Capital punishment has become a very controversial issue in the world. There are different views and opinions on capital punishment. It can be argued that the death penalty is an effective punishment, and necessary. Along with this, it can be argued that executing people is unethical and a non-effective punishment. First, some may say the death penalty is effective and necessary because it makes criminals think twice before committing a crime.
Max Soffar, whose mental illness left him particularly vulnerable to giving a false confession, stands convicted and sentenced to death for allegedly killing four victims during an armed robbery in a Houston bowling alley (Thorn, par. 2). The court overturned the conviction in 2004 because during his trial, lawyers failed to argue that Soffars confession contradicted the other evidence in the case, and he ended up on death row (Thorn, par. 4). From two unfair trials to a death sentence, the court ruled that the false confession given by Soffar should stand.
There are chances that the system might convict an innocent citizen. There is no way to mend the mistakes we make. “‘We’re only humans, we all make mistakes,”’ (“Capital Punishment”) is a frequently used expression, but is it as true as anything can be. Therefore, the fact that there is a chance of an innocent life to be condemned to death should be enough to abolish the death penalty, but it is not enough for our government. Additionally, according to Amnesty International “‘the death penalty legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims.”’(“Capital Punishment”).
Is it not ironic that the justice system based on the constitution should therefore seek to end life? One in support of the death penalty could argue that when a person takes a life, then they lose their right to life. That argument would be flawed because the justice system would be doing the same thing it is punishing the criminal for. It is also brutal and as Albert Camus claimed, “An execution is not simply death. For there to be an equivalency, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment on, had confined him at his mercy for months.
Scores of these people have been sentenced to death” (Bedau 8). Considering that four completely innocent citizens had been sentenced to death, in a period of twenty years about eighty innocent people would have been wrongly sentenced to death. Human judgment and the justice system in which the United States of America is based on will never be perfect; there will always be a margin of error. Because of the infallibility of human nature, a few people each year are accused of crimes in which they did not even commit. Should innocent citizens be placed on death row and sentenced to death for crimes they did not commit?
Even with death penalty, crime rates in some states are still high even with death penalty and there is no gu... ... middle of paper ... ...making them question the strength of the government to make tough decisions in whether the criminals should live or die by the death penalty. Death penalty should be avoided and eradicated in this country and other countries that still use the system. It does not bring any good in any way, just the pleasure of getting rid of a problem. It is a brutal and unjust technique of destroying the life individuals without knowing the truth about their problems, their past, or their suffering. This is the 21st century and countries still perform these inhumane acts of executions.
Some maldistribution of the death penalty is unavoidable, but that does not mean we should throw out the death penalty. When the death penalty is imposed on an innocent person that is a serious miscarriage of justice. However, when people talk about the maldistribution of the death penalty they are not referring to when it is imposed on an innocent person rather when the death penalty is imposed on guilty minorities, or low income whites, who can not afford a good lawyer. Even if maldistribution occurs among people who should receive the death penalty that is irrelevant to the morality of the death penalty. It is really too bad that if you have money you can get your way out of the death penalty, but money talks in this country.
But is this a “fair” or “just”punishment for crimes committed by an individual? Depending on the severity of the crime, and its circumstances, it just may be. A large part in the justification of the death penalty is based on the same idea as this early thought. One way to think of it, is that some crimes are so serious in nature, and emotional cost to others, that the only logical or just solution may be to pay the deed, or wrongful act, back in full, by giving one’s own life as restitution. Families of victims often become bitter and angry about the outcome of a crime, the loss of their loved one, and feel as if the death penalty is perhaps the only fair punishment for the violators of the law.
Capital Punishment is awful and inhumane. The Death Penalty is not only unconstitutional, but it is taking away a human life. It is not right to punish criminals by doing to them exactly what they did to their victim. “The penalty for rape cannot be rape. Those who steal are not punished by being stolen from.
Finally, the death penalty also denies the sanctity of life; by executing people, the action does not protect their life and, therefore, denies the sanctity of a human being’s right to be alive in the world. There is a lot of tension between whether or not capital punishment is a moral thing. Capital punishment is only a good punishment to a certain extent because it takes away a criminal capable of more awful things. Many people think that capital punishment should continue to be a form of punishment and should be used throughout the country and world. If people on death row could be charged without a doubt and be executed at the time they are proven guilty, many problems could be resolved such as exoneration.