The Long Awaited...

Okay all, I'm about to present my dearly beloved essay on Capital Punishment to you. I have thought a long time about allowing outsiders to see my young 'child' but after much consideration, I've decided that you are all semi-nice people ;P and it can't do much harm. Here goes, Persuasion essay for English. ::::::::::::::


For the last three centuries, there has been ceaseless conflict regarding the legitimacy of the death penalty. Some say it is too harsh and barbaric; others rejoin that it has its place and should indeed be used when appropriate. I cast my lot with the latter, and further, I contend that capital punishment is absolutely necessary for the survival of the justice system and maintaining a sense of guilt in the American people. Justice demands serious, permanent action to be taken against grave offenders, that victims of crime should be granted full compensation, and that others be deterred from committing similar crimes by example of the punishment sentenced to previous transgressors. No other form of punishment satisfies these requirements; not parole, manual labor, fines or even life in prison. Only the death penalty has what is necessary to serve justice in severe cases. This statement can be proved logically, legally, historically, and from a religious point of view.

Firstly, consider what justice is; it is the rendering of all that is due in a particular, individual circumstance. When a crime is committed, a burglary, for example, it is imperative that the criminal reimburse all money stolen and the value of what inconvenience his crime caused; this much is commonplace. When a man is guilty of slander, pilfering public funds, or any such offence, there must be a public retraction or repayment, but also some service to the public at large. This could take the form of community work, personally repairing the damage, fines, or short imprisonment. The punishment must fit the crime, however; no lesser and no greater. This is what justice means.

But here I have spoken of minor offenses. The perpetrators now mentioned, if justly sentenced, would assuredly learn from their mistakes and cease to violate the law. Certainly a death sentence has no place among petty theft and character assassination. Its place lies with murder, rape, child molestation, and inexorable felons; those who have committed crimes too great or numerous to remunerate in a single lifetime. Not all crimes can be repaid in the same manner in which they were committed. One cannot subject the offender to the same atrocities that he himself is guilty of. Knowing what vile crimes there are, this would be inhumane and a total conflict of interest. The only just action in the case of murder and brutal behavior is to take the offender’s life, the instrument with which he destroyed the life of another. As for those with innumerable offenses, after 176 years in prison their debt to society may be paid, but no felon will live that long, and his debt would go unpaid. This is unjust. The death penalty is also for those irreformable criminals who are a constant threat to the general welfare. Even persons opposed to the use of capital punishment grant this. “The death of a citizen cannot be necessary, but in one case. When, though deprived of his liberty, he has such power and connections as may endanger the security of the nation….” (Cesare Beccaria).

Human life is of infinite value and an absolute right; thus the constitution, government and judicial courts have always stated, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3), and if one individual steals this divine right from a fellow citizen, he consequently forfeits his own claim to life; he pays for the life he took, with his own. “If you kill another, you kill yourself” (Immanuel Kant). This is the only way human life receives its full value, and the sole manner in which the victim can receive absolute justice and therefore be ‘avenged’. To assign merely a life sentence to a murderer is to cheapen the worth of innocent life; it is to put taking innocent life on the level of robbery and drug dealing. Furthermore, if death were not the punishment for such crimes as murder, think how many more killings and violent crimes we would face. What would there be to stop criminals in their tracks? Surely not life imprisonment; only so many life sentences can be heaped on one offender. Come on, what’s one more? This is no threat to prospective murderers. The fact is that the sentence of execution deters potential lawbreakers from criminal behavior.

Some say that the death penalty is unconstitutional, violating the eighth and fourteenth amendments on cruel and unusual punishment. However, the American justice system doesn’t think that claim to be true. In the case of Trop v. Dulles, (356, U.S.), Mr. Chief Justice Warren stated:
“Whatever arguments may be against capital punishment, both on moral grounds and in terms of accomplishing the purposes of punishment… the death penalty has been employed throughout our history, and, in a day when it is still widely accepted, it cannot be said to violate the constitutional concept of cruelty”.

And refusing a review in the death penalty case, Callins v. Collins, Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed that:
“The Fifth Amendment provides that ‘[n]o persons shall be held to answer for a capital…crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…nor be deprived of life…without due process of law’. This clearly permits the death penalty to be imposed and establishes beyond doubt that the death penalty is not one of the ‘cruel and unusual punishments’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment” (Congressional Quarterly Researcher, Vol. 5, No. 9).

Another reason for the preservation of the death penalty is that of its lengthy existence and success. Capital punishment has been employed as a deterring means for centuries, and from this fact it can be deduced that this form of punishment is effectual and does indeed have value. Obviously it works, or it would have been abandoned long ago. But, even if it didn’t work in deterring other criminals, it has still protected countless innocent persons from potential harm. John McAdams makes a very good point:
“If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murderers, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former”.

There is a also religious side of this debate about capital punishment. Is the death penalty moral? Is it ethical to take the life of a murderer, ever? even if it be to prevent further crimes? The Bible, the highest written authority in the Christian world, says yes. It is written, “Whosoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed: for man was made to the image of God” (Gen. 9:6) and “wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18). It does not mean that the ordinary citizens can go around avenging their lost ones. This condemnation is to be exercised by the government. This is shown if you read further, “For [the ruler] is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil” (Romans 13:4). It’s interesting to note that the passage says ‘sword’, the instrument of execution; this obviously refers to capital punishment.

It’s also worthy of notice that, perhaps surprisingly, the majority of Americans support the death penalty. A poll taken by ABC News/Washington Post of 1082 adults in April of 2005 shows that 65% of Americans favor the death penalty for convicted murderers; 29% opposed, 6% undecided. And for the abduction and murder of children, a whopping 71% feel that the death penalty should be mandatorily sentenced, as shown in a 2002 Fox News poll of 900 adults nationwide (see citations). We can see that it’s a minority that opposes capital punishment; being a democracy, America is therefore pro death penalty.

So it is seen that capital punishment is necessary for justice to be served in grave cases, for the dignity of the victim to be protected, and for the discouragement of future crimes. Furthermore, the constitution and judicial courts, the Bible and the majority of Americans, condone the legality of the death penalty, as well as our ancestors from centuries ago. With these facts in mind, it’s hard to suppose that even a 29% can be in opposition to the historic means of punishment here considered.

In an Irrational World

My reflections today lead me in the way of conflicting arguments; how people often claim one stance, but simultaneously hold view on another topic that completely contradicts the principle involved in the former. I know you're dying for examples... Certain individuals state that the death penalty is wrong, ruthless and disrespectful to human life. I can see how people have this view of it; not my own but at least, it's understandable. What boggles me, is these same people are pro-abortion!! Apparently, the only human life of value must be outside the womb. If someone hits you, oh, that's abuse. Sue them, why not? You'd probably win. But the unborn? Nah, you can mutilate their young bodies, discard their very souls with no qualms of conscience. And how is this manner of death any more humane than the other?? I mean, really, killing a being before he's had a chance to see his mother's face. Even a convicted felon on death row is allowed his last words. Are our smallest innocent citizens to be refused their first?