Persuasive Essay Against Capital Punishment
Melanie AZ Morales Robson
Summer Examinations 2004
English Coursework
741 words
Persuasive Essay Against
Capital Punishment
"Kill. (Verb) To make someone or something die."
Does anyone really think they have the right to take another person's life? Apparently yes.
Perhaps we should give the judge a knife and tell her that if she has decided that the accused is guilty, she should stab him herself. Perhaps then she would hesitate. But if many people (hundreds or thousands who operate the judicial system) are involved, it spreads, or even divides the feeling of culpability among many. They may feel less guilty, especially if they believe that they are representing the whole society of their country. What makes it seem more "humane" is the official perspective of it. Death here is a matter of paperwork, not actually a case of ending someone's life.
I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty. In this essay I will try to explain why I think society should not accept this barbaric punishment.
The most common argument in favour of the death penalty is that it is a deterrent, i.e. someone who has murder in mind will think better of it when he realises that he could be facing death. However, I do not agree with this. When a murderer commits a crime he believes that he will not be caught. Numerous studies have tried to prove the deterrence factor, but have been unable to. A criminal dreads a lifetime prison sentence more than, or the same as, the death penalty in any case. There are two types of murders: crimes ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The most common argument in favour of the death penalty is that it is a deterrent, i.e. someone who has murder in mind will think better of it when he realises that he could be facing death. However, I do not agree with this. When a murderer commits a crime he believes that he will not be caught. Numerous studies have tried to prove the deterrence factor, but have been unable to. A criminal dreads a lifetime prison sentence more than, or the same as, the death penalty in any case. There are two types of murders: crimes committed on the "spur of the moment" (i.e. passion crimes which have not been planned) and pre-meditated murder. If it is a crime of passion, the murderer is not thinking of the consequences at the time. If it is pre-meditated murder then I believe that, as the murderer has planned the murder beforehand, it must be something that they find they are compelled to do, and do not believe that they will be caught.
Another reason which people give in support of capital punishment is that with a life sentence you have to feed the criminals for years and years, but if you "terminate" their life earlier, then the government will be saving on the costs of having to support them for ever. This is actually not true at all. The court appeals involved in the death penalty turn into a long, drawn-out and very expensive process. A quote I found states, "Add up criminal justice process expenses, trial court costs, appellate and
Melanie AZ Morales Robson
Summer Examinations 2004
English Coursework
post-conviction costs, and prison costs, including years served on death row in awaiting execution. Altogether, the extra costs per death penalty imposed is over a quarter million dollars, and per execution exceeds $2 million." This can be compared to the average cost for a twenty-year prison term for first-degree murder, which is approximately $330 thousand.
Even if it were more economical to apply capital punishment to a prisoner, this would hardly make it justifiable in a humane society.
I think therefore that a life sentence is always ultimately better than the death penalty. If, in later appeals or retrials, the executed person is found to be innocent, they cannot be brought back from the dead, but if they are in prison, they can be released.
Many prisoners on trial for murder may not receive a proper defence if they are assigned legal aid, which increases the likelihood of an innocent person being found guilty. Some court-appointed lawyers frequently lack the ability to properly defend their client. There are even cases when they themselves show shameful character in court and are then disbarred. They have little incentive to fight for the case when their salary may be under £4 an hour.
Finally, who are we to play with the lives of other people? Each person is just one life - how can one life be allowed to designate when the other must finish? Man is man, not God. Only God should have a divine right over a man's life. Man is equal to man, and for him to take on the role of a superior being can only cause chaos.
I believe that it is the duty of a system of justice to protect society from criminals, either by psychological rehabilitation or by imprisoning them for life if necessary; not by murdering them.
Capital punishment is used to condemn the guilty of severe crimes.
This means: to teach a criminal how to be humane, they must be killed inhumanely.
Does this seem logical?
