The Golden Rule states that one should treat others as they expect to be treated. This simple and time honored tradition has allowed for peaceful coexistence in society throughout the development of history. Unfortunately disputes happen and agreements are broken. Laws have been developed as a result of humans interacting with each other as people continue to evolve.
Somewhere along this evolutionary path, death and murder became acceptable when sanctioned by government or state agencies. This murder, execution became in existence to punish those who have broken the rules of society and the collective government had determined that death is the best possible outcome for the situation.
The purpose of this essay is to describe the death penalty as a outdated and inefficient means of governance that demonstrates the barbaric nature of organized government that still exists today. This essay will discuss key elements of this subject as the more controversial and ignored facts about state-sanctioned death squads act to eliminate human life in the name of truth and justice. The essay will provide counter arguments that will help contextualize the argument and bring a new understanding to the subject that will help human evolution grow in new ways the eliminates the brutal and unnecessary treatment of prisoners.
In Support Of Eliminating the Death Penalty
Humanity's lack of understanding about life and death certainly causes many problems in society. The mystery that surrounds both of these inevitable occurrences places every person born in the unique position of living to die. In essence everyone is on death row. This troubling and sometimes joyous predicament encourages humans to act accordingly and force a more artificial version of this situation by punishing criminals with death.
Death as punishment assumes that death is bad thing. Unfortunately the living can't really answer this question with any scientific accuracy and depends on faith and belief to comprehend such a forceful issue the pervades nearly every action and thought.. Somehow a contrived and precise state sanctioned violent reaction to a non-sanctioned act of violence serves as either a deterrent to crime or an avenue of revenge for victims.
Bessler (2002) suggested that this violent behavior that seeks revenge is harmful to the society at whole. He wrote "If America is to have a safer society, we must stop
seeing the death penalty as a "crime-fighting" tool, which it clearly is not. Instead, we must start
capital punishment for what it is: just another form of violence in our society. Thus, as we grapple with the thorny issues of how to bring heavily armed terrorists in Afghanistan to justice, America's domestic political agenda cannot be allowed to stand still. The abolition of America's death penalty is, in fact, one way already within our grasp to reduce violence. "
Violence becomes the property of the state when the death penalty is used. This is a very dangerous and risky situation. The government takes a position of do what I say but not what I do. How is this encouraging justice and fairness? It does not.
The court systems have been known to convict people unfairly and mistakenly. The justice system is also susceptible to corruption further putting the power of many into the hands of the few. The fact that the conviction and sentencing of a criminal could never be completely void of human errors and mistakes, fortifies the belief that the death penalty is an extremely unjust and unfair form of punishment.
The death penalty, which essentially used to administer punishment for the killing of an innocent person, could ironically and tragically actually lead to the death of another innocent person. This is a signal and sign that institutionalizing such practices is morally wrong. Human error is inevitable and things will go wrong, count on it. People make errors all the time and scientific tests are not always 100% accurate The legal system could be manipulated by people of high social stature and economic status so there will always be the mere possibility that an innocent person could be wrongly sentenced to death. This fact alone should be a valid enough reason for the death penalty to be outlawed and not practiced.
The death penalty also involves the issue of racial inequality. Due to a long history of
racial struggles in America, it is still common for people to perceive a non-white person as a
culprit over a white person. That stereotype is influenced in many ways,including the media, the
press and even current events, such as gangsters being tied with Italians, drug dealing being tied
with African/Latin American, and terrorism being associated with Iraqis. Along with the fact that
a white person is less likely to be suspected of murder, when the victim of a crime is a white
person, the sentencing is often more severe than if the victim was of a different race. On the
other hand, if a white person killed another white person, he would still likely to receive a less
severe verdict compared to a nonwhite person.
One of the main reasons why we believe that the death penalty should not be legal in is simply because there is not statistical evidence supporting the claim that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. It has been proven that there is no difference in murder rates of states with the death penalty against those without. Most of the time, when a murderer is kills someone, they are not thinking about the consequences of their actions. Many times it is a spur of the moment action and their mind is focused on anger or revenge, not the possible punishment . Life in jail should be the appropriate punishment for murder. If a criminal is scared to ruin his life or end his life once he commits a crime, he will have the same fear to go to jail for life as his life will also be ended but in a different perspective.
What is truly missing in today's society is a sense of forgiveness. This stems from the philosophical standpoint about life and death. Since life appears to be temporary, it is more valuable than time spent not living. Once again, this argument cannot satisfactorily proven one way or another and society must resort to common sense and ethics to decide such important acts of fate and faith. Since there lacks a common grasp on such important events that we experence it should be no surprise that confusing and conflicting behaviors will be practiced by those who are most confused.
A fear of the afterlife is what drives this impulse to kill suspected criminals. Death is treated as a punishment in our culture where if you do something so horrendous you will face the worse fate possible: death. Death, however could be very rewarding and pleasing, in fact many would suggest that the afterlife is much more understandable and enjoyable than existence. Using this approach, instead of punishing criminals with death, this may be a way of releasing them and rewarding them. Until there is some institutional consensus on death and the afterlife, the death penalty does not make any rational sense or uphold its intent of the law.
Besides violating most principles of every important human rights document ever written, the death penalty fails at a logical level. Two wrongs don't make a right no matter how one looks at the situation. Rewarding murder with murder discredits the institutions that implement such laws and further lessens their power in swaying public opinion or governing with any efficiency or effectiveness.
Arguments For Upholding the Death Penalty
Many people believe in the effectiveness and power of revenge in the healing process. Revenge appears to be the only real reason as to why a victim or victim's family would approve of killing the offender. Satisfying the revenge impulse within ourselves can be effectively carried out the collective level with occasionally killing criminals under the death penalty laws. This mass catharsis allows the population to vent and release pent up anger and frustration that can be concentrated into the death penalty prisoner.
Besides the emotional reasons to support the death penalty, there are other more rational and scientifically based evidence that supports the effectiveness of its practice. Rivkin & Grossman (2011) suggested that the death penalty was still very valid in many cases. They wrote " but there is no serious constitutional argument against the death penalty. The 5th Amendment itself recognizes the existence of "capital" crimes, and executions were common before and after the Constitution's framing. No framer ever suggested that the Constitution divested states of this part of their historical punishment power, nor has there been a constitutional amendment that does so." This historical traditions of killing prisoners appears to still have some importance within circles despite the lack of an evolved more peaceful attitude towards the treatment of others and the principles of forgiveness.
There are other more vocal proponents of the death penalty who support this practice for other reasons. Hayes (2013) reported that most American's support this practice despite the violent and often inhumane events surrounding human sacrifices. He wrote " a large majority of Americans - 63 percent in a December USA Today/Gallup poll - say they favor capital punishment. These developments have not, of course, erased many Americans' view that the death penalty may be justified. A May 2012 Gallup survey showed that 58 percent believed capital punishment is morally acceptable."
There is a common sense argument for supporting the death penalty despite the tendency to kill innocent people. If one concluded that we should abolish a rule or practice unless we treat everyone exactly by the same rules all the time, we would have to abolish, for example, traffic laws and laws against imprisonment for rape, theft, and even murder. Carried to its logical limits, we would also have to refrain from saving drowning victims if a number of people were drowning but we could only save a few of them. Imperfect justice is the best that we humans
can attain. We should reform our practices as much as possible to eradicate unjust discrimination wherever we can, but if we are not allowed to have a law without perfect application, we will be forced to have no laws at all.
Conclusions
Although there are some reasonable arguments for killing people, I strongly prefer that state sanctioned ritualistic murders performed under the guise of a death penalty for crime be eliminated as a practice within American and global society. Revenge and punishment are necessary components within the human psyche that need to be dealt with in a positive and productive manner, a manner the death penalty cannot provide.
The ideas of forgiveness and kindness trump the ideas of blood thirst and revenge in my ideal society. Understanding death in a new way and releasing some taboos about the subject may also help others come to grips with the motivations behind the death penalty and hopefully shift their views to a more peaceful and understanding view of the world. Regardless of one's ideals the death penalty is crude, barbaric and coercive and these are things I would wish to limit in a sane and productive society.
References
Bessler, J. America's Death Penalty: Just Another Form of Violence. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 82, 1 Winter 2002, 13-19.
Hayes, D. How media is killing the death penalty. The Washington Post
Murray, G. (2003). Raising Considerations: Public Opinion and the Fair Application of the Death Penalty. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 4 Dec 2003, 753-772.
Rivkin, D. & Grossman, A. The death penalty; valid yet targeted. The Los Angeles Times, 26 Oct 2011.