Capital Punishment

Throughout the ages, dating centuries back, even to the beginning of recorded history and further, there always remained a purpose for punishment. Clearly visible, the first reason for punishment deters criminals in that "there must be penalty for wrongdoing." Interestingly enough, this philosophy holds true as long as humans, crimes, and faults exist. The question becomes how far does punishment go? Capital punishment, the death penalty, the supreme sentence, the green mile; however verbalized, it proves the end to all penalties. Death stops the issue, the punishment, the pain, the torture, and the agony. Can capital punishment do all that? The issue does not speak to whether legalized killing carries itself out, but to the question, "do we?" This problem lives on as a heated debate for the ages.

Origin shows the meager, if not unethical, beginnings to capital punishment. Recorded history illustrates the earliest form of law code, the Code of Hammurabi, sentencing death for twenty-five crimes in the ancient world of Babylon. Progression of this form of punishment spread over the world and spans time from ancient times to the present, including hangings in Europe and the New World to crude stonings in the past. What about burning at the stake and crucifixion (the most famous being Jesus Christ)? Life's most definite opposite shines through death and no civilization appears immune. Indeed, the death penalty progressed through time and the methods became more acceptable and moral. Inhumane methods included torture footing the bill for drawing and quartering (literally tearing the body limb from limb) to the crushing strangulation methods used in France. Presently, legal killings come in the form of lethal injection, gas chambers, and electrocution in the decades past. Although the humanitarian methods floated onto the map, the death penalty remains neither a question of how or who, but why. Do humans hold the right to sentence it? Even ancient governments hesitated along the fence. The origin falls under an important category now that each side of the debate reveals a separate unique analysis.

Every debate has a pro versus a con. With the case of capital punishment each side has a strong reason for which to fight. Supporters of death as punishment for actions usually believe only in certain cases. "[They] believe that capital punishment is both a necessary and a just punishment for the most heinous and violent crimes." Falling under this category come Timothy McVeigh (the Oklahoma bomber), terrorist acts on the United States, and particularly vicious murderers in the first degree. Questions circle the heads of those tittering on the fence yet another pro reason comes with the statement, "A threat is not actually a threat unless it is meant to be carried out." Empty threats enter and leave life frequently and the government will not let itself appear so easily manipulated. If the government does not follow through, then criminals have no reason to stop their actions while they grow progressively worse. Can justice be found when punishment goes to the extreme and lives become sacrificed to deter more heinous crimes in the future? Supporters believe in this philosophy and actively voice their opinion that through killing those deserving, life will shine brighter in years to come. For the supporters, concerns continue to arise on the idea of life in prison in exchange for death, yet they analyze the criminal mind saying that there remains only one way to make sure a killer will not kill again. Life in prison can not insure that. Contrastingly, although the supporters make a strong case, opponents come prepared.

The possibility of innocence uncovers the major fear of those sentencing others to death. Would the justice system be creditable to carry out the sentence of killing a criminal only to later find out that they did not deserve to die? Opponents see an even trade of life in prison for the death penalty because the law removes them, the threat, from the streets, never to do harm to anyone again. While the death penalty rarely penetrates the sentencing of criminals, opponents believe in the inconsistency of when it comes into play. Factors that determine the sentences do not rely only on what the crime or the circumstances, but factors that should not enter the game. "Race, social and economic status, level of education, location of crime, and pure chance play significant roles . . . [and] offenders who commit similar crimes under similar circumstances have received widely differing sentences." Their resolution: abolish it for good, leaving no chance for mistake. Give fair