|
Introduction
Jesus died to free us from our debts and his example is supposed to strengthen compassion and tolerance even towards enemies, poor and suffering people.
The death penalty was permitted in biblical times because its use was necessary to maintain social order. Three thousand of years ago the people formed a fragile community - without benefit or prisons and other institutions - that demanded quick, effective and harsh punishment of offenders.
The \"eye for eye\" passage from the bible prescribes death as punishment for murder.
\"You shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stroke for stroke.\" (Exodus 21: 22-25)
Nowadays we live in a free and quiet government and we have means to build prisons strong enough to secure society from their fears of criminals.
The Death Penalty Debate
A modern society that chooses violent death as a solution to a social problem agrees officially to violence. The American government kills to show that killing is wrong. Criminals receive what they deserve if there is the mathematical certainty of the defendant's guilt, in order to show them that they have no right to take another one's life. It's perverse but in the minds of most people it is justified.
The president, the Congress of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the overwhelming majority of the American people support capital punishment. The federal government and 38 states are in favour of capital punishment, and so are the laws of other countries (for example China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Tunisia,...).
Punishment is to be inflicted according to the seriousness of the offence. The state tries to impose the death penalty fairly but despite the effort of the states and courts to devise legal formulas and procedural rules, the death penalty is arbitrary and leads to discrimination and mistakes. There are still problems with the role of jurors and their discretion in capital cases so that in many cases the sentence has been subjective. The death penalty has mistakenly condemned some innocent defendants, it has been imposed unequally on the basis of race and it is arbitrary in the sense that it's imposed almost exclusively on very poor people who can hardly defend themselves.
Similar moral arguments focus on whether it is just to execute a juvenile or the mentally retarded people.
Mistaken Guilt:
Since 1972, the innocence of 76 men and 2 women was established after having been sentenced to death in the United States. Evidence of their innocence emerged in time to save their lives. Twenty-three innocent people have been mistakenly executed this century. Opponents of the death penalty think that the possibility of killing an innocent justifies the abolition of the death penalty. For the supporters of capital punishment this is not a reason to suppress it. They are convinced that America's system of capital punishment contains extraordinary safeguards to protect innocent defendants, including appeals through the state and federal courts. Before any sentence is carried out, the governor of the state will carefully examine the case to make sure that the murderer deserves a death penalty.
Inequality on the basis of race:
In general, the prosecutor has a wide discretion in deciding whether someone is supposed to receive a death sentence. If the prosecutor chooses the death penalty, a jury or judge has to go through the details of the defendant's life, including the circumstances of the murder, to determine whether the defendant shall live or die.
A number of studies have shown that black defendants were 3.9 times more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants. More than 40% of the death condemned in USA are black, though they are only the 12% of the whole population. About the 80% of the death condemned are guilty of the murder of white people, though the number of murders of white and black people is approximately the same. Only in 1986 the Supreme Court of Justice established that attorneys couldn't exclude a potential juryman only on race ground.
America's shame - killing kids:
Also, in USA and in a few other States one who was minor when he committed the crime (during the last years Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Saudi Arabia) can be sentenced to death. In some trials, the young age isn\'t discussed at all. Eight minors condemned out of nine are black or Hispanic; the majority comes from very degraded ambiences, has suffered physical and sexual violence, and has mental diseases.
Executing mentally incompetent people:
Many people with delays or mental diseases are in death row. Amnesty International documented the cases of more than 50 prisoners with big mental problems executed from 1982, opposing the resolution 1989/64 of the UN Economic and Social Council which recommended the elimination of death penalty for those people who have mental diseases or very limited mental capability.
In some States the level of mental capability under which a person can\'t be executed is really low, and only nine States forbid death penalty for people with mental disease.
Thesis in favour of the death penalty
Criminal justice systems impose punishments for three reasons: Just punishment, deterrence, and incapacitation.
. A punishment is just if it reflects the seriousness of the crime. Supporters claim that without a death penalty there would be no difference between a bloody murder and other offences for instance sexual offences and serious drug trafficking which are punished with some sort of sentences or life prison terms. It's absolutely no revenge, it's just punishment in the name of justice.
. The death penalty is also justified because of its deterring effect that saves the lives of innocent persons by discouraging potential murderers.
. They think that capital punishment prevents murderers from killing again. Their argument against a life imprisonment without parole (the early prison release of an offender) is that it leaves prison guards and other prisoners at risk. A prisoner serving a life term may also escape from prison or obtain parole or executive clemency. Only a capital sentence can free the society of their fears of serious murderers.
Arguments of the opponents
The state gives back wrong with wrong to show how much they care about innocent life. But who is then to blame when innocent people have been sentenced to death? It's a shame for the American government to kill a person in the name of democracy and justice. No man has the right to take another one's life because \"Every person is entitled to life, to freedom and to his own safety\". (Universal declaration of human rights of 10th December 1948)
There is absolutely no evidence that the death penalty deters murder and discourages murderers any better than a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. In the U.S. the murder rate is no higher in states that do not have the death penalty than in those that do.
An execution of a prisoner costs more than life imprisonment. That\'s because capital trials require more expert witness and more investigators, a longer jury-selection process, the expenses of sequestering a jury, not one but two trials because of the required separate sentencing trial, and appeals in state and federal courts. Finally, let's not forget the cost of security on death rows, the clemency hearings and the cost of the execution itself.
The psychological Viewpoint
It's obvious that the American criminal justice system is less than perfect and therefore it's unreasonable to expect justice when the system fails in so many points.
In my opinion it's not necessary to kill a murderer to protect society against him and to prevent him from repeating the crime. Society can defend itself by other means than by destroying life. For instance by building prisons strong enough to secure themselves forever against convicts and to make an escape impossible.
The state can't just give back wrong with wrong, as some sort of revenge, we also must look into a person's mind. A person who suffers from mental retardation typically has a below average intellect and lacks the kind of adaptive behaviour which normally develops during childhood.
I think and many psychologists agree that our actions depend on the childhood and education - how our parents treated us and what sort of moral codes they were taught. A suffering from physical or sexual violence in childhood can influence some person's character and conduct in later life. I can't believe that humans are evil by nature. Those who have committed a murder or other offences are the victims themselves. Humanity means to forgive and to take care about the fellow being. Retarded, poor, black or white people - we are all human beings and we deserve the chance to make things better.
I think the most human way for the offender would be some sort of rehabilitation with psychological support, a possibility to re-educate humanely and morally. But the state would say that such an institution will cost too much and the money is needed for other community projects such as schools, hospitals, public safety and jobs.
I can understand this statement but what is really to be said against a life imprisonment without the possibility of parole instead of a death sentence?
There are two points in favour: On the one hand a life imprisonment is cheaper than a death penalty and on the other hand it's an effective punishment because it's hard for prisoners to overcome the hardships and limitations in prison.
I'd agree that it's just to punish a criminal but it's inhuman to put him to death. Neither the state, nor the jury or single individuals have the right to interfere in human lives and to decide on their death.
\"Allowing our government to kill citizens compromises the deepest moral values upon which this country was conceived: the inviolable dignity of human persons\". (Sister Helen Prejean)
I think that supporters of executions don't know the truth of what is going on. The secrecy surrounding executions makes it possible for executions to continue. I'm convinced that if execution were made public, the violence would be unmasked, and the Americans would abolish executions in shame.
|
