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.
I agree, why not just let those who are kept in prison and deserve to be formally and informally rot in a 6' by 11' jail cell anyways? A being higher than themselves will surley punish them, maybe not in this life, but in a higher place anyways. To waste the rest of your years away in solititude...that is a hell on Earth, most definitely.
I believe that capital punishment should be used in extreme cases. For example, if a person goes insane and kills his wife, he should go to prison without parole, and should lead a terrible life. But if someone like the woman in the recent trial about the mother who drowned her helpless child in a swimming pool, deserves to live, than I don't know who does. And I understand what I am saying is picking and choosing which cases should be capitally punished and which shouldn't, but that's what the government has to do. I believe there are some people that, until they are gone from existance, will NOT stop bringing harm to other people. EVEN in jail. Would you have liked Saddam Hussein to just go to jail? What about Saddam Hussein? Hitler? Should they be able to live an easy life being served 3 square meals a day when thousands of people died because of them? NO. Those are the types of people that don't deserve to live. Basically, it depends on the case. I also believe that you should have NO DOUBT IN YOUR MIND that the defendent is guilty before sentencing them to the death penalty.
That being said, it is a concern of who will take the life of the murderer. There will always have to be someone to inject the poison into the person's vains, or untie the rope that is holding onto the guilty person's neck.
It is a very very difficult topic to understand and act upon.
All in all, in the case of capital punishment, I believe it is necessary in some cases, while others just just lead a terrible life in jail.
Thank you for reading.
Wait a minute.
You say that it's "okay" to kill multiple criminals in a firing squad
but it's not "okay" to (in a much less disturbing way) execute one criminal?
Umm... interesting argument there.
Do you believe that when a soldier kills an enemy soldier in a battle, that's immoral?
Probably not; for when a soldier goes into battle, he knows that he is taking the risk of death for his country. Same with people; if they commit crimes, they know that they have the risk of death for that crime. It's part of life. The way it is.
And, no, I was not contradicting myself. You can believe that toothpaste is helpful without believing you should swallow it. Similarly, I believe that the death penalty is reasonable, without believing that they should use it before being absolutely certain of the criminal's offense. If it is not crystal clear, the criminal should be kept in prison. But if an offense is obvious after a thorough investigation, it is reasonable to give prisoners what they have brought upon themselves; the death penalty.
First off, I thank and applaud you for being so civil - many people on here are not.
I'd like to point out that in order to believe in a concept, you must fully believe in it. When you say you don't agree with the way it is carried out, it contradicts your previous statements of strong disagreement.
Also, you mention that the death penalty is not painful. Although we all assume that it's not painful, there is no proof. After all, the dead are dead.
I knew immediately after I heard of Osama bin Laden's death, I'd hear about it on here. I have expressed my opinion to many already, and will do so here. I do not believe that Osama bin Laden's death should be considered the death penalty. First of all, the Supreme Court banned the use of firing squads as an execution method years ago, so it would not be a legal execution, if it was indeed the death penalty. Also, it was a mission carried out by the Navy in Pakistan, not by a doctor in a prison who knew exactly what he/she was doing. Lastly, multiple people were killed in the bin Laden raid, not just Osama. So, I do not think of his death as a death penalty.
I stand corrected. Yes, I should have read up on this topic before commenting, sorry about that.
I think the death penalty as a punishment is reasonable. But just because I believe in a concept doesn't mean that I fully agree with the way it's carried out. The death penalty should be used with extreme caution; for it is not a light matter. Being falsely accused of a horrible crime and being executed for it, although it's not painful, would be one of the most miserable ways to die, an undeserved shame.
But do you think that it was unfair that they executed Osama Bin Laden? Who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent citizens? This isn't a rhetorical question; I am really curious to know wether or not you think that ending his life was wrong.
Teresa Lewis, a grandmother with an IQ of 72. She was executed in Virginia in 2010 for allegedly murdering someone. After she was executed, evidence popped up - once again - that she was not guilty. The two co-defendants who were truly guilty received life sentences.
Claude Jones of Texas was convicted in 1989 and executed in 2004. David Spence - also of Texas - was convicted in 1984 and executed in 1997. Joseph O’Dell of Virginia was convicted in 1986, and executed in 1997. These men all have one thing in common. They were innocent and were executed.
You do make an excellent point, but make sure to research before you comment. Your uncle's best friend was murdered? I am very sorry to hear that. (I'm being serious.) But killing his murderer is not the answer. You can put it any way you want, but in reality, the truth is that the death penalty is murder. The reality is harsh, but it's also something we have to face.
32 articles 0 photos 12 comments