Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment:

"As a Christian, it seems to me that the death penalty violates the essence of Christ's teachings" (Trollinger, 1998, p. 1058). Though I believe in God, I am kind of torn on the subject of the death penalty. What if it was a member of my family that was to be put to death? What if someone murdered someone in your family? Would you want that person put to death? It's a tough question and I don't have all the answers, but let's look at the facts.

The issue of capital punishment is one of the hottest and most controversial topics in the United States right now. The platform that politicians take on this issue is one of the most important for voters, and has been a key element in the success or failure of election bidders. What is interesting to note is that this topic has not been a controversial issue within governmental structures until fairly recently, historically speaking. Because of a growth and interest in the value of the individual, the philosophical, moral, social, and economical complications of capital punishment become clear.

The two opposing forces in this issue are essentially supporters of human rights versus supporters of punishment for crimes done. Unfortunately there is little common ground for these groups considering they often support exact opposites of each argument. Human rights advocates are interested in the dignity of the individual, the integrity of the justice system, and the moral implications that ending another human being's life entail. Supporters of capital punishment are only interested in the individual in as far as they are justly punished for the pain and trauma they have inflicted on the victims and their loved ones. They focus on the bigger picture of safety of the public in general.

Human rights supporters often base their arguments on religious or spiritual grounds, stating that capital punishment is morally unethical. They reject the idea of "an eye for an eye" and state that it is not the place of a government body to dictate the fate of a human being. This likely comes as a reaction to the atrocious human rights tragedy of the Holocaust. After their defeat in WWII, Italy and Germany became the first countries to abolish capital punishment, and the trend has swept the majority of the Western world since then. They also insist that the punishment itself is "cruel and unusual," and therefore qualifies as a violation of the Constitution. However, supporters of capital punishment feel that the severity of the crimes that the individual commits warrants a judgment of the death penalty and deserve nothing less than the same kind of violent ending. They feel that the individuals are essentially behaving no better than a primitive animal, and therefore should be afforded no more humane treatment than this same animal.

On a more practical note, some objections are that capital punishment does not seem to be an effective deterrent of criminal behavior. Goertzel contends that "[he has] inquired for most of [his] adult life ... about the death penalty [as] a deterrent, [but no] research that would substantiate that point" (2004). Goertzel states that "The first of the comparative studies of capital punishment was done by Thorsten Sellin in 1959" (2004) Many studies have been done on the efficacy, but depending on the side your on there seems to be bias in the results.

Another major argument is that it is becoming more and more clear is the cost to the public of executing a prisoner is much higher than simply detaining them with a life sentence. Fiscal evidence is in abundance to support this claim, however, supporters of capital punishment state that the extra cost to tax payers is an acceptable sacrifice to keep these same tax payers safe from such predatory behavior. The arguments in this debate are extremely difficult to resolve. Much of the argument is based on highly subjective criteria that end in a philosophical stale mate precisely because of this subjectivity. Some arguments can be analyzed in an objective manner. Some say the two strongest arguments are that the cost of executing a prisoner is higher than keeping a prisoner for the term of their life, and that the death penalty has not been proven to be an adequate deterrent for violent crimes; some say the weakest are the ones based on spiritual beliefs, and human rights argument.

The fact that it is more expensive to execute a prisoner than it is to keep them for a life term, is just that; a fact. Because of the severity of the punishment for these crimes, the judicial system needs to be absolutely sure that this individual not only is clearly and undeniably guilty, but they also need to insure that the circumstances under which they committed this crime are so extreme that they do, in fact, deserve to die for their crimes. This need leads to an extensive and expensive appeals process, during which the individual is incarcerated just as any other prisoner. Richard Dieter maintains that most prosecutors seek the death penalty but they never get it: "In most cases where the prosecution announces that the death penalty will be sought, it is never imposed" (Dieter, 2005, p. 3).

The criminal on death row is costing the public anywhere from double to triple the amount of tax money than a prisoner who is not on death row because they are accruing the regular