The death penalty has been a controversial punishment for criminals since it was first sentenced. It is the execution of a criminal who has committed a capital crime such as brutal murders and treason. The prominent method of capital punishment is lethal injection. However, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1976 there have been 159 electrocutions, eleven lethal gassings, three hangings, and three firing squads, (DPIC, 2011). The main debate surrounding the death penalty is whether or not it should be allowed. Reasons vary depending on who you ask. Some believe it is inhumane and a source of revenge, while others believe it is justice. Each side has quality reasoning for what they believe. The death penalty is justice and should be given as long as the worst capital crimes are committed.
Capital punishment has had its own laws since Eighteenth Century B.C. In today’s society the death penalty is only given to individuals who are the age of 18 and older. It did not become illegal to execute minors until 2005, (Oyez). This is because of the case Roper v. Simmons. The Supreme Court of the United States decided it was unconstitutional to sentence individuals under the age of 18 to death for crimes committed. This was just and still is because a teenagers thinking is significantly more naïve than an adult.
One of the main reason’s capital punishment is justice and not revenge is the morality of it all. Offenders kill for a multitude of reasons including hate, revenge, jealousy, or for no reason at all. Some kill in quick ways such as shootings while other offenders torture their victims and force them to die slow, painful deaths. To not punish these criminals according to their crimes would be failing the criminal justice system.
David Muhlhausen, PhD, spoke on deterrence for the death penalty. He said that when executions given as punishment in court, murder rates dropped. This is because those who murder others are not allowed back onto the streets and pay for taking another’s life. This also creates a sense of fear in other potential offenders because they know they face the same risk of being sentenced to death. “In short, capital punishment does, in fact, save lives,” (Muhlhausen, 2014). It saves innocent civilians lives by allowing them to have a peace of mind that those who do commit such crimes are punished according to their crimes. It saves potential offenders lives because if they know the punishment for their potential crime then there is a strong chance that they will not commit a capital crime and therefore will not run the risk of being sentenced to death as their punishment.
Another fair reason people believe that there should be no death penalty is because of the cost of it. They argue it is more expensive to execute someone than to punish them to life in prison. While this is a well thought out argument, it does not take into account that a large amount of the cost for the death penalty is because of the years of appeals. Those who argue that it is too expensive to execute someone do not take into consideration the price jump of life without parole cases if capital punishment was not an option. It is common for those who are faced with execution to want to plead guilty to first degree murder to get out of the sentence of life without parole. Having capital punishment for a possible sentence gives leeway for guilty pleas which save money spent on trials and put a cap on appeal opportunity, (Evnen, 2015).
The former mayor of New York City, Edward Koch, addressed the argument that capital punishment is racially biased. Koch pulled out the statistics to prove that it is not racially biased and is given to people who deserve it, not because the color of someone’s skin. According to Koch, since 1977 the racial demographic of those who have been sentenced to death is “48.6 percent white; 40.9 percent black; 8.9 percent Hispanic; and 1.6 percent other,” (Koch, 2011). He also proved that the race of those executed since 1976 were 56% Caucasian and 35% African-American. This difference shows that Caucasian executions are almost double the amount of African American executions, further proving that the death penalty is not racially biased against people of color. In fact, it is the opposite. Nearly double the amount white people have been executed than blacks.
Similar to the argument that the death penalty is racially biased, it is also argued that it is biased against society’s lower class. The argument says that because the lower class does not have enough money for top of the line attorneys, they are forced to obtain public defenders. Public defenders are who abolitionists believe to be the underqualified and incompetent attorneys. However, public defenders completed their undergraduate degree. They completed law school and they passed the bar just like the other high scaled attorneys out there. Where they work and who they work for does not make them any less qualified to do their job. If anything, they can be considered more passionate about the criminal justice system because they are paid significantly less than a partner in a law firm but do the same work at lower salaries. In recent years states have repaired their insufficient public defender offices and given funding for expert witnesses needed to have a solid defense.
A huge argument from the pro death penalty side is that it allows victims’ families to have a sense of closure following the loss of their loved one. Kermit Alexander, a former NFL player, spoke of his first-hand experience with this topic. In 1984, his mom, sister, and two nephews were shot and killed by Tiqueon Cox, an 18-year-old gang member. Cox was given the death penalty for the four murders he committed and has been on death row for over 30 years. In regard to the death penalty, Alexander stated that he wanted it to be ensured that “the worst of the worst killers receive the strongest sentence.” He urged an agreeing vote for California Proposition 66 in 2016 saying that executing the worst offenders “brings closure to families while saving California taxpayers millions of dollars every year,” (Alexander, 2016). While again saying it saves taxpayers millions of dollars to execute, Kermit Alexander spoke about his experience with his family’s killer being sentenced to death. The death penalty gave not only this former NFL player a sense of closure, but also hundreds of other families in the same shoes are him.
A common question from those in opposition of capital punishment is that what if this is one of those instances where the punished is innocent? There have been some instances where a person has been taken off of death row because they were found innocent. However, that is rarely the case. A jury is composed of twelve citizens who are asked various questions before being selected. They are asked if their decision on the defendant’s impending charges could be persuaded by a personal conflict. These twelve jurors know that these criminals are on death row for a reason and that there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict them. Technological improvements in forensic science has also helped prove guilt and innocence. DNA can be found in the smallest samples which further allows the proving of guilt or exoneration. There should be some improvements made to the death penalty to make it more efficient and rectify the circumstances given to the wrongly accused, “justice is a reformed, not eliminated death penalty,” (Hanisee, 2016).
A simple reason as to why capital punishment is justice and not revenge is that capital offenders must endure the consequences of their actions. In the United States Constitution Fifth Amendment allows for capital punishment but only after a proper charging, trial, conviction, and sentencing of death. With this, if one practices heinous and illegal actions that deprive an innocent person of their life, their consequences should match their crimes. Most people are taught at a young age that actions come with consequences, but this does not end in childhood. An adult’s actions also come with consequences. They ensure order in society.
The final reason the death penalty is justice and not revenge is that it is not inhumane for murderers to that degree. What is inhumane is torturing someone so badly before being brutally murdered. The criminal was not saying it was inhumane to kill their victim therefore it is not inhumane to punish them in a similar way. It is unfair for a criminal to that degree to have a warm place to sleep, three hot meals served to them every day, the possibility of a job, and programs such as schooling given to them when their victim is no longer living.
Capital punishment rates are steadily declining but that can be attributed to a multiple of reasons. The death penalty is justice and not revenge because those given it as punishment are the worst of the worst and have committed such heinous, evil crimes that they should be punished as such. The debate regarding the death penalty has been an issue since it was first served as punishment. Those who want to abolish it are not realizing how it can accept the victim’s families first-hand. It creates a sense of closure for them to know that the person who took away their innocent loved one’s life. The death penalty also does not take mercy on any race or social class which in our world today, is rare. It is not given to every murderer but to those whose crimes are especially heinous and torturous.