All Nonfiction
- Bullying
- Books
- Academic
- Author Interviews
- Celebrity interviews
- College Articles
- College Essays
- Educator of the Year
- Heroes
- Interviews
- Memoir
- Personal Experience
- Sports
- Travel & Culture
All Opinions
- Bullying
- Current Events / Politics
- Discrimination
- Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking
- Entertainment / Celebrities
- Environment
- Love / Relationships
- Movies / Music / TV
- Pop Culture / Trends
- School / College
- Social Issues / Civics
- Spirituality / Religion
- Sports / Hobbies
All Hot Topics
- Bullying
- Community Service
- Environment
- Health
- Letters to the Editor
- Pride & Prejudice
- What Matters
- Back
Summer Guide
- Program Links
- Program Reviews
- Back
College Guide
- College Links
- College Reviews
- College Essays
- College Articles
- Back
Capital Punishment Is Dead Wrong MAG
Murder is wrong. Since childhood we have been taught this indisputable truth. Ask yourself, then, what is capital punishment? In its simplest form, capital punishment is defined as one person taking the life of another. Coincidentally, that is the definition of murder. There are 36 states with the death penalty, and they must change. These states need to abolish it on the grounds that it carries a dangerous risk of punishing the innocent, is unethical and barbaric, and is an ineffective deterrent of crime versus the alternative of life in prison without parole.
Capital punishment is the most irreparable crime governments perpetrate without consequence, and it must be abolished. “We’re only human, we all make mistakes,” is a commonly used phrase, but it is tried and true. Humans, as a species, are famous for their mistakes. However, in the case of the death penalty, error becomes too dangerous a risk. The innocent lives that have been taken with the approval of our own government should be enough to abolish capital punishment.
According to Amnesty International, “The death penalty legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims.” If there is any chance that error is possible (which there always is), the drastic measure of capital punishment should not be taken. Also, it is too final, meaning it does not allow opportunity for th accused to be proven innocent, a violation of the Fifth Amendment which guarantees due process of law.
District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan argued against the death penalty: “In brief, the Court found that the best available evidence indicates that, on the one hand, innocent people are sentenced to death with materially greater frequency than was previously supposed and that, on the other hand, convincing proof of their innocence often does not emerge until long after their convictions. It is therefore fully foreseeable that in enforcing the death penalty a meaningful number of innocent people will be executed who otherwise would eventually be able to prove their innocence.”
As humans, we are an inevitable force of error. However, when a life is at stake, error is not an option. The death penalty is murder by the government. As a nation, we have prided ourselves in our government, its justice and truth. However, can we continue to call our government fair if we do not hold it to the same rules we do its people? Murder by a citizen will have consequences, yet a government-approved murder is not only acceptable, but enforceable. What message do we send the American people, and other countries, for that matter, if we continue to be a nation that kills its citizens, a nation that enforces the most barbaric form of punishment?
The Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty states, “We don’t cut off the hands of thieves to protect property; we do not stone adulterers to stop adultery. We consider that barbaric. Yet we continue to take life as a means of protecting life.” No person, government-affiliated or not, has the right to decide if another human is worthy or unworthy of life. Our natural rights as humans, which cannot be taken away by the government, include the right to life. Humans are not cold metal coins that lose value; no act, no matter how heinous, can make a person less of a human being. However, for most it is easy to forget that each of the 1,099 executed since 1977 are fellow humans, not just numbers.
According to Amnesty International, “The death penalty violates the right to life.” Capital punishment contradicts our moral beliefs and claims of a fair and just government. The U.S. must join its political allies – including Europe, Scandinavia, Russia, South Africa, and most of Latin America – that have abolished the death penalty.
The death penalty is favored by some as an effective deterrent of crime; however, it is proven that states with the death penalty actually have higher murder rates than those without. It is proven that our nation does not need this extreme threat of punishment to prevent crime. In 2006, the FBI Uniform Crime Report revealed that the area of the U.S. that was responsible for the most executions (the South with 80 percent) also had the highest murder rate, whereas the Northern areas that had the fewest executions (less than one percent), had the lowest murder rates.
It can be said that the death penalty is the most overlooked form of government hypocrisy; we murder people who murder people to show that murder is wrong. It is this contradiction in policy that confuses criminals and undermines any crime deterrence capital punishment was intended to have.
Many people favor the death penalty as reparation for the wrong done to a victim’s family; however, in most cases, closure is not the result. Losing a loved one, no matter how that person is lost, is unbearable, irrevocable, and shattering. Pain like this is shocking and the victim’s family holds onto the hope that the execution of the murderer will bring relief and closure. Nevertheless, when execution day arrives, the pain is not eased. No relief can be gained, for their pain is an unavoidable, natural process of life. Victims’ families have founded such groups as the Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation and The Journey of Hope, which oppose the death penalty. They believe that they are different from those who have taken their loved ones and they demonstrate their difference by refusing to sink to a murderer’s level.
Capital punishment is immoral and a violation of natural rights. It is wrong for everyone involved: the prosecuted innocent, criminals, victims’ families, and our nation. We need to replace the death penalty and capital punishment with life without parole, a safer and more inexpensive option. The death penalty does not guarantee safety for innocent victims, it does not follow the goals and promises of our nation, it does not effectively deter crime, and it does not give closure to victims’ families. Nothing good comes of hate, and nothing good can ever come from capital punishment. It cannot continue to be accepted by a nation that claims to have liberty and justice for all. The death penalty is murder on the sly and it’s dead wrong.
Similar Articles
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
This article has 473 comments.
As a future taxpayer (I can play with italics too, pal) I would like to see my money go to a cause I (see there it is again) believe in. And as a human being, I am paying money to ensure that no future horrible and brutal offenses are committed by that person. Killing is never satisfying. Don't imply it is. There was a quotation by George R. R. Martin regarding execution that I find true and intriguing, "If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die."
I did think about what I was saying. And you make me sound like I am a chief contributor to a colosseum. And it is justifiable.
I do not find death easy, nor do I find it satisfying. 'Nuff said
To get philosophical, emotion and reason can coexist and intermingle. They can indeed mix and are even reliant on each other.
In addition, I think you are misunderstanding me. I support the death penalty. That is I support the act of killing killers. I do not necessarily agree with the current system in place in the US. I find it horribly inefficient. As you stated, a large part of the reason the death penalty is expensive is because of all the appeals. If we were to adopt a system more similar to Britain's when they had the death penalty, we would cut down on costs. The average person on death row in the States stays there for 12 years whereas in Britain it was 3 to 8 weeks. And they only got one appeal, which severely cut down on costs.
Also, there is a neat little golden nugget of information out there that seems to suggest that the death penalty is a sizable deterrent. All those deterred would cut down on many costs that seem to suck our funding.
(to be continued, I think my comment was too long)
You're mixing emotion with reason.
Just to summarize your options:
You can have them live their lives in abject misery and in a cell for a cheaper price (which seems like a punishment they deserve), or you can pay more money to kill them.
Are you, as a future taxpayer, willing to pay extra money? And are you, as a human being, willing to spend this extra money just to derive the satisfaction of killing someone?
Just think about what you are saying before you just decide that it's worth your extra money to see someone die and have their family descend into misery. Is that justifiable?
yes, where we provide them with the luxury of food and shelter, pay for it with our own money. And still streets are filled with vietnam vets living out of cardboard boxes.
I'm not paying for the luxury life of a life-sentenced inmate.
Watch yourself. I said I didn't want to pay for housing them - food, shelter, all that jazz. I never said anything about being against paying to ensure they are away from others.
And to reiterate, some people are too dangerous to not be killed. I would rather pay to clean up the streets than to provide basic necessities for murderers.
To deal with your initial point about taxes, most of the research surrounding the topic has concluded that the death penalty is actually costlier to the state (and thus the taxpayer) than a life sentence. This stems primarily from the various appeals that people on death row attempt. So in that way, your argument falls.
Nevertheless, I opted for a moral (albeit sarcastic) response. If you are so worried about high taxes, there are far better ways to lower them than proposing that inmates (some of whom may be innocent) be killed.
Less damaging ways of getting taxes to be lowered include voting republican (still pretty damaging) and speaking up against political corruption/excessive bureaucracy.
Lets' keep our devotion to money separate from our decisions surrounding other people's lives. Who knows? Maybe your future kid will find themselves on death row and then you'll be wondering whether your advocacy for lower taxes was really worth it...
this reminds me of a quote about capital punishment, although i don't know if i agree with your view.
"Why do we kill people who kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?"
17 articles 0 photos 315 comments
Favorite Quote:
"The reason for your unreasonable treatment of my reason so enfeebles my reason that I have reason to complain of your reason" ~ Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra