Capital punishment is barbaric and inhumane.

GCSE Religious Studies (Philosophy & Ethics)

Capital punishment is barbaric and inhumane and should not be re-introduced into Australia. Although capital punishment has been abolished, the debate on this topic has never abated. When a particularly heinous crime is committed, this debate arouses strong passions on both sides. Many who advocate the abolition of capital punishment consider the death penalty to be cruel and inhuman, while those who favor of punishment by death see it as a form of just retribution for the gravest of crimes. Determining whether Queensland should re-introduce capital punishment as a sentence will be the focus of this assignment.

Capital punishment, also referred to as the death penalty, is the judicially ordered of a prisoner as a for a serious , often called a capital offence or a capital crime. In those jurisdictions that practice capital punishment, its use is usually restricted to a small number of criminal offences, principally, and , that is, the deliberate premeditated killing of another person. In the early 18th and 19th century the death penalty was inflicted in many ways. Some ways were, crucifixion, boiling in oil, drawing and quartering, impalement, beheading, burning alive, crushing, tearing asunder, stoning and drowning. In the late 19th century the types of punishments were limited and only a few of them remained permissible by law. In the 19th century capital punishment was to only be inflicted by the methods such as hanging, electrocution, the gas chamber, firing squad and lethal injection.

The history of capital punishment in Australia is quite controversial and has been heavily debated since its abolition. From the start of the federation in 1901, approximately 1648 people had been legally executed for the punishment of crimes. The last person to be executed in Australia was Ronald Ryan at Pentridge Prison, Victoria in 1967.These figures are valid until 1985 when the death penalty was officially abolished by all states in Australia.

The abolition of the death penalty occurred at a different time in each state, with Queensland being the first state to abolish capital punishment in 1922. This was followed by New South Wales in 1955, Tasmania in 1968, Northern Territory and Australia Capital Territory in 1973, Victoria in 1975, South Australia in 1976, and finally Western Australia was the last state to abolish capital punishment in 1984. Under Commonwealth law, the death penalty was abolished in 1973 by s.4 of the Death Penalty Abolition Act, 1973, which states “A person is not liable for the punishment of death for any offence”. New South Wales and Western Australia carried on with the death penalty after 1973 for a few offences including piracy and treason but however eventually these anomalies were swept away with the passing of the Crimes Amendment Act, 1985. Now the sentence of life imprisonment has become the most severe sanction authorized in any state by Australian law.

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

This is a preview of the whole essay

There are many controversies and problems which lead to the abolishment of the death penalty in Australia. Capital punishment can never be justified because it is destructive to society through its example of barbarity towards man. The death penalty has a brutalizing effect on the community, actually inspiring acts of violence or copycat crimes and thereby diminishing rather than increasing the deterrent effect of capital punishment. (Nathanson, 1987, p.13) It also does not provide an opportunity for rehabilitation or clemency of a criminal. The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ensures that offenders are given the opportunity to rehabilitate, thus preventing criminals from re-offending. (Woodgate,2003, p.202) People can change over time and according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, many murderers, sometimes through the ageing process do change their attitudes towards crime. (Potas, 1987, p.5)

This is in stark contrast to the jurisdictions in America. The United States stands apart from the general trends on capital punishment. It is the only Western industrialized nation where executions still take place. The 1972 decision in the case of 408 U.S. 238, the ruled that a death sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. This ruling invalidated every state death penalty statute in America. As a result, an official suspension on executions was initiated that year and continued until 1976 (MSN Encarta 2003). In 1976, the Supreme Court moved away from abolition, holding that "the punishment of death does not invariably violate the Constitution." The Court ruled that the new death penalty statutes contained "objective standards to guide, regularize, and make rationally reviewable the process for imposing the sentence of death." (Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153). Subsequently 38 state legislatures and the Federal government have enacted death penalty statutes patterned after those the Court upheld in Gregg. Executions resumed in 1977, and as of 1997, over 3,200 men and women were under a death sentence and more than 360 had been executed.

One must also take into account all the people affected by the death penalty and its use. There are many stakeholders each with different views about the re-introduction of capital punishment into Australia. There is the victim of crimes associations, who are made up of those whose lives have been affected by crime. Many in the group have lost a family member at the hands of a murderer. Some of these people are in favor of the death penalty, but most suggest that life imprisonment without parole is a more efficient punishment (QLS 2004). Then there is the police, criminologist and civil libertarians, who are strongly opposed to capital punishment, believing that it treats people unfairly and that it is not effective in deterring crime. Then there is also the general public and many religious groups with conflicting opinions on the matter because of their beliefs and attitudes. The government must try to weigh up these different opinions before in order to decide what is best for society as a whole.

Those who argue in favor of the death penalty believe that the fear of death deters people from committing crimes. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, evidence to date has failed to establish that the death penalty is more effective than other less drastic forms of punishment in deterring crime. The Australian homicide rate statistics show that the crime rate remains relatively constant. Trends over the past twenty years demonstrate an increasing number of homicide cases but since the figures are rising more slowly than the population, the homicide rate per capita has actually fallen over this period, from six per hundred thousand to less that 4.4. (Potas, 1987, p.4)

A punishment, to be justifiable, should only have a degree of severity which is sufficient to deter others from committing a crime. The death penalty is a less effective method of deterring others as opposed to deprivation of a person’s liberty. (Beccaria, 1764, p.30). The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ensures that all sentences imposed on convicted criminals punish the offenders in a just way and protect the community from the offender. (Woodgate,2003, p.202)

Life imprisonment achieves the same objectives that execution does by isolating the offender from society and depriving them of further opportunities to inflict harm on innocent citizens. However, there is grave public concern that convicted persons will re-offend. The death penalty does provide the ultimate punishment, as it removes the risk that the offender may escape or be released on parole and then re-offend. Those who argue for the death penalty on the grounds that at least the killer is removed permanently from society must also keep in mind that there is always the possibility, however remote, that an innocent person may be executed. It is too late to reverse the decision or compensate the prisoner for a miscarriage of justice after the death sentence has been carried out. (Potas, 1987, p.5)

The most compelling argument against capital punishment is the risk of killing an innocent person. While international laws have restricted and in some cases even banned the death penalty, some countries still sanction capital punishment. Supporters of the death penalty often argue that improvements in the criminal justice system, together with the multiple levels of appeals available to defendants, ensure that innocent persons will not be executed. This argument fails to acknowledge that, as a result of inherent human moral and perceptual imperfections, the process of determining guilt in courts will always be plagued by perjured testimonies, false confessions, withheld or missing information, mistaken eyewitness identification, laboratory errors and confused or biased jurors (Bowers, 1988, p.17). Capital punishment should not be re-introduced into Australia as there is always a chance that an innocent person may be executed.

The Australian Government, however, does not consider it necessary to sanction capital punishment on the basis of this argument and believes that a life sentence serves the same purpose. Truth in sentencing requires offenders to serve a substantial portion of their sentence, therefore reducing the risk that the offender will be released on parole. For particularly heinous crimes, as demonstrated by the sentence imposed on Martin Bryant, who was responsible for the Port Arthur massacres, he was indicted for 35 counts of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for the term of his natural life sentence” (Syme, 1997, parole must never be granted and an escape would be impossible with maximum security incarcerating such offenders. This stops serious criminals from re-offending and harming anybody else.

The destruction of human life is a violation of natural law. The great Australian jurist, Sir Owen Dixon (Syme, 1997, p.3), stated, “Many of them are mentally quite able to appreciate what they are doing and quite able to appreciate the threatened punishment of the law and the wrongness of their acts.” These people should be held accountable for their actions, but rather than disposing of them, curative treatment or therapy should be encouraged to send a message to the community that the cycle of violence can be broken. This upholds the unique worth and dignity of each person. Every human has the right to life and, therefore, capital punishment is inconsistent with protection of human rights.

It may be argued that capital punishment is a means of achieving justice for the pain caused to the victim. Those who support the death penalty believe that, by allowing mass murders to live, the lives of all victims are devalued. (Victory, 1994, p.23) In a civilised country, however, it is also unreasonable to engage in deliberate killing. Revenge should not be condoned by a civilised society. It cannot be legally or morally justifiable for the State to sanction and carry out vengeance killings.

Some offences are so serious that people often argue that the punishment should be directly proportional to the severity of the nature of the offence. The theory, an eye for an eye, is compatible with the term retribution. In this respect, it is seen as morally right for society to punish offenders directly for the hurt they cause to others (Woodgate, 2003, p.202). However the Queensland Legislative Assembly disagreed with this theory in deciding, in 1922, to amend the Criminal Code to abolish capital punishment.

The death penalty is barbaric and inhumane and should not be re-introduced into Australia. The tradition of capital punishment was abolished in Queensland over eighty years ago because it was an unacceptable example of barbarity towards man. There are no compelling arguments to justify the reintroduction of capital punishment in Queensland. Although the death penalty removes dangerous people from society permanently and protects citizens, life imprisonment achieves the same objective. Capital punishment is an ineffective deterrent and it does not provide for clemency and rehabilitation. With the risk of killing an innocent person, it contradicts the international laws of human rights. As a civilized society that promotes the worth of each citizen, the death penalty would not be an appropriate sentence under Queensland’s Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. Therefore, in the best interest of both the community and the offender, capital punishment should not be recognized within the Criminal Code as a form of punishment.

References:

1. Beccaria, C. (1764). The Punishment of Death, in Jones, B. (1986). The penalty is death, Sunbooks: Melbourne.

2. Bowers, W. (1988). The Effect of Executions is Brutalization, in Haas, K., Inciardi, J. (1988). Challenging Capital Punishment- Legal and Social Science Approaches, Volume 24, Sage Publications: California.

3. Lectric Law Library. (2003). Capital Offense Punishment, Retrieved 21 May, 2003, from http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c009.htm.

4. Nathanson, S. (1987). An Eye for and Eye? The Morality of Punishing by Death, Rowan & Littlefield Publishers: Melbourne

5. Potas, I., Walker, P. (1987). Trends and Issues in the Crime and Criminal Justice No.3- Capital Punishment, Retrieved 13 May, 2003, from the Australian Institute of Criminology at www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi03.html.

6. Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant’s Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm.

7. The Australian Encyclopaedia. (1996). Volume 2, Sixth Edition, Australian Geographic: New South Wales.

8. Victory, M. (1994). End of the Line- Capital Punishment in Australia, CIS Publishers: Victoria.

9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, Forth Edition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland.

10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 2, Forth Edition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland.

11. Msn Encarta(2003). Capital Punishment – The pros and cons. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570630/Capital_Punishment.html