Pro Death Penalty

Death Penalty: Fair and Just?

In America today, one of the most hotly debated issue is the death penalty and whether or not it is fair and just to execute criminals. This debate is clouded over by many free-floating rumors and false claims made by both sides, but there is also critical information that must be considered if any kind of decision is going to be made. Two of the strongest claims made by the opposition address man’s strongest instinctual beliefs by claiming many innocents are being executed and there is no biblical support for the death penalty. The risk of executing the innocent, however slight, is worth the justifications for the death penalty, those being the incapacitation of murderous men, the deterrent effects on violent crime, and innocent lives therefore saved.

Background

More than 14,500 people have been executed in the United States since 1930. There is no way of knowing how many have been executed in U.S. history because executions were often local affairs, with no central agency keeping track of them. In addition to judicially imposed executions, from 1882 through 1951 there were 4,730 recorded lynchings by vigilantes in the U.S, with many of them being highly public affairs.(BJS, 2005) Even when miscreants were afforded a trial and executed in accordance with law, such events were often local in nature. For example, while states such as New York electrocuted condemned persons at Sing Sing’s electric chair as early as the late 19th century, in states such as Missouri hangings were conducted at local county jails as late as 1937. (BJS, 2005) The death penalty was often used in excess sometimes without proper proof of guilt, but this is no longer the case. Now only about 2 percent of the convicted murderers are executed each year. In fact the average convicted murderer spends more than eleven years on death row. (NCPA, 2007)

Incapacitation

The incapacitation effect saves lives - that is, by executing murderers, they are prevented from murdering again, and this, therefore, saves innocent life. The evidence of this is conclusive and incontrovertible. Not even the most fanatical opponent of the death penalty can deny the obvious statement that a carried out death penalty means a definite stop of new crimes committed by the convict. A dead violent criminal can do no more harm to any other human being. He can commit no more murders or violent crimes, rapes or robberies or any other devilish act in this world. And if every murderer would be arrested after the first murder and be sentenced to death, there would no longer be any serial killers. No country will of course get there. But if a country introduces the capital punishment and applies it fairly and consequently, serial killers and violent criminals will be fewer. This is unavoidable fact. Someone may object and say that this is also the case with life in prison. This is wrong for the following reasons: In most states a life sentence never really is life, but a certain number of years in prison, and relapse into crime after being released is common. (BJS, 2004) If there is an escape it usually leads to new crimes, and oftentimes acts of violence and murder take place in prison. (NCPA, 2007)

If in fact lifetime in prison is not a just punishment for a violent criminal or a murderer, one could ask if there should be the slightest possibility for such a person to have the ability to commit new crimes. There is not a more efficient solution than the death penalty if we wish to keep violent criminals from committing further crimes. Surveys show that violent criminals and murderers who have been sentenced to prison and later released relatively often relapse into similar crimes (BJS, 2004). As seen in the case of Ralph Phillips, an escaped convict who ambushed and killed two of the police officers looking for him. Despite the $200,000 reward, Phillips was never caught and who knows how many people he has killed since? (Bennet, 2006) His is not an isolated case.

Since the capital punishment was abolished in Western Europe, injury or death has victimized many thousands of innocent people, and even more relatives to these victims have suffered. In fact, violent crime nearly doubled in the first three years. (Jecks, 2002) For example, Daniel Finnegan served only fifteen years for brutally killing his mother, and 3 months after his release he butchered his neighbors entire family over a twenty pound debt. (Sepe, 2008) This is because of a legal system that makes it possible for murderers and violent criminals to commit new heinous crimes. There is an efficient way of ending this meaningless spiral of crime where the most ruthless criminals can commit new crimes. A death penalty system used consistently would mean that a large part of crimes would be avoided and we would thereby have a safer society.

Deterrent Effect

The strongest reason to maintain the death penalty is the deterrent effect it has on violent crime. This effect represents those potential murderers who did not murder under specific circumstances because of their fear of execution. There are many, perhaps thousands, of such documented cases, representing many innocent lives saved by the fear of execution. Dr. Jeffery Fagan (2003, pg.12) of Columbia University writes that, “There is reliable, scientifically sound evidence that shows that executions can exert a deterrent effect on violent crime. Dozens of studies have been performed to determine whether future murderers are deterred by the death penalty. In the past five years,” Fagan writes, “a вЂ?new wave’ of studies has emerged, claiming that each execution prevents 3-32 murders, depending on the study.” Circumstances dictate that the majority of these cases will never be documented and that the number of innocent lives saved by individual deterrence will be, and has been, much greater than we will ever be able to calculate.

Finally, there are more than 30 years of respected academic studies which reveal a general, or systemic, deterrent effect, meaning that there is statistical proof that executions produce fewer murders. (Wolfers, 1999) (Weisburg, 2006) However, such studies are considered inconclusive because there are also studies that find no such effect - not surprising, as the U.S. has executed only 2% of their murderers since 1976. (BJS, 2005) Because such studies are inconclusive, we must err on the side of caution and choose the option that may save innocent lives.

Assume that all murderers would instantly die upon murdering. Murderers would then kill only if they wished to die themselves. Murder/suicide is an extremely small component of all murders. Therefore, if a swift and