FREE ESSAY ON DEATH PENALTY

DEATH PENALTY

It is a fact that there are 1900 people across the country sitting on Death Row. It is a
fact that the US and Turkey are the only two countries that execute people for certain
crimes they have committed. It is also a fact that all twelve jurors of a case must
unanimously agree for a defendant to receive the Death Penalty. (Films for Humanities)
With all of these people sitting on Death Row everyday in only two countries, with their
fate having been controlled and determined by only twelve people, one would think it
doesn't leave much room for mistake, or misjudgment. Maybe we should take a closer look.
Just how careful is our judicial system when it comes to determining other people's fate?
Just how effective is the Death Penalty where it is carried out? And, just how moral is
the Death Penalty when it comes to upholding the moral standards that we impose on out
society today? The facts are alarming.
In New Jersey in 1984, Teddy Rose, and twenty-one year old man with no past record, shot
a cop out of panic during a burglary. The police officer died, and Teddy Rose's fate was
a shaky one. One month later, Douglas Parsons, a twenty-one year old man living in New
Jersey, with a past record of illegal drug use and sale, shot a cop out of panic during
burglary. The police officer died. Parson's fate was now a shaky one. One year later,
both cases were tried-Teddy Rose was sentenced to death, and Douglas Parsons was
sentenced to thirty years in prison with no parole. These cases were almost identical,
except for the defendant's backgrounds, yet the outcome of the two cases were drastically
different. Rose, with no previous record was condemned to die, and Parson's, with a
previous police record, was getting off quite easy compared to his opponent,
(so-to-speak). 
How is this possible? In the Landmark case of Fuman verses Georgia, which also took place
in New Jersey, the Supreme Court declared the Death Penalty "as unpredictable as being
struck by lighting"(Films for Humanities), and in 1972 passed a bill stating that the
Death Penalty must be fair and predictable. Is this 1984 case an example of that? It is
also a fact that within different states, the Death Penalty is handled differently. The
same crime in state one may not be creeded the same way in state two. The criminal
justice system for one state may be more over burdened. Perhaps they may not have enough
attorneys to administer the Death Penalty. Does this seem fair between states? Let's
examine the main reasons that states carry out the Death Penalty. Our courts seem to feel
very strongly about it, or so we are led to believe. Two reasons are stated in the Films
for Humanities version of The Death Penalty. Our prisons are overcrowded and it helps
reduce crime. The Film also suggests that in New Jersey, the Death Penalty has neither
reduced crime there, nor eliminated over-crowdedness within the prisons. Reports of 438
persons executed in Texas since the Electric Chair was installed concludes that the Death
Penalty has been applied in a discriminatory fashion and has not reduced crime rates at
all. (Randelet and Vandiver, 120) This particular sentence does not seem to be doing what
our courts had in mind. It seems as though it is actually backfiring in some respects.
In 1932, Linberg, a German immigrant, was tried and convicted of his two-year old son's
murder. He was sentenced to death and later, after his sentence was carried out, his
innocence was questioned. (Films for Humanities) In 1950, Timothy Evans was executed for
the murder of his daughter. In the course of his trial, he accused a man by the name of
John Christie for the murder of not only his daughter, but also his wife. His accusations
were overlooked, and he was put to death anyway. Christie was subsequently found to have
murdered six women, four of which he sexually assaulted beforehand. During his trial, he
admitted to the murders of Timothy Evan's daughter and his wife. Evans was granted a
posthumous pardon, which is basically a pardon come too late. (Sorell, 47) This, however,
did not bring Evans back to life. Evan's life was wasted due to a bad jury, or perhaps a
bad defense. It is true that the more money you have the better defense you will receive.
According to the Films for Humanities, most of the people that sit on death row are poor.
They can not afford to hire an experienced, private lawyer. They get what they pay for.
Does this seem fair? Pawsey, a Death Penalty supporter feels it is fair. He states in Tom
Sorell's Moral Theory and Capital Punishment that, "it is justifiable if the number of
innocent lives saved by Capital Punishment is greater than the number of innocent lives
lost through wrongful conviction and execution". (47) Is this so though? We have already
examined states whose crime rates have not decreased. John Maxton, a Capital Punishment
abolitionist, argues with Pawsey and says, "if we allow one innocent person to be
executed, morally we are committing the same, or, in some ways, a worse crime than the
person who committed the murder". (Sorell, 47) Are we that powerful and overpopulated,
that we can justify killing an innocent person in our courts to hopefully stop crime
other places? Do we really have the authority to dismiss a life by mistake, and move on
under the same principles by that which, at times, fails us? These do not seem like good
moral standards that we should live by.
"A practical policy which violates the moral law is not truly practical and will prove
inexpedient in the end" (Calvert, 171) I could not agree with this statement more. You
would probably find that most people would agree with this statement, yet they do not
always apply it to everyday policies and procedures that we live by. Just how moral is
the Death Penalty? I feel as though it contradicts the moral ethics we try to live by and
raise our kids by. I feel that "social conduct should be based upon an ethical
concept"(Calvert, 172), and Capital Punishment is not ethical. When we as a society kill
someone for killing someone else, or hurting someone else, we are no better than they
are. It is like telling your child that hitting is wrong and solves nothing, and then
slapping them everytime they do something wrong. What principles do you think they are
going to live by? What you say, or what you do? The Death Penalty goes back many, many
years. It started out as hangings, shootings, and decapitations, and moved to gas
chambers, and electric chairs, and the newest-lethal injections. We may have moved up the
scale with the brutality to which the sentence is carried out, but even back then, it was
thought to be most immoral. Tolstoy, an eyewitness of a Paris execution in the 1800's,
states it well.
When I saw how the head was separated from the body and as it dropped noisily into the
basket, I understood, not with my reason, but with my whole being that no theories of the
rationality of modern civilization and it's institutions could justify this act; that if
all the people in the world, by whatever theory, had found it necessary, I knew that it
was useless, that it was evil. I knew also that the standard of good and evil was not
what people said or did, not progress, but myself and my own heart. (Calvert, 173) 
This was taken from Confessions, 1879, and though it is of an older account, the truth of
the matter still holds true today. If the Death Penalty were so morally justifiable,
would not the executioner's calling be that of a honorable one? Would we not think that
as a noble act to put someone to death for punishment of a crime, and would we not praise
and respect executioners everywhere who have this job? Most executioners state that it is
the hardest part of their job and the most dreaded if any. (Calvert 175) It is easy to
see where some people might find the sentence that of moral standing though. Some people
apply the "lex talions" from the Mosaic Law, which was established by the Hebrews and
stood for a very long time. This basically indicates an eye for an eye. What one man does
to another, he will have done unto him. (Calvert, 176) One can see how this might have
been an effective course of action. Obviously if you do not want to loose your teeth, you
should not punch out the teeth of someone else. We find all other aspects of this
principle ludicrous today however! We certainty do not shoot off someone else's leg when
they have done the deed to someone else. Nor do we, (like under the Mosaic Law), execute
people for gathering sticks on the Sabbath Day, or uphold the sacrifice of animals in
worship as a common practice. Even under the Mosaic Code, the punishment of death was not
a cool, deliberate act on the part of society as Capital Punishment is today. Then the
executioner was the nearest akin to the one who was slain and was appropriately known as
the "avenger of blood". (Calvert, 178-79) Since we are upholding the same principle of
punishment, are we "avengers or blood"? I feel we are a society geared more towards
revenge than justice- we tend to misplace them both, and use them interchangeably.
Regardless of our actions, we do know our moralistic values, and beliefs. Many of us do
lead a Christian life, which directly contradicts the policies of Capital Punishment.
Many of us do not believe in Capital Punishment, yet idly stand by and allow it to
happen, or even perform such duties as carrying out the sentence. Data from a twenty-year
study on the development of moral judgement among American males shows that in the
maturest stages of development, there is a rejection to Capital Punishment. This provides
a basis for asserting the immortality and unconstitutionality of the act. (Radelet, and
Vendiver, 121) Why, then, do we still practice this? Are we too cowardly to stand up for
something we feel is immoral and wrong? Do we really feel, for those of us that are
Christians, that we have the right to play God and the Almighty makes exceptions to those
who have to carry out the sentence because it is their job, or they make the verdict-
(after all, when others are involved and aid the killing, it is considered manslaughter),
when he stated the 5th Commandment Thou Shall Not Kill? Shouldn't we, for those of us
that believe, be following Jesus and trying to live like he did. When a man brought an
adulterous woman to Jesus, (which was a crime that warded Death), it was her accusers
that Jesus shamed, by awakening within them their own shortcomings. He dismissed her by
saying "Neither do I condemn thee-go and sin no more". (Calvert, 181) We are taught that
Jesus never condones moral failure, but he never looses faith in the latent possibilities
within everyone. Who are we to say if someone can be redeemed or not? Should not we be
more focused on trying to save people's souls instead of dismissing them? After all, we
are taught that life is sacred. 
I believe that every human spirit is infinite in worth in the sight of God, and should be
in our own perception of each other. There are people out there that are committing
horrid crimes and are cramping our outlook on the beautiful spirit in each human being,
yet must we indulge ourselves in the very thing that is breaking down our society? I feel
we should rise above, and explore new ways of gearing our society. Something is wrong
when we are basing our justice system on how many jail cells there are, and how much
funding we have, or how we can frighten others by taking people's lives-good and bad. We
need to be a more careful and cautious society, and more conscious of the decisions that
we are making, and the ones that we are allowing to be made by our silence and
passiveness. People should be punished for the crimes they commit, but people also need
help. We have a social responsibility to one another, and it is our job to try and help
these people, as contrasting as that sounds, rather than just removing them from the
wheel of life. Capital Punishment does not solve the problem of crime in the US, and
other countries; it only puts ease into people's minds that that particular criminal is
no longer a threat to our society. We are missing the big picture though, and that is the
respect for humanity, and we need to start teaching by example. Our government has a
direct role in that example, and until we can find wholesome, genuine solutions to the
problems that face us today, they will never go away, and our society will remain that of
one based on nothing but excuses.