Those in favor of capital punishment argue that execution is a deterrent to capital crimes. They reason that the fear of death will prevent murderers from acting because of the retaliation in the form of execution. Another argument centers on the appropriateness of the punishment. They believe that if someone unjustly takes the life of another, their life should be taken from them.
The question that must be asked is: does an advanced society respond to an uncivilized act in an uncivilized way? And is capital punishment uncivilized? Such a hot debate requires a closer examination. Many argue that society does not have the right to take a life; that the appropriate punishment is a life sentence with no chance at parole. A recurring argument in the area of punishment deals with the issue of rehabilitation. When people who commit crimes are sentenced to a term of imprisonment, a goal of the prison system is to rehabilitate the criminal. When they leave prison will they be able to function in society in a law-abiding way or not? In capital cases, where the prisoner would not be released, it almost doesn't matter what happens to the criminal.
The U.S. Constitution prohibits 'cruel and unusual punishment". Is not an execution "cruel and unusual punishment"? The Supreme Court says that it is not, and for years has allowed for executions. Texas and Florida are two leading states in the area of executions. Yet the result of those states’ activities is meager. If advocates of capital punishment believe that it is a deterrent, why is it that the murder rate in these states continue to climb, while in states where there is no capital punishment (Vermont,
Massachusetts) the murder rate has actually decreased.
Aside from the deterrent debate, there is the moral one. As stated above, does a civilized society have the right to take a life? How can a culture that preaches forgiveness and the value of life, argue in favor of executions? Isn't it interesting that those who generally oppose abortion (basing their argument on the sanctity of life) are the first in line to advocate the death penalty? Those in favor of capital punishment argue that it is wrong to take an innocent life (a baby or the victim of a murder), but how do we as a society sit in judgment with the ultimate power of life and death in the form of capital punishment? The moral dilemma is a powerful one, and one not easily answered. The Church is frequently an opponent of capital punishment arguing about the sanctity of life. The debate often is split between conservatives who believe it is appropriate and liberals who consider it uncivilized. Almost all of Europe has ended capital punishment, while much of the "less civilized" third world continues to permit it. Isn't it strange that our supposed advanced society has chosen to side with the third-world?
Proponents argue that the liberal opposes it because they have not experienced a loss caused by such a violent act. Perhaps this is true. Would an opponent of capital punishment still feel that way if a loved one was brutally murdered? Yet those who argue for it have not all lost a loved one to murder. Even in the case of Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber, a number of relatives of the victims oppose his death. Yet McVeigh himself has dropped his appeals and has asked to be executed as quickly as possible.
I find that the entire issue of deterrence is flawed. Murder, by definition, is an irrational act. An irrational person who does not stop and think of the consequences of his action certainly does not stop and think of the possible punishment. In addition, the lack of statistical evidence merely adds to my feelings. With murders continuing to rise in states with plenty of executions, how can one argue that it is acting as a deterrent? As long as we claim that we live in a civilized society, the government must set the standard of our civility. Permitting executions is wrong on its face. We do not prevent murder and we do not promote morality; we merely give in to our weaknesses and uncivilized past. Capital punishment may have been acceptable years ago, but it no longer can be considered civilized. It leaves us no better than the criminal, only with a moralistic excuse for revenge.
