Capital Punishment
For hundreds of years, people have been executed for crimes which have been seen as the most serious of all - murder, rape, robbery. In one country, you would go to prison for killing - in another, your punishment would fit your crime.
And I personally believe that, in the case of cold-blooded murder, capital punishment is the main solution.
It's so easy to say that two wrongs don't make a right. It's easy to say, "Capital punishment goes against human rights and all people have rights!" But if we were to follow that reasoning, we would have to abolish prisons as a human rights violation because they deny people their freedom, which is a basic human right.
Besides, were those murderers thinking of the human rights of the people they were killing? Surely the best way to punish them is to take away their own life. Or should we simply let the criminal's fate be much less painful and much less terrifying than the fate of their own victims? That's what most people seem to be thinking.
There are so many arguments against the death penalty, and personally, I don't think any of these arguments are very convincing. People who argue against the execution of murderers often bring up the idea of ‘moral issues’ for their first point. They feel that killing someone for their crime is murder in itself and say that, “It’s wrong to kill people to show that killing people is wrong.” But it states in any dictionary that murder is the unlawful act of killing, and since capital punishment is within the law, it’s not murder. There is a difference between crime and punishment.
Another much-discussed argument is that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent. It simply gets rid of the murderer, giving them the ‘easy way out’. But it would seem that prisons do not act as a deterrent either, as a University collected data, and came up with the following horrific results:
In the year of 1960, 56 executions took place in America. There were 9140 murders that year.
In 1964, 15 executions took place, to 9250 murders.
In 1969, no executions took place at all. 14,590 murders were committed.
For the following seven years, no executions took place, and over that period of time, there were 20, 510 murders in America.
Between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States went from 9,960 to 23,020. That's a 131% increase. The murder rate actually doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So in summary, the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank.
It's insane. Almost 21,000 murderers over seven years and not one of them executed for their cold-blooded crimes. So it would seem to me that prison does not act as any more of a deterrent than capital punishment. However, I can say with much certainty that if even one sixth of those murderers were executed for their crime, capital punishment would be much more of a deterrent. Logically, a more severe punishment would make criminals more afraid to commit their crime - criminals are not immune to fear.
Here's another interesting little snippet: Edward Koch, former mayor of New York City, said this -
"Had the death penalty have 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."
Pretty amazing, huh?
But of course, the idea of deterrence is not the only argument which can be used. Another favourite argument is the idea that capital punishment goes against human rights. However, what the people who say this fail to realize is that capital punishment is a punishment for the violation of human rights, not a violation of human rights itself. And anyone with any amount of moral judgment would be able to recognize and respect that difference.
Another argument is that letting a murderer rot in prison is good enough, if not better than putting that criminal to death. But this, in my opinion, isn't good enough. Laws change, people forget.
Take, for example, the tragic case of Pamela Moss. In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled her. She was just fourteen years old, yet her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole. Later on, thanks to a smart change in sentencing laws, James Moore is now eligible for parole every two years. If her parents knew this would happen, then surely they would have opted for the option of capital punishment. But, like I said, laws change and people forget. And as long as the murderer lives, there is always a slight chance that they will strike again. Unfortunately, there are people who run the criminal justice system who are naive enough to allow a murderer to repeat their crime.
And a final, cliched argument is that executing a murderer won't bring back the victim. However, the people who say this never seem to be able to explain how putting that murderer in prison will bring back the victim either.
But anyway, it is not, and never was, the point of capital punishment to bring back innocent people. Justice is not about resurrection, nor is it about revenge. Justice is about making sure guilty people take the consequences for their own violent actions. Justice is about endorsing personal responsibility. And we cannot expect anyone to take responsibility for their own actions if these consequences are not enforced in full.
And I personally believe that, in the case of cold-blooded murder, capital punishment is the main solution.
It's so easy to say that two wrongs don't make a right. It's easy to say, "Capital punishment goes against human rights and all people have rights!" But if we were to follow that reasoning, we would have to abolish prisons as a human rights violation because they deny people their freedom, which is a basic human right.
Besides, were those murderers thinking of the human rights of the people they were killing? Surely the best way to punish them is to take away their own life. Or should we simply let the criminal's fate be much less painful and much less terrifying than the fate of their own victims? That's what most people seem to be thinking.
There are so many arguments against the death penalty, and personally, I don't think any of these arguments are very convincing. People who argue against the execution of murderers often bring up the idea of ‘moral issues’ for their first point. They feel that killing someone for their crime is murder in itself and say that, “It’s wrong to kill people to show that killing people is wrong.” But it states in any dictionary that murder is the unlawful act of killing, and since capital punishment is within the law, it’s not murder. There is a difference between crime and punishment.
Another much-discussed argument is that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent. It simply gets rid of the murderer, giving them the ‘easy way out’. But it would seem that prisons do not act as a deterrent either, as a University collected data, and came up with the following horrific results:
In the year of 1960, 56 executions took place in America. There were 9140 murders that year.
In 1964, 15 executions took place, to 9250 murders.
In 1969, no executions took place at all. 14,590 murders were committed.
For the following seven years, no executions took place, and over that period of time, there were 20, 510 murders in America.
Between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States went from 9,960 to 23,020. That's a 131% increase. The murder rate actually doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So in summary, the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank.
It's insane. Almost 21,000 murderers over seven years and not one of them executed for their cold-blooded crimes. So it would seem to me that prison does not act as any more of a deterrent than capital punishment. However, I can say with much certainty that if even one sixth of those murderers were executed for their crime, capital punishment would be much more of a deterrent. Logically, a more severe punishment would make criminals more afraid to commit their crime - criminals are not immune to fear.
Here's another interesting little snippet: Edward Koch, former mayor of New York City, said this -
"Had the death penalty have 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."
Pretty amazing, huh?
But of course, the idea of deterrence is not the only argument which can be used. Another favourite argument is the idea that capital punishment goes against human rights. However, what the people who say this fail to realize is that capital punishment is a punishment for the violation of human rights, not a violation of human rights itself. And anyone with any amount of moral judgment would be able to recognize and respect that difference.
Another argument is that letting a murderer rot in prison is good enough, if not better than putting that criminal to death. But this, in my opinion, isn't good enough. Laws change, people forget.
Take, for example, the tragic case of Pamela Moss. In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled her. She was just fourteen years old, yet her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole. Later on, thanks to a smart change in sentencing laws, James Moore is now eligible for parole every two years. If her parents knew this would happen, then surely they would have opted for the option of capital punishment. But, like I said, laws change and people forget. And as long as the murderer lives, there is always a slight chance that they will strike again. Unfortunately, there are people who run the criminal justice system who are naive enough to allow a murderer to repeat their crime.
And a final, cliched argument is that executing a murderer won't bring back the victim. However, the people who say this never seem to be able to explain how putting that murderer in prison will bring back the victim either.
But anyway, it is not, and never was, the point of capital punishment to bring back innocent people. Justice is not about resurrection, nor is it about revenge. Justice is about making sure guilty people take the consequences for their own violent actions. Justice is about endorsing personal responsibility. And we cannot expect anyone to take responsibility for their own actions if these consequences are not enforced in full.
I completely agree with you that capital punishment should be used in cases of cold-blooded murder. However, although there have been many cases where the wrong person was convicted of the crime, (often, this is down to the police being corrupt and wanting to get a conviction quick, such as the framing of an impoten and mentally disabled man charged with the rape and murder of a woman in the seventies.) (I think it was the seventies.)
So, capital punishment should be viable but unfortunately isn't. Then again, in a perfect world, there'd be no need for the punishment because the crime wouldn't be committed. However, if someone commits an act of murder in cold blood then life should most definitely mean life. Or, we could just make sure we convict the right person so it could only ever be used when the evidence was 100% conclusive.
Also, the "it's against human rights point". People who use that argument clearly haven't checked the human rights convention. It defines a human as someone who has a conscience and feel remorse and guilt. Thus, most of these people don't actually class as humans because they don't have a shred of conscience in them and honestly don't care about the fact they've extinguished a life and broken a family.
haruhi suzumiya., July 17th, 2009 at 01:22:01am
that's like saying if we eat animals we should eat humans.
people need to get it into their heads that animals we kill to eat are not equivalent to humans.
sorry. they're just not.
your logic is too simple for it to be as easy as that. my blog covers a number of important points. we can't just say there should be no capital punishment because we "murder" animals
Zwitter, July 4th, 2009 at 06:35:55pm
If we get Capital Punishment for Murdering other Humans, then so we should for murdering animals, but we don't therefore no we should not have Capital Punishment for Murdering Humans.
Pink Floyd, July 4th, 2009 at 04:55:41pm
Also, if you read the blog intensely, you may have been able to pick up what I'm really saying. If we execute murderers now, it would act as a deterrent. People would know they would be executed for murdering someone, and thus don't do it. Like I said, criminals are not immune to fear. Therefore we wouldn't have to use so much money on executing them because there wouldn't be as many. If we executed murderers, the amount of people who would be on death row isn't going to add up to the amount of prisoners we have now. DETERRENCE is my point.
Zwitter, June 27th, 2009 at 10:24:29am
I can't remember the statistics, but I had a set of data that showed that it's something like a 0.0000001% chance that an innocent person dies in a certain large number of people.
I can't remember.
But I think we can take that chance if it means hundreds of other guilty, cold-blooded murderers die.
And I would agree with you on the expenses thing, but I recently found out that they're now using the taxpayer's money to put playstations in the cells of British prisons :] So. I'd personally rather have them dead.
And maybe for you, if you were a murderer, it would be the easy way out. But if I committed a crime as terrible as murder, I certainly wouldn't want to die for it. I'd just deserve to.
Zwitter, June 27th, 2009 at 10:20:51am
People have been executed and then mabie 20 years later (sometimes less, sometimes more), proven innocent. What do we do about that? There is no way to bring back the murder victim or the person incorrectly convicted of the murder.
Also, I'll bet you didnt know it actually cost more to execute someone than to keep them in prision. When somone is sentenced to death, they're put on death row (sometimes for many decades). During this period, state and federal lawyers (paid for by citizen's tax money) must represent the person on death row and attampt to enforce all their appeals and legal crap like that. It is only a loophole for people on death row to keep themselves alive longer, but theres no way to fix it without violating all the constitutional rights of the accused.
In the end, I don't even think killing murderers is really even punishing them compaired to what some prisions are like. If you were to know what prisons for murderers and rapists are like, you'd much rather be dead then have a lifes stay in one. Killing them IS indeed the easy way out, the easy way out for the criminal. Killing them only sets them free.
Blarg!, June 26th, 2009 at 12:47:36am
Nice blog. I'm pretty much in favour of capital punishment - for murder, because if you take a life it just makes sense to lose yours for it.
I wouldn't really like a return to the times when people were executed for treason and stealing bread and stuff, that's a bit harsh. I do know that's not what you mean, though.
Punishment needs to fit the crime, really.
plantagenet., June 25th, 2009 at 11:37:40pm
I agree with both of you
Thank you for reading :]
Zwitter, June 25th, 2009 at 09:11:54pm
I agree with this blog.
Even if a convicted criminal were to serve a life sentence, and even if they were tortured, there's still a chance that one day they'll be free again. Laws change. They may become eligible for parole. Capital punishment ensures that that will never happen. There won't be any chance for them to commit any crimes ever again. It might seem inhumane but it's really the only way to keep violent criminals from striking again.
asthenia., June 25th, 2009 at 08:49:51pm
my philosophy is; two wrongs don't make a right.
and though many people would disagree with me, I still believe in that.
yes, people like charles manson, and others prolly deserve the chair (I believe he is serving a life sentence), but I think if someone has done something so wrong that instead of killing them, torture them like back in the old days.
I know I might sound contradicting, but honestly, what's taking their life going to do?
They're not going to suffer for what they did,
if they're tortured (to an extent, but not inhuman) they'll more likely feel bad for what they did.
I'm not really good at expressing on this subject(x
disasterology., June 25th, 2009 at 08:31:59pm