been touted often, but for the most part, it is not the basis of the justification. Therefore, I will not include it as part of my argument. Our founding fathers were greatly influenced by the political philosopher John Locke. Interstingly, Locke, possibly the most significant advocate for personal freedom and liberty in our history, favored capital punishment. Locke argued when individuals violate the laws of the society in which they live, they forfeit their rights in that society, including the right to life. Locke believed having the death penalty is necessary as a means to deter would-be criminals. Those who commit crimes deserve punishment. Punishment is a penalty for wrongdoing, not an attempt to change behavior. Rehabilitation is for those who do not understand what they have done wrong, not for those who do not care about right and wrong. Logically, the punishment should fit the crime. If the crime is murder, the terrible act of taking another's life, then logically the person committing the crime should be deprived of life as well. This is not to say all murderers deserve to be killed, but if intent to kill can be shown, and the offenders obviously have no regard for others' lives, then they have no place in society. Those who argue against capital punishment will say we must protect the rights of the accused. This is true, but we don't execute the accused. We execute the convicted. One true flaw in our system is that we don't seem concerned about the rights of the victim. We will feel compassion for criminals because they are still alive for us to see. We forget about the life or lives snuffed out without remorse. This is truly tragic. We must be more sensitive to what happens to victims and see that their killers pay for they're actions. To do any less would be a crime itself. |