Society, in general, agrees that the taking of an innocent life is an
unforgivable act, and that the rape of children is particularly heinous. I will
argue that all persons convicted of the crime of murder or the rape of a child
under ten years of age should be given a manditory death penalty. Capital
punishment is not only justifiable but is morally correct and should be the
mandatory sentence for such crimes once an individual is found guilty. It would
be neither unjust nor immoral to execute such an individual. It is not logical
or rational to believe that a person raised in our society does not know that
the crimes of murder or the rape of a child will not be tolerated. Regardless of
an individual’s background or socio-economic status, individual choices lead
to results that carry personal responsibility. It is inappropriate to make
excuses for these criminals simply because they were not reared in well-to-do
circumstances. neglected, or perhaps suffered abuse as a child. None of these
forced them to make the choice to commit the crime. As stated by Ernest van den
Haag, "by committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the
risk." (1)If an individual commits the crime of murder, or rapes a child,
that person has forfeited any moral right to continue to live, even if
imprisoned for life. Their victim had no choice and no chance to live a
fruitful, productive life. Why should society be required to pay the costs
associated with imprisonment? A society, which values the lives of its citizens,
has the right to exercise capital punishment for those who have been convicted
after due process of law. The U.S. Constitution provides for punishment of
capital crimes so there is certainly no trouble with it in the law. However,
some of the most impassioned arguments against capital punishment are the
possibility of convicting the wrong person, and discriminatory application of
the law. Abolitionists also argue that we should base on justice system on
reform and rehabilitation. First, the possibility of convicting an innocent
person is often cited as an argument that the death penalty is unjust. One
Internet source indicates that 350 people were wrongly convicted of homicide or
capital rape from 1900- 1985. (2) (It should be noted that the article does not
specify how many of these individuals were later released.) In our text, Ernest
van den Haag refers to a study conducted by Hugo Bedau that found that of 7000
executions during that same period, only 25 were purportedly innocent. (Ibid.
p.286) The execution of an innocent person appears much less a risk than the
risk that a person guilty of this type of violence would repeat the crime.
Criminals kill people knowing that they will live and either spend the rest of
their lives in prison or get out in 10 to 20 years. Consistent application of
the capital punishment laws would have a deterrent effect on some potential
murderers if not all. While states that do carry death penalty provisions
significantly outnumber those that do not, there appears to be a certain
reluctance to apply the laws. As a result, many violent criminals no longer fear
the court system. Further, capital punishment laws have undergone many decades
of review by the highest courts in the country and are anything but capriciously
imposed. A further argument against the "innocent are convicted" is
found in a review of the extensive appeal system that has been mandated by the
courts that may take as much as fourteen years to complete. Even if this were a
legitimate concern, the chances of an innocent person being wrongly convicted
are very slim. The second argument, discriminatory application holds that a
disproportional number of non-whites receive the death penalty upon conviction,
in particular, a black convicted of murdering a white. This is really an
argument against a flawed justice system that favors one class of citizen’s
over another. Unequal distribution among the guilty is irrelevant to the
morality of the punishment. The system is far from perfect but can be improved.
In the past, women were much less likely to be executed than men, and we are all
aware that if you have enough money to hire good lawyers, you have a better
chance to evade punishment. Haag (ibid.) argues that recent data indicates that
the discriminatory aspect against blacks was primarily due to capital punishment
for rape. Additionally, in recent years, the once prevalent trend of more
non-whites than whites being executed, and more men than women, seems to be
reversing. For example, in recent months I recall reading about four persons
executed in the United States, two were women, and one was a white male. Working
to improve the criminal justice system so that everyone who deserves the death
penalty gets it, would ensure justice and equality. Lastly, some would argue
against the death penalty by claiming that our criminal justice system should be
based on reform rather than punishment. Even without arguing specifically
opposite this point, it is almost self-evident that the criminal who can be
reformed is not the problem. The real problem is the criminal you cannot reform.
It becomes simple to say, "just give him a life sentence". However,
the problem is more complicated. Long prison terms mean large and costly
institutions that must, sooner or later, be paid for by all of us. Some may
argue that killing such a murderer violates his human rights and would suggest
life imprisonment as a better alternative. Even from the point of view of the
individual, natural life imprisonment as an alternative to capital punishment is
apt to be no better than the substitution of a slow death for a quick one. In
both cases, a convicted murderer’s only way of paying his debt to society is
through dying. In this paper, I have argued that the death penalty is a
necessary form of retribution--the only adequate means of expressing society's
condemnation of a particular crime--and a necessary deterrent against this same
crime. Furthermore, it is necessary for a just and effective system of criminal
justice. The justification for capital punishment is based on retribution as
well as deterrence. It is a just penalty for a set of horrid crimes as well as
being a demonstrably effective means of protecting potential victims. Bibliography1 "The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense", Ernest van den Haag, p.287
ETHICS: Theory and Contemporary Issues, Barbara MacKinnon, Wadsworth Publishing
Co., 1995 "Capital Punishment: Our Duty or Our Doom?"