Lastly is that punishment by means of imprisonment is seemingly humanitarian and civilized. This means that if a person is wrongfully accused they may be released at a later date without permanent harm having being done. What is more, the government may still establish their doctrinaire attitude to criminals by means of adjusting the length of the sentence.
On the contrary, prisons have their disadvantages and inadequacies. And many court cases have arisen due to these.
To begin with, many criminals serving a sentence in prison may be infuriated and frustrated with the restrained conditions due to instability or intolerable frame of mind. This has an entirely negative effect as the criminal may be driven to serious acts of brutality and aggression. Also, depending on the individual’s emotional state suicide has been a resort taken by many. Similarly, prisoners have been known to perform all kinds of rebellion and protest such as personal starvation.
One of the constant and major drawbacks is the increasing amount of money spent by the government every year on the prisons. Vast amounts of money are put into the prison system for various reasons such as the obvious, upkeep, food, clothing, bedding, employment etc. In this respect, quite ironically the government seems to be paying for today’s felons. Furthermore, numerous indigent people have been known to abuse this system by committing crimes just to exploit the good quality amenities there is to offer at the prison.
Another common and contentious subject is the misjudging and often underestimating the magnitude of the crime in question resulting in either a too long or too short a sentence. This can cause pandemonium amongst the government and officials as well as objection from the victims and indeed the family of the individual with the sentence. Moreover, victims who suffer very traumatic strain as a result of the criminal’s actions may even suggest that imprisonment is not adequate chastisement. Likewise, in the case of a premature release of the prisoner victims may feel vulnerable and disgruntled.
Regarding those whose sentence in prison is short, there can be exceptionally detrimental dialogue between the prisoners. Because of the liberated lifestyle of the prisoners there is much communication. Quite often, the inmates would share and discuss tactics and plans in the prison. In this respect, prisons may be justifiably regarded as “criminal conventions”.
Finally, but quite importantly, are the current living conditions in many prisons today. Numerous prisons in the United Kingdom possess almost luxurious and comfortable interiors. The prisoners are nearly pampered for. Their needs are fulfilled in excess. This, I feel, is not right. Today many prisons appear as employment free, all expenses paid hotels. There are lavish amenities such as televisions, pool tables, music systems etc, all of which many innocent citizens do not even possess in their own homes. Correspondingly, the treatment of the prisoners, in numerous cases, is very noninterventionist to say the least. Consequently, the incarceration of criminals in conditions such as these is futile and to no avail in terms of the effectiveness of punishment and reincarnation of the criminals.
A second but sparsely implicated method is the death penalty. The death penalty has been practiced from the beginning of time for those who committed a crime which is regarded as very serious or blasphemous. Various examples of this are known to be true. Dates as far back as the 1500’s are possibly best known for the dogmatic attitude of the officials and the common practice of the death penalty. These executions were done by means of burning at the stake, hanging, decapitation, stoning and even drowning. Possibly most recent to date in the UK was the execution of John Silk in 1905 for the murder of his mother. However, now in the UK the death penalty has been abolished. Nevertheless it has remained a tradition and rule that the crime of high treason will be punishable by means of hanging. Having said this, this has not been practiced since the eradication of the death penalty. A perfect and renowned example of high treason in England was Guy Fawkes and the gunpowder plot in 1605.
The death penalty is still practiced in half of the countries in the world and 38 states in America today such as Texas. In 1972, the United States Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment as it was then being administered then, was being applied in an arbitrary and erratic manner, which represented cruel punishment. They believed that the death penalty rulings were too vague which meant the juries had little guidance and over-supplementary scope. For this reason many states do not impose the death penalty and others use is very infrequently. Texas, as mentioned would possibly make use of the death penalty most. However, the following requirements must be met in the eyes of the jury; “The defendant intended to kill the victim”. Secondly “It is likely that the defendant would commit other violent crimes in the future” and lastly “The defendant did not commit the crime as a reasonable response to any provocation by the victim”. Although all these requirements are rarely satisfied, the death penalty is still very prominent and extremely controversial.
To begin with, the death penalty does have its advantages and contributions to society. Possibly the greatest benefit of prisons is the theory that criminals that pose a threat to society are permanently removed from society. The execution of a convict obviously renders him harmless. For that reason the death penalty would seemingly provide a “criminal cleansing” system if you will.
Secondly, the death penalty provides a very powerful deterrent indeed. Those considering homicide and potential criminals will be discouraged and fearful for their own lives, thus showing a decline in the murder rate. This delineates “general deterrence”. In addition, of course the killer who is executed will not kill again. This outlines “specific deterrence”. This seems instinctively correct, in terms of the effectiveness of the deterrent. In fact a recent poll in the USA shows that 68% agree that the death penalty is, indeed, a useful disincentive.
Lastly, is that the benefit of the death penalty concerning the suitability of the punishment. Many of the families of the victims of homicide feel that the death penalty satisfies their anger as a form of consolation. They rest assured that justice has been done. In this way the death penalty also demonstrates the assertiveness of the government. It exhibits the governments intolerance on murder thus insusceptible to cynicism regarding their lenience.
The death penalty has many disadvantages indeed and the recent highlighting of these have brought around the skepticism and dubiousness with regard to its ineffectualness.
Firstly and most persistently reoccurring are the moral issues related to the death penalty. This is where the death penalty is used as a means of vengeance and retribution where there is a desire to see the criminal suffer and indeed die. Certainly in terms of the electric chair the length of suffering before death is often a minute in some cases. In addition to physical suffering there is extreme mental suffering and anxiety in the weeks leading up to the death. However the lethal injection now used as the death penalty in many states such as Carolina. This is where a lethal dose of Sodium thiopental is injected into the individual and they undergo a painless and rapid death. Having said this, it still remains that murder of any shape or form and under any circumstances is immoral. Those who oppose the death penalty argue that life is sacred and should always be spared. In addition the divergence between an individual’s right and the state’s right to murder has been subject to debate. Also, with the practicing of the death penalty, effectively one death leads to another. In this respect, although the homicide rate is seemingly reduced because of the deterrent aspect it is consequently doubled because of the death penalty.
The death penalty, in general is regarded by many as inhumane and it is upsetting to a large majority the public. More significantly the execution of an individual can have a distressing and traumatic effect on the family. No hesitation or consideration is made if the suspected murderer has a wife or children. Not only this but a number of executions have been broadcasted on television in America. This accentuates the immorality involved.
Inarguably the execution has to be administered or initiated by someone. This can have very traumatic effects on the individual’s life. A sense of guilt may haunt and infiltrate their conscience. Also if administered incorrectly this person may be subject to dispute. That is why today, where possible, three personnel initiate the execution to eliminate the potential for personal responsibility.
Another negative aspect of the death sentence is the potential for error. As discussed before if new evidence is recovered to prove an inmate with a prison sentence, innocent, they can be released with compensation. However if someone has been executed and then found innocent nothing can been done to repair the damage that has been done. The person cannot be “un-killed” so to speak. Cases such as these increase the cynicism and dubiousness on capital punishment amongst the general public.
Contrary to the hypothesis in the advantages of the death penalty in terms of deterrence, new research has shown that the implication of the death penalty in many states has increased the murder rate. This newly investigated phenomenon has been called the “Brutalization Hypothesis” which proposes that legitimizing killing actually brings about a rise in the murder rate. However this argument is still in its early stages.
Lastly and perhaps less significantly in comparison to the other issues are the economic aspects of the death penalty. As one may imagine the costs for imprisoning a convict should outweigh the costs involved in sentencing a convict to death and the supporters of the death penalty would refer to it as a cost-effective alternative to imprisonment. Quite the contrary in fact. Researchers suggest that more often than not it is more costly to sentence an inmate to death than it is to imprison them for life. A study in New York concluded that the average capital murder trial costs taxpayers 1.8 million dollars. According to this it would cost more to imprison someone for one hundred years. It is also believed, contrary to popular belief, that it can cost up to 2.2 million dollars to obtain and perform a death sentence.
I feel that it is apparent, on reflection, that the disadvantages of the death penalty outweigh the advantages by a substantial degree. For that reason I suggest the elimination of the death penalty. I feel that civilization has brought round many humane and revolutionary methods for dealing with crime and that the death penalty is not necessary in any case. An alternative may be more difficult but definitely more productive and would be a wise step made for society and consequently mankind.
Prisons, I feel are generally a requirement. However the conditions in prisons should not be as luxurious as they are today. Instead murderers should be given a sentence in minimalist conditions. Also, I feel there should be more schemes implicated to aid the reformation and incapacitation. Those who have a mental condition should be acknowledged and helped. Society today needs to make a humanitarian advance in terms of dealing with today’s criminals. On that note a prudent and indeed very practical idea would be to attempt to monitor and council today’s young potential criminals.
