Back Behind the Shed
Of all the controversies surrounding our justice system, there is arguably none more divisive and contented than that of capital punishment. Capital punishment is the legal punitive action for capital offenders of the law. The punishment is execution. It has been attacked for being inhumane, ineffective, and morally ironic; its nature is no doubt questionable, especially as the recent years has raised concerns for mental state, a easily corruptible and pliable justice system and such have made capital punishment a hot topic. But I think that, given all the circumstances that capital offenses entail, and how prison works, that capital punishment is definitely the way to go.
Capital punishment is as old as human civilization itself, and while it has softened up in the past century or so, the idea remains pretty much the same: give the most heinous wrongdoers a taste of their own medicine. They consciously chose to trespass on not only legal directive, but moral as well. No one needs to have a religious perspective on these acts to understand that murder and rape are inherently damaging to society. "Society" being the key word. It upsets an order, and needs to be punished accordingly. Two nations excel at this practice: the late Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Under Stalin's regime, the legal system eliminated the jury system, which is easily manipulatable and easy to sway. The presiding judgements fell to three panel judges, loyal to the state and its order. Processes were speedy and thorough; with capital crime punished severely. Within an hour of a death sentence, the convicted would be led to a shed to be executed with a single shot to the head. The entire execution costed the price of one bullet, which was charged to the family of the executed. In fact, according to comprehensive sources, blue-collar crime went down to almost a trickle during the strict legal mantra of the state (political enemies were still the most highly convicted). Thanks to a larger, more powerful police force, staunch gun control, and low drug occurrence, violent crimes of all types were reduced significantly, and remains largely that way up to now, with a brief detour under Gorbachev/Yeltsin. Such examples would include "0.0486543 in 1,000 rapes," "0.182025 in 1,000 car thefts" (nationmaster.com). The death penalty played a large part in this, as it served as a deterrent to an already obedient people fearful of the regime's swift nature. A survey in 1986 by professors Hugo Adam Bedau and Michael Radelet shows that, between 1900 and 1985, only 25 of the 7,000 executed were found to be innocent under newfound evidence. Now, forgetting for the moment, that this is a vastly favorable proportion (for such a stretch of time) and that, as time goes on, constantly improving technology will continue to minimize such miscarriages, it is worth noting that nearly all human activities and nature will always claim much more innocent people. In 2005, 42,636 people died of nearly of 6,420,000 car accidents in the U.S. (www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html). In 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that there were 5,488 labor-related fatalities, down by six percent from last year, but with a sixteen percent rise in work-related homicides. And that is to say nothing of the countless natural disasters that constantly plague the country. To say the least, the measures that are taken to bring murderers to justice are completely justified in the face of societal order. And the ratio of innocent convictions to guilty convictions are practically miniscule compared to what everyday occurrences are.
In the case of deterrence and the death penalty's overall effectiveness beyond the one individual conviction, it is hard to point to one solid proving point. But there are select few examples where capital punishment has become a deterrent. Texas, California and the aforementioned USSR are the prime examples. While there is little recorded satistics on crime before the 1970's, the high number of executions in correlation with the myriad violent crimes paid off, as there are less crimes/executions in that state nowadays. The same goes for California as well (www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime). As Ernest van den Haag purports in his defense of capital punishment in Taking Sides, while this in itself is not conclusive, regarding other conditions and circumstances, most abolitionists would, if it (the death penalty) proved to be a decisive deterrent, continue to oppose it, showing that apparently value the life of a convicted murderer than those of the victims and their families. More importantly, because of its finality, it will logically discourage the more level-headed and/or cold-blooded of these would-be murderers from killing. Sparing the lives of potential victims is much more important than preserving the lives of those who would intrude upon the former factor. As a result of his crime, he has given nothing back to society, whereas the victim would have likely been a contributor to the societal fabric. Opponents of the death penalty so easily lose sight of who the victim is in these cases. The death penalty is, by no means, solely decisive factors in murder rates. Penal retributions like death, in the long run, send a message to criminals, and the formation of such internal sanctions that are so necessary to keeping the law-abiding populace safe from those who fear such retribution. Such is the friction between will and law. Capital punishment smoothens that friction.
Unlike in the straight-forward punitive system of police states, some believe that monetary cost associated with capital punishment is excessive compared to that of long-term imprisonment. Yet most of these comparisons are flawed because-and apart from its "dubious relevance"-of the implied circumstance that while murderers are away for life, being fed, clothed and sheltered (which is more than you can say about the victims) by the state, they are not funneling any judicial cost back into the society that's pampering them. At any rate, the need to carry out justice accordingly far outweighs the cost (which is constantly diluted to much more useless endeavors, anyways.
According to the informal lex talonis (rule of retaliation), opponents proclaim that the convicted suffer more in their death, than their victims. How they found that out escapes me, but the idea of "doing unto others" cannot be applied here. Two wrongs have not been committed; an individual has been ruthlessly murdered-the perpetrator has not directly harmed the state or its body of persons. But this person has violated the most important possession of any person, which is their life. The victim deserved none of the suffering, whereas the murderer does. The punishment, furthermore, is by definition supposed to be a societally margined punishment, not personal vengeance, so it is safe to assume that the judicial system is not built on prejudicial gratification. And ultimately, if you want to minimize the suffering, there are numerous executional methods that, while doubtlessly messier than the norm, is nothing that a sizable basement that no one bothered to decorate cannot fix. Such examples would include the aforementioned bullet to the head, or putting one to sleep, with a gunshot or likewise. Lastly, is the inane argument that, by killing murderers, the state endorses and/or supports killing. Punishments are not supposed to be pleasant, they are supposed to be justified sanctions that reflect the seriousness of the crime. This is what the democratic legal system is based on. Would this logic be relevant to fines legitimizing sealing, imprisonment legitimizing kidnapping/holding one against their will? Of course not, but some manage to attribute this concept exclusively to murder, which does not make sense if you think about it. If they killed petty thieves or burglars, would anyone make this connection-I strongly doubt it. The relevant difference is social, not physical-it is not a competition to see who can hurt the other more.
We threaten the death penalty to deter crime, we use it to make such threats credible, and additionally goes back to deterring it, by punishing those crime that were not deterred. There are some points against capital punishment, but you cannot say it does not cover its bases thoroughly. As it has always been used as a safeguard, and it has never been counter-intuitive in that regard. Although penalties may be excessive, painful or miscarried, on what grounds can one condemn punishment of a guilty person without stumbling over the concerns of the criminals. The worst criminals are the cold-blooded, unsympathetic killers, who are fully aware of the price of their actions, yet see the intentional suffering and pain and deaths of others as worth the risk. It is up to us to show them that such anti-social (and that is a very tame way to put it) behavior has repercussions. And when you think about it, "degradation" in hardly the right word for our execution of convicts, for we reaffirm the humanity of the executed by giving them the basis for which to pay for and acknowledge their actions. How humane is it to keep them imprisoned in a dark, dank cell for the rest of their lives, so as to anguish in their deeds, anyway. There is a reason that many people, in any dire circumstance, would rather die than go on. To grant such criminals respite from mental and emotional repercussions is the least we can do for them. Passionate and/or mentally unstable crimes obviously have to be examined more closely, as these warrant alternative approaches (unless such a criminal is shown to be irredeemable), but we should be able to have more trust in the justice system. I for one, would experience renewed confidence if capital punishment were more popular. Because really, outside of giving the police much more power, there is little else that can be a credible means to reduce violent crimes and secure the world for the innocent.
Thoughts? Disagree? Agree? Did I overlook anything?
Of all the controversies surrounding our justice system, there is arguably none more divisive and contented than that of capital punishment. Capital punishment is the legal punitive action for capital offenders of the law. The punishment is execution. It has been attacked for being inhumane, ineffective, and morally ironic; its nature is no doubt questionable, especially as the recent years has raised concerns for mental state, a easily corruptible and pliable justice system and such have made capital punishment a hot topic. But I think that, given all the circumstances that capital offenses entail, and how prison works, that capital punishment is definitely the way to go.
Capital punishment is as old as human civilization itself, and while it has softened up in the past century or so, the idea remains pretty much the same: give the most heinous wrongdoers a taste of their own medicine. They consciously chose to trespass on not only legal directive, but moral as well. No one needs to have a religious perspective on these acts to understand that murder and rape are inherently damaging to society. "Society" being the key word. It upsets an order, and needs to be punished accordingly. Two nations excel at this practice: the late Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. Under Stalin's regime, the legal system eliminated the jury system, which is easily manipulatable and easy to sway. The presiding judgements fell to three panel judges, loyal to the state and its order. Processes were speedy and thorough; with capital crime punished severely. Within an hour of a death sentence, the convicted would be led to a shed to be executed with a single shot to the head. The entire execution costed the price of one bullet, which was charged to the family of the executed. In fact, according to comprehensive sources, blue-collar crime went down to almost a trickle during the strict legal mantra of the state (political enemies were still the most highly convicted). Thanks to a larger, more powerful police force, staunch gun control, and low drug occurrence, violent crimes of all types were reduced significantly, and remains largely that way up to now, with a brief detour under Gorbachev/Yeltsin. Such examples would include "0.0486543 in 1,000 rapes," "0.182025 in 1,000 car thefts" (nationmaster.com). The death penalty played a large part in this, as it served as a deterrent to an already obedient people fearful of the regime's swift nature. A survey in 1986 by professors Hugo Adam Bedau and Michael Radelet shows that, between 1900 and 1985, only 25 of the 7,000 executed were found to be innocent under newfound evidence. Now, forgetting for the moment, that this is a vastly favorable proportion (for such a stretch of time) and that, as time goes on, constantly improving technology will continue to minimize such miscarriages, it is worth noting that nearly all human activities and nature will always claim much more innocent people. In 2005, 42,636 people died of nearly of 6,420,000 car accidents in the U.S. (www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html). In 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that there were 5,488 labor-related fatalities, down by six percent from last year, but with a sixteen percent rise in work-related homicides. And that is to say nothing of the countless natural disasters that constantly plague the country. To say the least, the measures that are taken to bring murderers to justice are completely justified in the face of societal order. And the ratio of innocent convictions to guilty convictions are practically miniscule compared to what everyday occurrences are.
In the case of deterrence and the death penalty's overall effectiveness beyond the one individual conviction, it is hard to point to one solid proving point. But there are select few examples where capital punishment has become a deterrent. Texas, California and the aforementioned USSR are the prime examples. While there is little recorded satistics on crime before the 1970's, the high number of executions in correlation with the myriad violent crimes paid off, as there are less crimes/executions in that state nowadays. The same goes for California as well (www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime). As Ernest van den Haag purports in his defense of capital punishment in Taking Sides, while this in itself is not conclusive, regarding other conditions and circumstances, most abolitionists would, if it (the death penalty) proved to be a decisive deterrent, continue to oppose it, showing that apparently value the life of a convicted murderer than those of the victims and their families. More importantly, because of its finality, it will logically discourage the more level-headed and/or cold-blooded of these would-be murderers from killing. Sparing the lives of potential victims is much more important than preserving the lives of those who would intrude upon the former factor. As a result of his crime, he has given nothing back to society, whereas the victim would have likely been a contributor to the societal fabric. Opponents of the death penalty so easily lose sight of who the victim is in these cases. The death penalty is, by no means, solely decisive factors in murder rates. Penal retributions like death, in the long run, send a message to criminals, and the formation of such internal sanctions that are so necessary to keeping the law-abiding populace safe from those who fear such retribution. Such is the friction between will and law. Capital punishment smoothens that friction.
Unlike in the straight-forward punitive system of police states, some believe that monetary cost associated with capital punishment is excessive compared to that of long-term imprisonment. Yet most of these comparisons are flawed because-and apart from its "dubious relevance"-of the implied circumstance that while murderers are away for life, being fed, clothed and sheltered (which is more than you can say about the victims) by the state, they are not funneling any judicial cost back into the society that's pampering them. At any rate, the need to carry out justice accordingly far outweighs the cost (which is constantly diluted to much more useless endeavors, anyways.
According to the informal lex talonis (rule of retaliation), opponents proclaim that the convicted suffer more in their death, than their victims. How they found that out escapes me, but the idea of "doing unto others" cannot be applied here. Two wrongs have not been committed; an individual has been ruthlessly murdered-the perpetrator has not directly harmed the state or its body of persons. But this person has violated the most important possession of any person, which is their life. The victim deserved none of the suffering, whereas the murderer does. The punishment, furthermore, is by definition supposed to be a societally margined punishment, not personal vengeance, so it is safe to assume that the judicial system is not built on prejudicial gratification. And ultimately, if you want to minimize the suffering, there are numerous executional methods that, while doubtlessly messier than the norm, is nothing that a sizable basement that no one bothered to decorate cannot fix. Such examples would include the aforementioned bullet to the head, or putting one to sleep, with a gunshot or likewise. Lastly, is the inane argument that, by killing murderers, the state endorses and/or supports killing. Punishments are not supposed to be pleasant, they are supposed to be justified sanctions that reflect the seriousness of the crime. This is what the democratic legal system is based on. Would this logic be relevant to fines legitimizing sealing, imprisonment legitimizing kidnapping/holding one against their will? Of course not, but some manage to attribute this concept exclusively to murder, which does not make sense if you think about it. If they killed petty thieves or burglars, would anyone make this connection-I strongly doubt it. The relevant difference is social, not physical-it is not a competition to see who can hurt the other more.
We threaten the death penalty to deter crime, we use it to make such threats credible, and additionally goes back to deterring it, by punishing those crime that were not deterred. There are some points against capital punishment, but you cannot say it does not cover its bases thoroughly. As it has always been used as a safeguard, and it has never been counter-intuitive in that regard. Although penalties may be excessive, painful or miscarried, on what grounds can one condemn punishment of a guilty person without stumbling over the concerns of the criminals. The worst criminals are the cold-blooded, unsympathetic killers, who are fully aware of the price of their actions, yet see the intentional suffering and pain and deaths of others as worth the risk. It is up to us to show them that such anti-social (and that is a very tame way to put it) behavior has repercussions. And when you think about it, "degradation" in hardly the right word for our execution of convicts, for we reaffirm the humanity of the executed by giving them the basis for which to pay for and acknowledge their actions. How humane is it to keep them imprisoned in a dark, dank cell for the rest of their lives, so as to anguish in their deeds, anyway. There is a reason that many people, in any dire circumstance, would rather die than go on. To grant such criminals respite from mental and emotional repercussions is the least we can do for them. Passionate and/or mentally unstable crimes obviously have to be examined more closely, as these warrant alternative approaches (unless such a criminal is shown to be irredeemable), but we should be able to have more trust in the justice system. I for one, would experience renewed confidence if capital punishment were more popular. Because really, outside of giving the police much more power, there is little else that can be a credible means to reduce violent crimes and secure the world for the innocent.
Thoughts? Disagree? Agree? Did I overlook anything?
