Capital Punishment

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Capital punishment is a very controversial subject in today's world. People should think about what will happen to them if they commit a crime, and the consequences that will follow the crime. Society has enough problems to deal with without people committing crimes, Therefore capital punishment is desperately needed.

Above all else, it costs too much of hard working taxpayers' dollars to send someone to prison. It costs a large amount of money each year to keep a person in prison. Why should we pay that much money for those who willingly inflict pain or harm with no cause or concern? There are about thirty-three hundred people on death row. Fifty to sixty percent of inmates are now executed each year, most after having served ten years on death row (Senna and Sigel 430). The opposition will say the monetary units cannot take the place or be substituted for human life. However, capital punishment is not a moral injustice. Look at what we kill. Lion's and tigers: cause it's fun. House fly's and mosquito's: cause their pests. Pheasants and quail: cause we're hungry, and it's fun. We rarely see a bumper sticker that says "save the roaches". So, at most, this sanctity of life that these anti-capital punishment people try to portray to us is selective. We get to deem which forms of life are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Is this actually what we're supposed to believe? If one is to argue that the death penalty is demoralizing to our values, then that person should take a look at our world.

Secondly, society has a right to protect itself. If it is obvious, with extensive and substantial proof, that a person is guilty of voluntary first degree murder, then that person should be sentenced to death. Justice must be served. Placing murderers in prison is not a tough enough punishment. In jail they will have a relatively easy lifestyle, free food and housing, no responsibilities. Furthermore, some will have a possible chance for parole. If they happen to make it back out in the world, who is to say he or she would not kill again? This means additional people had to die before these murderers were sentenced to death. Capital punishment provides the greatest justice for the victim and helps alleviate the pain of the victim's family and friends (Senna and Siegel 432). Those who are against capital punishment say that vengeance is not supposed to be part of a judicial movement. They say that society should not dwell on retribution. However, when you look at history, vengeance is everywhere. Why did we attack Japan? Because they bombed Pearl Harbor. . . So at best, vengeance and retaliation is part of human history. It runs through our veins. Furthermore, if the murderers were sentenced to death the first time they were convicted, innocent lives would not have to be lost. Certainly those who are executed do not kill again By executing the murderers the first time around, justice would have been served, and crimes that could be prevented are. The punishment would fit the crime, while and victim's family and society would be helped knowing one less murderer is out on the streets. Capital punishment makes a statement: there is behavior that is unacceptable to a society and that one who engages in such behavior forfeits his or her right to live

Finally, capital punishment is a deterrent that makes perfect sense. It truly makes the criminal pay for his or her crime. By punishing a criminal severely, the state can demonstrate its determination to control crime and deter potential offenders. Too lenient a sentence might encourage criminal conduct (Senna and Siegel 391). Maintaining a balance between fear and justice is an ongoing quest. Deterrence assumes that people may be prevented from choosing to engage in criminal acts . Deterrence refers to the ability of criminal punishment to convince criminals that returning to criminal activities again would not be in their best interests. Sentencing for the purpose of general deterrence, then, has little to do with the criminal's own behavior and more to do with how the rest of society perceives and reacts to the punishment. More evidence exists that shame and social rejection are actually greater crime deterrents than fear (Senna and Siegel 413). Isaac Ehrlich from the University of Chicago reached the controversial conclusion that each addition execution would save seven or eight people from being murder victims (Senna and Siegel 419). In retrospect, the only way capital punishment can effectively work is if it is properly and cautiously enforced. While capital punishment is a great tool in our society today, it is not without it's flaws. Improper genetic testing have led to one unjust execution in the past thirty years. However, executed properly, capital punishment can greatly reduce the number of violent crimes. Deterrence and capital punishment are hand in hand. By showing with example the seriousness of the state to control it's crime problems, it shows others that capital punishment can stop crime dead in it's tracks, or better yet, before it occurs.

The death penalty saves lives by deterrence and its incapacitating effect. It is morally and legally just for murderers who have no respect for human life. Death penalty opponents would have United States citizens believe that capital punishment is not a deterrent, is not morally or legally just, and that people are executed wrongly all the time. The reason they argue these points so fervently is to try to hide the evidence that overwhelmingly supports exactly what they argue against.,