According to approximately a dozen studies conducted by economists in the past decade, the death penalty saves lives. For each inmate executed, the studies indicate that three to eighteen murders are prevented.
The death penalty has always been a highly controversial topic. Advocates argue that execution will not only give members of the victims’ families a sense of justice and closure, but it will also prevent the convicted from harming his future victims. Opponents disagree, claiming that the death penalty is an ineffective way to deal with criminals; “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” while “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
There is no perfect solution to the death penalty. How do you comfort the victims’ family members? Do you tell them that the murderer will be dealt fair punishment for his actions, or do you tell them that the murderer is being allowed to live while their loved ones had to die? How do you face them after that? As a result, many people feel that the justice system does not do enough to protect the rights of the victims, and consequently, lose faith in the government. But how do you put an end to the vicious cycle that is murder? Do you have the right to control whether or not someone dies or lives? Who really has that right anyway? In a perfect world, no one would murder, and the issue of the death penalty would be resolved.
Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, both make a valid point when they point out that “capital punishment may well save lives. Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I would have to say that the death penalty does not save lives. When discussing a murderer this may seem a bit ridiculous, but it does make sense. There are alternatives to the death penalty that would save the same number of lives. For example, you could lock up the convicted person in jail. If the convicted were permanently in jail then they would never be able to commit the same offense, or any for that matter, again. Both the death penalty and going to jail would have the same impact on the number of lives saved.
There are two major differences between these two options. The first is: the death penalty allows for the ultimate retribution on behalf of the victim as well as for his or her family and friends. If the murderer was given the death penalty, this would at least make the victim and others feel like justice was served and that the murderer got what he or she deserved.
The other major difference is that the death penalty would be more convenient for society. It would not save any more lives, but instead make life easier. If a murderer went to jail at the age of 25 and died at the age of 65, the society would be paying for his or her living expenses for 40 years. It would not be okay to let anyone, regardless of what they have or have not done, sit and rot away in a jail cell. There would be an obligation for the society to take care of this person, in a morally correct way, as long as they remained in their hands. If a murderer were given the death penalty, then the society would be relieved of this duty.
The death penalty does not save lives, it is just a harsher way to accomplish the same thing as a life sentence in jail.
In the post The Death Penalty Saves Lives, Annie asks “Who really has that right anyway?” in regards to enacting the death penalty. I believe the death penalty plays a crucial role in our society and, in the end, results in positive outcomes. As Annie mentions, “For each inmate executed, the studies indicate that three to eighteen murders are prevented”. I want to take her blog further and argue for the restricted and cautious use of death penalty. Let’s assume that only three lives are saved from the execution of a criminal: one guilty life traded to keep three innocent people alive. John McAdams, a professor at Marquette University, explains, “If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call" (prodeathpenalty.com). Once you begin to put a price on each individual life, things begin to get complicated.
The number of murderers that possibly face the death penalty is surprisingly low. Charlene Hall explains, “With a yearly average of 15,000 murders, the fact that we are reaching 1,000 executions in only a little more than 30 years is proof that capital punishment has been reserved for the worst of the worst” (prodeathpenalty.com). The tiny pool of people who commit these atrocious acts, in a sense, are giving up their humanity. They are the most vicious and dangerous criminals, and should be recognized as such. Those who steal the lives of others in particularly horrific ways cannot be considered human, but become, through their actions, monsters.
While two wrongs don’t always make a right, we must remember that criminals of this nature have been proven to repeat their acts and endanger more lives. Capital punishment not only protects everyday citizens, but also deters crime in general. Jay Johansen analyzed the data full and determined, “Consistently when the number of executions goes down, the homicide rate goes up, and when the number of executions goes up, the homicide rate goes down” (johansense.us). He notes that “the only major exception to this is the fall in homicides in 1976, which came before executions re-started. But this is easily explainable by the fact that the court decisions allowing executions to resume came a year or two before executions actually did resume. Criminals may have been responding to press reports that capital punishment was once again going to take place, in advance of it actually happening” (johansens.us). This exception only drives home the point that the fear of the ultimate punishment is key to both preventing crime from happening and saving innocent people’s lives. Society needs capital punishment to ensure that order is maintained and the people who create chaos must face serious and appropriate repercussions.
Thanks to: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
http://www.johansens.us/sane/law/capdeter.htm
Despite the controversy over capital punishment, in 2009, 34 states permitted its use, a number well over half. Most Asian countries also retain the death penalty while most European states have abolished it. Amnesty International has argued that
the death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life...It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. There can never be any justification for torture or for cruel treatment.
I agree that being sentenced to death is the “ultimate…degrading punishment.” However, it might not necessarily be the worst thing for someone. It does deny the inmate of his or her human rights, but often times, living in jail does as well. Looking at the conditions of some of the jails throughout America, dying might feel like a better option than suffering the tortures of jail. In some prisons, being sentenced for life might eventually lead to the same end as being sentenced to death. Although the Constitution does protect the rights of prisoners, most American prisons house much more than their capacities.
According to a report by Eric Schlosser, overcrowding leads to increased acts of violence (from both prisoners and police officers) and aggression, in addition to mental disorders. America has more prisoners than many European countries combined, so these acts of aggression and violence are only becoming more prevalent. Living in jail becomes prolonged torture, which for many, would be worse than death.
I agree with Amnesty that the death penalty is immoral, but the argument that it is unjustified because it is torture cannot be used until America provides better conditions for her prisoners.
Articles Relevant to my Post:
http://core.ecu.edu/soci/juskaa/SOCI2110/Prison_Industrial_Complex.htm
http://usliberals.about.com/od/deathpenalty/i/DeathPenalty.htm
Post a Comment