More than half of the states in our
country employ a devastating cruelty known as the death penalty. Most of them have adopted the method of lethal
injection, but other methods, such as electrocution, are certainly not unheard
of. The death penalty has been around
for quite some time, and it has certainly given rise to numerous disputes and
arguments over whether or not this law is just and legitimate or
unconstitutional and illicit. Many
substantial arguments are made concerning the success and importance of the
death penalty, but they all fall short in proving that the death penalty produces
more good than harm because this unforgiving act only succeeds in making
killers of us all.
An argument that is commonly found in the
pro-death penalty community is the one that suggests the death penalty deters
future criminals from carrying out horrendous crimes. However, the belief that deterrence justifies
the execution of offenders is only feasible if the death penalty actually
succeeds in preventing crimes. In
actuality, the overwhelming conclusions of studies show that the death penalty
is no more of a deterrence than is life in prison. Most people who commit crimes and murders do
not expect to be caught, nor do they thoroughly weight the different consequences. Criminals act impulsively and hastily, and if
they intent to commit crimes, they will not be discouraged by the death penalty
more than life of imprisonment. In addition,
there is no conclusive proof that the threat of the death penalty provides a
stronger deterrent than life imprisonment.
Moreover, more states have sentences of life in prison without parole,
and if this sentence is given to a prisoner, our society can rest assured that
these criminals will not be released, thus ensuring our safety without the use
of the death penalty.
Retribution is another word for revenge,
and when a life is taken, retribution seems to be the only opportunity in which
to restore the justice imbalance that was disturbed by the murderer and his violent
acts. To some people, the execution of a
murderer ensures that he will not be allowed to take more lives, and although
the life of the victim can never be restored, it helps to bring justice to the
victim’s family, as well as brings closure to the killer’s crimes. Sometimes, when a person has been victimized,
their first instinct may be to inflict the same pain upon the person
responsible for said crimes. While this
may be a reasonable emotion, it is not the response of a mature society, nor
should it be a judicial foundation on which our country is based. The belief that taking a life for a life is the
only way to achieve justice is not a sufficient excuse for employing the death
penalty. As a country, we should strive
for and demonstrate an absolute respect for life, even the life of a
killer. Furthermore, by sanctioning the
term “pay-back” to be justified by the death penalty only encourages our
motives of revenge and does not provide justice in any form; it only further builds
the chain of cruelty and ultimately ends in yet another killing.
The cruelty known as the death penalty is
simply vengeance, and vengeance should have no place in our country’s justice
system. Allowing an execution to take
place does not right a wrong; it only causes more pain in the end and places us
on the same moral level of murderers. In
summary, the notion of a life for a life is an unequal punishment and is one
that our country should never support.
The death penalty and all that it entails is simply an attempt to
ascribe a horrendous act a less terrifying title. But no matter the name of this method of
execution, it remains to signify one thing: an unspeakable murder is to take
place at the hands of our government.
In the editorial “The Death Penalty Makes Killers Of Us All,” Alisha Colbert presents an argument which opposes capital punishment in America. Although I do not agree with her view, I did enjoy reading her blog entry.
ReplyDeleteThis is an opinion piece, however I would suggest using data and including links to sites for more material on the topic. In the article, there are statements about methods used to conduct the death penalty, and of the efficacy of this system as a means of deterrence and retribution for crime, when compared to life imprisonment. It would make for a more compelling argument if these claims had supporting evidence.
The argument presented is based on a subjective and passionate view of the immorality of murder. It lacks the logical components of cost, the effects on the family who is seeking retribution (some families of the victim do not want the murderer to die, and take on the guilt for this occurrence), and it assumes all murder is subject to death penalty. The editorial seems more like a rant about how awful killing people is than a pointed argument about the efficacy of capital punishment as a method for reducing and controlling crime in our society.
Though the title is very telling, a clearly stated position on the issue in the first paragraph would give the editorial a more organized flow. In addition organization and redundancy, there are a several grammatical errors in this piece, especially with use of tense. These detract from the credibility of the author, which hurts the argument. For example, it is written in the editorial:
Most people who commit crimes and murders do not expect to be caught, nor do they thoroughly weight the different consequences. Criminals act impulsively and hastily, and if they intent to commit crimes, they will not be discouraged by the death penalty more than life of imprisonment.
I think the author made good observations, but I would recommend clearly stating the position of the argument in the first paragraph, keeping the points organized to avoid redundancy, supporting the argument with data, and proofreading.
I read a post on a classmate's blog, The Other Colbert Report, entitled, "The Death Penalty Makes Killers of Us All" and felt compelled to comment on this post. Initially, it was the title that caught my eye, and then it was the content that compelled me to respond. I must first say that I am both for AND against the death penalty. It's contradictory, I know, but I have my reasons. I am "pro-penalty" under the pretense that I believe in the concept of "an eye for an eye." I don't consider this "vengeance" as my classmate calls it, but rather a fair and just solution to such a heinous act as murder. I'm opposed to the death penalty for one simple reason: it's too easy. Many of the criminals that are subjected to the death penalty have committed horrific and unspeakable crimes that warrant the death penalty. Those death sentences that are carried out are swift and "humane." How is this appropriate? How does the punishment fit the crime?
ReplyDeleteFor instance, in 1993 two young girls were brutally raped and murdered by a gang of 6 males in Houston, Texas on a warm summer evening in June. These two girls, aged 14 and 15, were classmates of mine at S.P. Waltrip High School. The details of the crime are horrendous, and the torture these two young ladies endured over their several hours of captive torment must have been excruciating. They were spared nothing and given no mercy. My heart aches and my spine tingles with fear when I think of these girls and what happened - I have a 15 year old daughter. Their murders - all six - were captured and tried. One, a 14 year old juvenile, was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to 40 years in prison. The other 5 men were convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, and all have since been executed by lethal injection. Their deaths were controlled and quick. They were given medication that first sedated them, then systematically shut down their body functions. In a matter of minutes, they were "pronounced" dead. Their victims, on the other hand, suffered endlessly for hours before finally being brutally strangled after being beaten and raped repeatedly. Their executions were justice, not vengeance. No, if vengeance had been on the menu, what these men would have been served would have been a far cry from the simple execution cocktails they received. In this case, I would have preferred to see all of these men spend their lives sitting in a jail cell, never seeing the light of day again. Locked away with nothing but their memories to haunt them.
I don't think enough consideration of this aspect of the death penalty was given when Colbert wrote the post, and too much emphasis was placed on the dramatic and emotional plea of the "cruelty" and "injustice" of the death penalty. I think the author could have researched the topic a bit more and perhaps provided some data to back up their claims, particularly regarding the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. The author opined that the death penalty isn't a deterrent to crime, but didn't offer any sort of data to back up that claim. In a brief search of the internet, I found information on The Death Penalty Information Center's website about a report that was released that indicated the death penalty had absolutely NO impact on a criminal's intent to commit a crime. Any argument is much more effectual with supportive facts and data. In other words, the proof is in the pudding and I wanted some pudding - not just a bowl of opinion sprinkled with insufficient substance to back up their claims.
Though it was a heartfelt posting, it didn't hold much substance other than opinion and emotional pleas. It's not what I would expect a commentary to be, but rather a well written point of view essay on why this particular person opposes the death penalty.