FREE ESSAY ON PROS AND CONS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

PROS AND CONS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: PROS AND CONS
Capital punishment is a subject you can always count on for a lively discussion with
plenty of opinions and lots of questions. Capital Punishment is a term which indicates
muddled thinking. The dilemma of kill or be killed, which confronts civilized society
daily and inexorably, is bedeviled by the jumble of panic, superstition, and angry
resentment we call punishment, expiation, propitiatory blood sacrifice, justice, and many
other imposing names. The dilemma is a hard fact which must be faced and organized. (1)
In today's world, terrible crimes are being committed daily. Many believe that these
criminals deserve one fate: death. Capital punishment, the death penalty, is the maximum
penalty used in punishing people who kill another human being - and is a very
controversial method of punishment. 
Criminals guilty of murder receive a verdict of capital punishment. Murder is the
unlawful killing of another human being with an intentional or criminal intent.
First-degree murder is usually premeditated or by deliberate design. In most states, a
person convicted of first-degree murder can be sentenced to the death penalty. 
Debate over the merits of capital punishment continues on a daily basis. Proponents of
capital punishment defend it mainly on two grounds: death is a fitting punishment for
murder, and executions maximize public safety through incapacitation and deterrence. 
Capital punishment is meant to be a deterrent to crime, specifically murder. Gordon
Tullock, of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, states: Eighty percent of the people who
seriously think about crime think of punishment as a deterrent - except for the
sociologists, and they wrote all the textbooks. (2) According to statistics, for each
execution there are 50 murders averted. This was documented in the U.S. between the years
1967 - 1984. (3) Murders began to rise during the years that capital punishment was not
allowed while states were reinstating new guidelines.
Edward Koch, former mayor of New York City, said:
Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of ...murderers, they might 
well have stayed their hand. They might have shown moral awareness before their victims 
died...Consider the tragic death of Rosa Velez, who happened to be home when a man 
named Luis Vera burglarized her apartment in Brooklyn. Yeah, I shot her, Vera 
admitted. ...And I knew I wouldn't go to the chair.
The difference between murder and execution, or between kidnapping and imprisonment, is
that the first is unlawful and undeserved, the second a lawful and deserved punishment
for an unlawful act. The physical similarities of the punishment to the crime are
irrelevant. The relevant difference is not physical, but social. (4)
A value on human life is placed by capital punishment. That value says, in essence, If
you take a life, yours will be forfeited. But, man did not originate the concept of
capital punishment. God originated capital punishment
. The Book of Mormon, Nephi 9: 35 states, murderer who deliberately kills shall die. Alma
1: 13-14 states, Nehor condemned to die because he shed blood of righteous man; 1: 18
(30: 10), he who murders is punished unto death; 34: 12, law requires the life of him who
has murdered The Doctrine and Covenants of the Book of Mormon state in Chapter 42: 19, he
who kills shall die; Chapter 42: 79, those who kill will be delivered to law of land.
These are all descriptive of the words capital punishment.
On the view of murder the Book of Mormon states in Nephi Chapter 9: 35, wo unto murder
who deliberately kills. In Mosiah 2: 13, the Lord commands that men should not murder. In
Alma 30: 10 (34: 12) if a man murder, he was punished unto death. In Alma 42: 19, if no
law was given, would a man fear he would die if he murder? In the Doctrine and Covenants,
Chapter 42: 79, any who kill shall be delivered up to laws of land.
The Bible states in Exodus 10: 13, Thou shall not MURDER. (This is the translation taken
directly from the original Hebrew version.) And murder is defined in any dictionary as
the UNLAWFUL killing of a person with malice and aforethought. John 8:7, Let he among you
who is without sin, cast the first stone. Matthew 7:1 states, Judge not, that you be not
judged. 
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy
but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or
one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore
breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least
in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in
the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5: 17-19.
There are many quotes from the Bible that state that the religious should be in favor of
the death penalty. One of these in Revelations 13: 9-10 states, He who leads into
captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the
sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. 
Certainly, capital punishment shouldn't be promoted as a deterrent to
murder. The people who commit atrocities often say they already feel dead
inside. They don't give a damn about consequences. Plus, if they were
acting rationally, so as to be able to weigh such things as consequences,
they probably wouldn't be going around committing atrocities in the first
place. No, people who commit these kinds of crimes are going to commit
them no matter what society threatens to do about it. Which is perhaps
another reason for why we SHOULD have the death penalty. These people
are damaged beyond repair-as a matter of sheer practicality, society
needs to take them out of circulation.(5)
Those against capital punishment state that society cannot allow brutalities of criminal
violence to set limits of appropriate punishment. According to opponents, premeditated
murder by the state is wrong. Abolitionist use the quote, Judge not, that you be not
judged to say the death penalty goes against the Christian values since we have to judge
to sentence someone to death. Many will refuse to sit on juries that may have to enforce
the death penalty as a maximum penalty for the crime committed. But, if you look at the
entire picture of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5: 17-19, we find that Jesus was
speaking to the hypocrite. For example, if I cheat, and I see someone else cheating, I
cannot judge him or her for cheating. I would be a hypocrite. First, I myself must stop
cheating before I could judge the other person. That is called judging in a fair manner,
and not being hypocritical. Christians should take the entire scope of the Bible into
account when they quote certain passages lest they make the passage look like a
hypothetical contradiction. There is a popular saying that only God has the right to take
the life of a human being. But, nowhere in the Bible does this statement meet
confirmation. God states in Genesis 9: 6, Whoever sheds Man's blood, by Man his blood
shall be shed. He also states in Numbers 35: 31, Moreover you shall take no ransom for
the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall be surely put to death.
People against the death penalty will argue that it's cheaper to keep murderers out of
circulation by putting them in jail than by putting them to death. Well, this argument is
well taken. Steps need to be taken to make capital punishment less expensive! The best
argument against capital punishment, though, is that of responsibility. Society creates
these killers and the conditions within which they operate, and it's a serious shirking
of responsibility for society to turn around and heartlessly dispose of the bad people it
produces. I agree that as a society we cannot look to capital punishment as a cure, or
even a treatment, for the evils we've generated. The death penalty is a consequence, a
just reward, and nothing more. If there is a cure for murderers and rapists, and really
criminals of any degree, it is to make sure that every child grows up in a loving and
disciplined environment. We must never confuse these issues.
The moral argument against capital punishment has not been effective in the United States
despite the biblical injunction against killing. Religious supporters of capital
punishment often invoke a presumed distinction between killing and murdering, and avow
that God forbade the latter but not the former. Self-defense and just wars are cited as
cases of morally justified killing. When cases of justified killing in self-defense or
just wars are altered to include an element of delay, disarming, and premeditation, they
too become murder. Since capital punishment clearly involves the elements of delay,
disarming, and premeditation, capital punishment is murder in the biblical sense and
ought to be abolished in any God-fearing society. (5)
Capital punishment should be abolished in this country because it is archaic and cruel.
There are thousands of men and women on death row in this country awaiting execution.
Capital punishment seems to be a political agenda and not the will of the public.
Politicians have excited the public into frenzy, expounding that the death penalty must
exist and be applied. 
Politicians have stated it is deterrence. It has never been proven to be a deterring
factor. Virtually every study has reached the result that capital punishment has no
deterrent effect. Retribution is not constitutional according to our laws.(6)
In earlier times -where capital punishment was common, the value of life was less, and
societies were more barbaric - capital punishment was probably quite acceptable. However,
in today's society, which is becoming ever more increasingly humanitarian, and individual
rights and due process of justice are held in high accord, the death penalty is becoming
an unrealistic form of punishment. Also, with the ever-present possibility of mistaken
execution, there will remain the question of innocence of those put to death. Finally,
man is not a divine being. He does not have the right to inflict mortal punishment in the
name of society's welfare, when there are suitable substitutes that require fewer
resources. I ask society, .... why don't we stop the killing?(7)
The argument of proponents is best summed up in this quote from a senator who spoke
anonymously: Opponents equate execution and murder, believing that if two acts have the
same ending or result, then those two acts are morally equivalent. This is a morally
untenable position. Is the legal taking of property to satisfy a debt the same as auto
theft? Both result in loss of property. Are kidnapping and legal incarceration the same?
Both involve imprisonment against one's will. Is killing in self-defense the same as
capital murder? Both end in taking human life. Is rape and making love the same? Both may
result in sexual intercourse. How absurd? Opponents' flawed logic and moral confusion
mirror their factual arguments - there is, often, an absence of reality. The moral
confusion of some opponents is astounding. Some equate the American death penalty with
the Nazi holocaust. Opponents see no moral distinction between the slaughter of 12
million totally innocent men, women and children and the just execution of society's
worst human rights violators (DP.com, WWW).
Nineteenth-century English philosopher and reformer John Stuart Mill, stated:
Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for 
personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to think that to take the life of a man who
has 
taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the 
contrary...our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right
in 
another forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives

him of his right to live, this shall.
Syndicated columnist Charley Reese made an interesting analogy while criticizing the way
abolitionists typically behave when he wrote:
When I think of all the sweet, innocent people who suffer extreme pain and who dies every

day in this country, then the outpouring of sympathy for cold-blooded killers enrages me.

Where is your sympathy for the good, the kind and the innocent? This fixation on 
murderers is a sickness, a putrefaction of the soul. It's the equivalent of someone
spending 
all day mooning and cooing over a handful of human feces---sick and abnormal.
I favor a fair trial, one quick appeal and prompt execution. I don't think murderers
ought 
to live much beyond 12 months from the day their victim is buried...(and) As for not
being 
able to correct a mistake, so what? Virtually all-accidental deaths are deaths by
mistake. 
Why impose a standard of perfection only on the criminal justice system? There are no 
perfect human institutions. Our system is, more than any other, designed to protect the 
rights of the defendant. The chance of a truly innocent person being executed is 
exceedingly slim. But, if it happens, it happens just as things happen to people every
day.
Laws gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe seldom executed. (8)
Personally, as for convicted criminals, I see no wrong in imprisonment; or, for that
matter, corporal punishment, including putting the criminal, in certain circumstances, to
death. What I do take objection to, is being a victim to criminals. Aside from taking all
the personal steps I can, to lesson my risk of being a victim of a criminal - I would
like to live in a community which takes a full set of steps to discourage criminal
activity. Punishment is a one of these steps.
As for capital punishment: I take the moral high ground: life is precious. However, that
life is precious is no reason to object to capital punishment, --indeed, this is the
primary justification for capital punishment. A legitimate use of punishment is its use
as a deterrent: so too, it is a legitimate use to satisfy the need, which the victim and
his family have for retribution. Thus, in this question of capital punishment, both
deterrence and retribution play a role; but there is an additional reason: to permanently
rid ourselves of murderers.
Capital punishment must be the standard by which each and every state must abide by. If
we cannot join together and defeat crime, it will most certainly take us over. We can no
longer sit and let our lives be terrorized. No longer can we sit back and watch criminals
be released and then kill again. No longer must we draw the line on crime. We must make
the world safe so that our children and we may once again live in a world without the
fear of being senselessly killed or losing our loved ones. For a cold-blooded killer,
capital punishment is the only true justice.
In closing, let me say, after much study for and against, capital punishment is a hot
topic of debate, a debate that reaches far back into history. In a moral perspective,
abolitionists have a very strong case, but proponents have the stronger legal and
fact-based case. Debate on capital punishment, and its constitutionality will rage
unabated, with no foreseeable conclusion.
Bibliography
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(1) The Atlantic Monthly, June, 1948, Capital Punishment by George Bernard Shaw
(2) Capital Punishment, Biblical Principles, (Plymouth Rock Foundation), 1984, p. 17
(3) Ibid
(4) The Death Penalty: Pro and Con (Copyright 1986 Harvard Law Review Association), The
Ultimate Punishment: A Defense, Ernest van den Haag, John M. Olin, Professor of
Jurisprudence and Public Policy, Fordham University.
(5) A Non-Pacifist Argument Against Capital Punishment, Roy Weatherford
(6) The Coastal Post - May, 1997, Abolish Capital Punishment, Rob Phillips
(7) Grisham 404, Grisham, John. The Chamber. New York: Island Books, 1994
(8) Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac, 1738.