The death penalty is a hot subject to many people. There are people who feel it is right, and there are those who feel it is wrong. Then there are those who feel it is right depending on the crime. One thing most everyone agrees on is that the person being put to death must be guilty with no shadow of a doubt of the crime they are convicted of.
The latter is where a lot of dispute of the death penalty lies. Innocent people have been convicted of crimes they did not commit. Some were put to death, or on death row before their innocence was proven. “Since 1973, eleven Texans and 128 others across the nation have been released, exonerated, from death rows due to evidence of their wrongful conviction.” (All Voices 2010)
It is evident that the death penalty is the most severe punishment for a crime. It is also the only punishment that once the punishment is dealt there is no way to reverse it. If a person is found innocent of a crime, and they are in prison they can be let out and have their name cleared. However, if they have already been executed there is nothing that can be done to reverse the punishment. Saying I am sorry we had the wrong person will not ease the pain of the wrongly executed person’s family.
That is the reason so many people are against the idea of the death penalty. The chance of killing an innocent person is not one they are willing to risk. “Innocence has become a powerful argument in death penalty discourse over the past decade because abolitionists have been able to point to the near-execution of inmates whose innocence is supported by post conviction DNA tests.” (Aronson, Cole, 2009)
On the other side of the subject of the death penalty are those that feel the death penalty is an eye for an eye, and murderers deserve the death penalty. They feel the chance of an innocent person being executed is worth the risk. A man named Declares Buckley said “Taking the lives of murderers has a zero-sum symmetry that is simple and satisfying enough to feel like human instinct: the worst possible crime deserves no less than the worst possible punishment, An eye for an eye.” (Time 1983)
Where is the line drawn on what is considered the most heinous crimes? If like Buckley society is to believe that “Taking the lives of murderers has a zero-sum symmetry that is simple and satisfying enough to feel like human instinct,” (Time 1983) would a man whose wife or daughter was raped, and brutally beaten, and he went and found the person who did that too them and murdered them, would he deserve to be on death row waiting to be executed? He would be on death row waiting for lethal injection just like a serial killer in another state who had murdered children and kept there bodies in his home. Is all murderers in the same category, and deserving the same punishment, or should society consider the situation and judge accordingly?
Ernest van den Haag had this to say to people who feel the death penalty is always excessive. “To regard the death penalty as always excessive, one must believe that no crime– no matter how heinous– could possibly justify capital punishment.” (van den Haag,1986) Supporters of the death penalty feel as civilized society we must realize some murders are indeed extremely hideous and the death penalty is the most appropriate punishment. The eye for eye argument is most often used to defend their support of the death penalty.
If society uses an eye for eye in regards to murderers, should that eye for an eye example be used in regards to all crimes? An eye for eye for all crimes would be an example like the following. “It would entail that it is appropriate to rape the rapist or torture the torturer. Unless one is willing to accept this unsavory consequence, one has reason to reject this standard.” (Roberts, 2010)
The death penalty should only be used when there is no doubt of the person’s innocence. In order to make sure of the guilt there must be DNA and witnesses. The person admitting the crime would be another great way to help make sure an innocent person is not put to death. This student also feels that it must be heinous crime. Child rape and murder, dismemberment of bodies, serial killers, parents killing their children, all of these in this student’s opinion would be considered crimes of such a monstrous nature that the eye of an eye would be an appropriate punishment.
Many people feel that it is better for the guilty person to spend their life in prison living with what they did, as opposed to being put to death and escaping from it. While this student can see how there may be a benefit to making them live with what they have done, the fact is if they did such a horrendous crime they most likely will feel no guilt over it. There is also a chance that they will escape from prison, or be released in the future, and they could do the same crimes over again.
Let’s consider the fact of Adolf Hitler causing the deaths of millions. (Mosser, 2010) If Hitler would be alive and in prison now, if he found a way to escape, or were released back into society we can be almost certain he would try to do again the atrocities he did when he was alive. Would the world want to take a chance on that happening?
The fact is that no one who is put to death can come back into society and hurt an innocent person again. The guilty child killer being put to death may just save the life of a child in the future.
There are some things people do that cannot be fixed by spending time in jail. When a mind is broken so badly that the most disgusting crimes are committed, and many times they enjoy doing it, that mind is such a scary place, and no amount of therapy, or jail time will ever fix it. Taking the chance of them getting out of prison and doing it again is just not worth the risk. The most important step to deciding who is put on death row is being so certain of their guilt that there is no chance of error.
The case of Casey Anthony comes to mind on this subject. Supposedly there was not enough evidence to even convict her of a jail sentence. So the death penalty was defiantly off the table. However, if there would have been DNA evidence, and a witness that came forth, it would be a perfect case of a parent who did the unthinkable to their child in such a horrendous fashion that the death penalty would have been the appropriate punishment. But the parent who carelessly drank and put their child in a car and the child died in a car accident. While the parent is guilty, and defiantly did not put their child first, they did not set out to kill the child so the death penalty would not be an appropriate punishment.
No matter what the crime is justice must prove with complete certainty that the person being put to death must be guilty with no shadow of a doubt of the crime they are convicted of. I could imagine nothing worse than being on death row, and walking to be executed, knowing I was completely innocent of the crime. Society and justice must make certain that this does not happen.
References
All Voices (2010). Innocent man released after 17 years on death row. Retrieved from http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6867743-innocent-man-released-after-17-years-on-death-row
Aronson, J. D., & Cole, S. A. (2009). Science and the Death Penalty: DNA, Innocence, and the Debate over Capital Punishment in the United States. Law & Social Inquiry, 34(3), 603-633. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2009.01159.x
Ernest van den Haag (1986) THE ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT: A DEFENSE. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/haagarticle.html on September 7,2011 Mosser, K. (2010). A Concise Introduction to Philosophy, San Diego, Bridgepoint Education, Inc. https://content.ashford.edu
Roberts-Cady, S. (2010). Against Retributive Justifications of the Death Penalty. Journal of Social Philosophy, 41(2), 185-193. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2010.01486.x Retrieved on September, 12, 2011
Time (1983) The Death Penalty: An Eye for an Eye. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950821-7,00.html