But of course, if it was evident that the being on trial was guilty, and they were killed for it, the feelings of knowing that you took another mans life away could be contented with the thought that by ridding the world of such an evil person you are encouraging the longed for peace, and possibly saving endangered innocent lives. The execution has ensured that had the person been freed from prison they wouldn’t commit the same crime again and make yet more people, relatives, friends suffer for one individuals transgression. Also, if that person had committed the crime due to a mental illness, then you could argue that by stubbing them out you are preventing it from being passed on genetically to their children, and their children’s children and so on. Consequently you are preventing a whole line of these particular mentally deformed people who perform such devastating and distressing actions on innocuous, unknowing folks.
But who decides what crimes fulfil the requirements to die, and what crimes can be justified by imprisonment? Who has the right to make the decision of taking a human life away, whatever the reason? Is it justice to take life to make up for another lost one? Where do you draw the line, what age is the satisfactory age to receive the death penalty? Take the Jamie Buldger incident for instance, two ten-year-old boys tortured and killed an unknowing two-year-old boy for amusement, did they also deserve to die or were they too young to truly know what they were doing? In my opinion when a ten-year-old boy viciously kills a two-year-old child, they really can’t be right in the head and I feel they really can be described as evil, but still, they blame their hard upbringings, so is this a good enough excuse?
Another reason against capital punishment is that by executing those at fault, they are not given the chance for that person to reform their character for the good. People killed for deeds like smuggling drugs aren’t necessary bad people, they may just have been in a situation where by smuggling and hopefully selling the drugs they could have made something better of themselves. Also, even murderers may have a story behind them. Others may have forced them into it or it may have been an act of self-defence, perhaps they were just trying to threaten or scare their victim but never meant for it to go any further, so therefore not necessarily their fault.
However if these people are really good at heart then they may believe they deserve it from guilt or from disgusted feelings about themselves. It might even be better for these people to be killed as it saves them from having to face up to the remorse and dwell in self-pity, also from abuse of outsiders or even those in the prison with them.
But if they aren’t so gold hearted then perhaps the guilt is a good thing as it's an extra internal punishment, and sometimes can be far worse than anything any human could inflict.
A question that is aroused about capital punishment is if by killing the person at fault, are they being punished enough for the deeds they have done? Do they suffer efficiently and truly regret their actions? By being killed, they no longer have to live with the bad feelings, the regret, guilt, remorse, and possibly fear of others around them. They will be free of prison and all the regulations, labour and intensity that come with it. Some may have strong beliefs of a better life after death, in which case they have nothing to fear, only something to look forward to. Especially those sentenced to lethal injection, as the pain is minute, it's just like a long, peaceful sleep. It this really a brutal enough sentence for (for instance) a man who kidnapped, raped, tortured and killed young girls for pleasure? But not everyone sees it like this. Some of the people may be petrified of dying, and feel that they will end up in a worse place after death because of their inhumane actions. Also executions like hanging or electrocution are excruciating ways to die, so the punishment is great. But is it too great? Perhaps not for a crime like murder, but people are still hung for rape or even from dealing or smuggling drugs, so is this right? Do these people really deserve to die in such an extreme way? Wouldn’t lifetime imprisonment be more adequate? It isn’t as severe on those less deserving, but can still be a cruel experience. Hopefully a lesson would be taught after encountering the hard, violent, restricting and discriminating environment of prison. However, now days you can’t even count on the prisons to be harsh enough. From documentaries shown on television on the insight of British prisons, we can see that they really aren’t that big a punishment. They provide warmth, shelter, regular meals, luxuries such as television, and pool tables, recurrent visiting sessions to see friends and family, and can provide companionship with other people in the same position as you. If you were homeless, constantly hungry, cold and owned nothing, then your going to want to go to prison, as you can almost be guaranteed a better life! Though prisons abroad seem to have a stricter routine, if you have nothing, then what have you got to lose? Also reports have shown that some people find love in prison, is it really a punishment to be enclosed with your lover, the only person you would want to be enclosed with? It's hardly a huge penalty. Having the fear of the death penalty gives your conscience a reason to argue with your actions, it makes you think twice before continuing, and teaches others that the crime will not simply be overlooked and the seriousness of it. It also proves how strong and strict the law can and will be for justified crimes, teaching younger people not to do them through fear of what the consequence could be.
The cost of running a prison furthermore is very expensive, good money is being spent on the well being of criminals oppose to it being spent on education, hospitals, environmental issues and the promotional aspect of reaching and stopping the younger generation from also ending up in prison. Though it may sound immoral, the truth is it's cheaper for a person to be executed than to be kept in prison. By executing all the people who performed a crime like murder, you are lowering the prison numbers, and so reducing the cost, therefore there is more money to spend on the areas that need and deserve it most.
But surely by putting bad people in prison for a prolonged time, you are helping the world become a better place. By not killing the people and imprisoning them instead, you are still teaching them a lesson and yet by not killing them, you are not sinking to their level as well, and contradicting the law. It hopefully still brings the message across to the younger generation on what and what not to do, but just in a much more humane way. Also, with the sentence lighter, it will hopefully encourage people to come forward with information or even to confess to the crime.
Nevertheless, if the death sentence is carried out, are you not still helping to make the world a better place by ridding it of all these unruly people forever, allowing those innocent to feel safe again? It lets those involved sleep easily once more, and live a happier, more relaxed life and generally have peace of mind. The message still gets across to the younger generation, but this time in a much more threatening and effective way. Also, by exterminating those on the wrong side of the law you are ensuring that had they ever been released or even escaped, more innocent lives wouldn’t be affected or even destroyed.
Of course, a good reason for capital punishment is simply that they deserve it. If a bloodthirsty killer for no provoked, reasonable motive murders innocent, undeserving people, then why should they live? They are heartless and cruel, and need to be punished. It is proper suffering for their atrocious offence, especially if they are put onto death row for a few years, then they will suitably suffer. Though it is said that surely by killing a murderer you are just as bad as them, is this really so? What is worse? Someone killing a person who neither knows them nor has done anything to offend them for pleasure or because something inside them tells them to, or, someone executing that guilty, malevolent person? They are hardly the same. As stated in Genesis 9:6, “whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed,” it is letting the punishment fit the crime, and therefore isn’t as wicked and terrible as the initial murderer’s crime.
But a wrong doesn’t make a right, you are always going to be criticised for killing a murderer, however right it may have seemed at the time.
While researching on the Internet I came across a site containing the letters of a man who was on death row in America, awaiting his death, though unprovoked he had killed three men. His name was Richard, the letters were addressed to a friend he had met through the pen-pal organisations with prisoners, and the two had become close. The friend worked as a teacher, and kept in touch with Richard the whole three years he was on death row. While reading through the letters there was one I found most interesting, which I feel is a significant view from a victim of Capital Punishment. He wrote;
“Your class of the 19th sounded very exciting with all the debating and questions going on. You have your work cut out for you where a couple of kids are concerned. Would they pull the switch? I find it interesting, I sit here on death row for killing 3 men, and yet I couldn’t pull the switch on anyone. Maybe people need to think beyond the person who committed the crime and think of the people who will be hurt most by it. Do the kids in your class say why they support such an evil? Do they think death is worse then spending a lifetime in prison? If they do, tell them to go and sit in their bathroom for a couple of hours and think of a lifetime of that. If one believes in the death penalty, then they don’t really think murder is wrong, just getting caught is. What about the people who have committed worse acts of murder then most of the guys on death row but got “life”? What’s worse, two guys who rape and murders a 12 year old girl, stabs her, put sand in the mouth and nose to suffocate her and come back the next day to burn her body (When they snatched her, she was on her way to the store for her mother), or 4 guys who robbed and killed three drug dealers? Ask the kids who should have gotten the death penalty if they can only choose one. The murderers were the same age. One had money and the other didn’t. One wore a suit to court the other didn’t. You know the ending.
My eyes hurt, and your class has given me a headache.”
It brings up the issue of prejudice, not always in respect of colour, but also on the wealth and prosperity of the person convicted. It is an obvious issue that if you do have the money to pay for the right look, lawyers and legal aid then you are going to come off better, whatever your crime. There can be big racial prejudice in the court, and sadly, though not always, it is more against poorer black people who haven’t got the money or means to support their case. It shows the law to be unjust when one coloured person goes down harshly for the same crime committed by a different coloured person, whereas the second coloured person gets a much lighter sentence. Is this really righteousness? Also, surely if, for instance, a white person sees other white people getting off with their crime will they not continue to do it? Children will start growing up thinking that because they are of a certain colour they cannot get into trouble, which in some respects appears to be true. If you live in what is considered as poorer housing, it can affect the outcome of your trial, though it shouldn’t, because you come from a bad part of town you are automatically going to be considered bad. Gender plays a big part in court, male judges tend to give much harsher sentences than female, making it deeply unfair to those generally convicted by males. Religion can also be important in the decision, if the person has the opposing religion to the judge or jury than it unfortunately can and has made a difference in the judge’s final verdict. It really is so hard and yet so unfair in this world of give and take.
In conclusion to the question of whether capital punishment should be an option or not, I find myself with mixed feelings. There are points I strongly agree with on both sides of the argument, and some I find a weak line of relevance to my assumption. Much consideration and debate went into my last viewpoint on the whole discussion and I have expressed my true feelings on the subject.
I comprehend the difficulty of making a decision on what cases are appalling enough to deserve the ultimate punishment. Who does have the right to call death, life is precious, no one should devaluate it and no one in reality should have the right to take it away from someone else. But is it really that wrong if it helps to improve the world and brings peace of mind to many people? I personally don’t think it is always that bad if the decision is coming from a judge about a sick -minded murderer, do you?
I agree with capital punishment in some cases. I think it is required as a punishment to not only teach both that person and other likely candidates of the same crime a firm lesson, but also because I feel it's justice, justice to the victim, justice to the friends and family of the victim, and justice to the world from a safer, more formidable and optimistic view. The main case I feel that execution is needed is murder, and only then in particular cases. I do not agree with the killing of people for smuggling or dealing drugs, rape, treason, and burglary as I feel it is inadequate, overdramatic and too severe to be considered humane. With murder I believe that the recognised capital crime should be that of a person who viciously planned the murder of their victim. It should be even more compulsory if the murdered victim was a child, an older, elderly person, or even someone like a policeman on duty who was only doing their instructed job. The attack must be from a cold, calculating person who did it out of spite rather than, for instance, euthanasia. I particularly pointed out the elderly and children as a strong cause because they are generally defenceless and innocent, which these malicious people pick up on and use to their advantage in a cruel, heartless way.
I disagree that people should be killed if the murder was performed in the heat of the moment e.g. in a fit of rage, jealousy or passion. This doesn’t necessary mean that they are evil people, we all make mistakes when at the peaks of our emotions. Though they still killed someone so unless it can be proven as self-defence, they should still get a long sentence.
The other crime which I feel is justified with the punishment of the death sentence is the kidnapping and torturing of another human being until they are barely alive. This is the work of monsters, not sane human beings; these people don’t deserve to live. I think that if capital punishment was brought back to England then despite the obvious reason, I do believe it would save lives. People would be much more cautious about there actions, and wouldn’t get themselves so frequently into positions where death could occur. For instance, it is general knowledge that when you perform a robbery you carry a gun. This is because if you do have to shoot and kill someone what’s to worry about? So you may get a few more years but there’s appeal, so what’s the big deal about killing someone who gets in your way? If Capital Punishment was reinstated then I feel it would act as a deterrent to these kinds of people, and prove to save many more innocent ones.
I think that five years on death row should be obligatory because if the convicted is truly guiltless, it gives them the time to reinstate themselves and their innocence, whereas if they are guilty, it still gives them the endearing prison sentence. I really don’t believe that by killing these people we are bringing ourselves down to that level because no one could get that low. There a good vindicated reason for the death of these people, whereas their victims suffered for a bit of fun.