Capital Punishment

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Capital Punishment

"The state has no right to carry out executions"

Capital punishment is one of the penalties of committing a horrific crime, such as murder, by putting the criminal to death. The death penalty is the harshest form of punishment enforced in the world today. Once a jury has convicted a criminal offence they go to the second part of the trial, the punishment phase. In the USA, if the jury recommends the death penalty and the judge agrees, the criminal will face some form of execution. Lethal injection is the most common form used today, although the electric chair and hanging are still used in some States. For a period, from 1972 to 1976, when capital punishment was ruled unlawful by the US Supreme Court. Their reason for this decision was that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment. The decision was reversed when new methods of execution were introduced, and each year about 250 people go to Death Row and 35 are executed in the U.S.A.

The issue of capital punishment involves determining whether the execution of criminals is ever justified, and, if so, under what circumstances it is permissible.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

This is a preview of the whole essay

Ensuring public safety is always justified. The current punishment for rape is a life sentence, which is usually 15 to 25 years - not life. It can often be shorter, depending on the nature of the rape. This does not prevent the offender committing another offence. As a deterrent, the death penalty could be effective in preventing violent crime, and more effective than any prison term. Public opinion rests largely on this conviction, and with the death penalty there are no repeat offenders, it is true that there is little will to prove the innocence of a dead person, as it will achieve nothing for them.

However, States that use the death penalty seem to have a higher number of murders than states that do not, and States that reintroduce the death penalty do not seem to show any significant changes, nor does the rate of murders change following a local execution.

Public perception of horror of the crime is met by visible punishment. Providing victims of violent crime with evidence of punishment is perceived to make them feel better. 'A life for a life'. Some people believe that we should punish crimes of violence with a death. Retribution may be quoted from the bible, and is the classic argument. 'Whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed' (Genesis 9:6). But on the other hand all life is sacred, and what right has society to judge when a person's life shall end . An alternative view of retribution is revenge. Revenge is always destructive, both to the criminal and to society.

Retribution is uncivilised, and gives the impression that it is OK as long as the government of the day approves. What an example for a civilised country to set the world! If we are Christians, should we not be promoting the power of forgiveness and repentance not vengeance. In addition to refuting the case for capital punishment there are some good arguments against:

Capital punishment turns convicted terrorists into martyrs. Publicity for a cause can be turned towards the criminal and the victim is forgotten. Those on death row in the USA are regarded as victims. The criminal's family are also affected by the loss, and the time waiting for the sentence to be carried out.

Death penalty is cruel and inhumane, and does not fit in with modern civilised society. It degrades both the criminal and the society that supports it. It turns the executioner in to a murderer.

Women are less likely to be convicted of their crime when a death penalty is in force, because society is reluctant to have mothers, wives, daughters, or sisters executed.

It mocks the idea that we can all repent our crimes and can be reformed. Execution does not allow time for true repentance. Rather than kill so-called violent criminals, we should study their motives and what makes them so. We should examine the pressure that society has placed on them. In the long term this protects public safety, allows time for repentance and therapy, and by therapy rehabilitation. This is not 100% effective, because they can re-offend. There is still a low risk to society. There is a chance for new evidence to appear and mistakes to be rectified. This is the safest balance between safety and punishment.

However, early release is a side effect of poor checking, and of the pressure of overcrowded prisons. Is money that important that we release the dangerous criminal in to society to offend again? It appears today that to risk another life IS less important than money.

Alternatives, such as counselling, aversion therapy, and confrontation can help the person who is really shocked at what they have done. Being brought to understand the effects of their actions can be punishment enough. Drugs and electronic monitoring are also alternatives that do not have the safety factors but rely on the offender's agreement to stay on probation, take drugs and otherwise co-operate with the measures.

Helen Paterson, St John Fisher School Centre 22339 Candidate 5092