Murder is unaccepted by society, yet people seem to pacify themselves by killing criminals. How can the e government say it is wrong to kill when they are killing their own citizens? The use of capital PU enmeshment is immoral and contradicts the value we are trying to uphold in our legal system The first known legal document containing use of the death penalty dates back k to 1700 BC in ‘The Code of Hamburg”. This code refers to a set of rules or laws Ana acted by King Hamburg in ancient Babylonian civilization.
Within this code is the concept of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”; If a man knocks out another’s teeth, his teeth shall b knocked out as well This ancient expression is generally considered to be unethical in modern Soc itty. We do not kidnap the kidnapper or rob the robber, yet many find justice in killing the killer. Henry Thoreau, an American author in the sass’s, did not condone the tit for tat’ ret location. Thoreau criticizes his fellow townsmen views of justice, “… That after all they were not s o noble but treated the thief as he had treated them… ” (319).
The townsmen Thoreau des scribes are similar to those who advocate capital punishment in the justice extinguishing the m ruddier by murdering. These “noble” figures are alleged to have high moral principles. H forever, if they do not condone the use of murder because of its immortality, using the same m teeth for compensation strips away this nobility. Although Thoreau does not directly m mention capital punishment, it would be safe to assume that he would find this retribution to be not only hypocritical, but cruel and unusual as well. The 8th amendment of the Constitution prohibits the use of “cruel and unusual al punishments”.
If a prison officer were to brutally attack an inmate, it would be a violation of the the 8 amendment. The use of capital punishment, however, is not categorized as a cruel and unusual punishment in the eyes of the Judicial System. Advocates believe that criminals do not endure a cruel death with procedures like lethal injections painless death. No nonetheless, there is no such thing as a ‘painless death’. According to the online science magazine, Scientific American, the methods used are a “combination of barbaric, paralytic and tax ICC agents for executions…
Although the procedure may be subject to FDA approval, the age NYC has avoided any ruling on the cocktail’s efficacy in delivering a merciful death”. It would alls be assumed that a criminal would ml_ACH rather prefer a “cruel and unusual” violent beaten g rather than being put to death. Fortunately, some Supreme Court Justices agree with the uncommon situational of the Death Penalty. In the 1975 case, Gregg V. Georgia, Gregg was guilty of murder and armed robbery and was sentenced to death. Former Supreme Court Justice, William J .
Brenna, found this punishment unconstitutional and stated that ” Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment… Et aside the death sentence s imposed… As violation of the Eighth Amendment. ” This finality Of the death penalty exceeds the cruelty Of any other punishment provided. No matter how rationalized advocates make it o UT to seem, a life is still being testosterone is still being murdered.
Nothing is be gained, rather a life is lost. Today, one of the most debated issues in the Criminal Justice System is the en forewomen of capital punishment; many feel that it is unjust while others feel it provides r attribution. A major argument supporting capital punishment is that it serves as a deterrent to murder. However, this argument assumes that the killer would take a moment to think of the consequences within our justice system. Those who commit murders often d o so in moments of rage and impulse where rational thinking is diminished.
According to Internal Anal Debate Education Association, “Higher execution rates can actually increase violent cry Irene rates. California averaged six executions a year from 1 952 to 1967, and had twice the e murder rate than the period from 1 968 until 1 991 when there were no executions. ” Evoking fee r is not an effective way to deter murder; it comes across as a challenge which may even stimulate e a criminal. In all, this argument is invalid and has proven to be ineffective. Another reason for supporting the death penalty is the closure it provides for the victim and his/ her families.
This reasoning, however, does not necessarily provide relief. The felon will likely fight for his/ her life by holding many court appeals causing a victim’s family to be continuously haunted by the event. When execution day finally arrives, the pa in will not be eased. No relief can be gained, for their pain is an unavoidable, natural proceed as of life. Jim O’Brien, father of a murder victim, spoke against the death penalty and stated “I’ve lived through he state’s process of trying to kill [a murderer], and I can say without hesitate on that it is not worth the anguish that it puts survivors through. According to the Gallup POI l, of Americans support the death penalty; however, very few have actually witness seed an execution. Ron McFadden, a former prison warden, was initially a strong supporter of the e death penitential he witnessed an execution. McFadden stated in an interview that “if those who witness an execution can honestly say it had no effect on them, they’re not huh man”. If a public execution were to be held, it is likely that many would be horrified and express sympathy for the condemned. The fact that it makes people uneasy questions the morality of c UAPITA punishment.
The accuracy of the Justice System can also come into question from biased try ills associated with the death penalty. The Justice System is inconsistent in rulings affiliated with capital punishment. According to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, criminals are to be “innocent NT until proven guilty’. Unfortunately, some innocent people get convicted for crimes they did not commit. Once they have been proved not guilty, they are released. This is not the case with t he inevitable death unhealthily who are proven innocent after execution are unable to receive j justice.
According to Michael Raddled of the University of Colorado, there have been ‘343 cases I n which a defendant facing a possible death penalty was wrongfully convicted. Of these, 1 37 were sentenced to death, and 25 were actually executed. Sixteen served more that n 10 years in jail and seven died while in prison. ” There are many variables that contribute to t hose unjust convictions. One of the most important factors in a trial to prove a defendant’s innocence is the quality of representation he or she is provided. Most defendants are unable t o afford their own attorneys thus resulting in state appointed ones.
In many cases, these appoint Ted attorneys are overworked, underpaid, and inexperienced. When dealing with an extreme ca SE such as the death penalty, the defendant cannot afford to have an incompetent attorney. The c institutional right to “effective counsel” brought by the 6th amendment is thus violated. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bade Ginsburg states that “People who are well represented at trial do not g et the death penalty… L have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Sups MME Court on effectuation stay applications in which the defendant was well represent d at trial. Ethnicity also plays a major role in court cases. The most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is determined by the race of the victim. Many studs SE have shown that the death penalty is more likely to be enacted when the victim is white. In a SST dud of death sentences published by Amnesty International, it was concluded that African Americans receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where t he victims are white. The study also showed that 78. 8% of murderers who killed white victims race vied the Death Penalty.
The unfairness and inequality in our justice system provides an indeed equate and biased ruling of defendants. Due to these inequitable factors, it is morally wrong to r ale a punishment that is as irreversible as death. There could be many reasons as to why someone chooses to kill, but the mist ere is the influence that caused them to do so. Before implementing capital punishment t, the origin of this violence should be known. Josh Bucktooth, a Harvard neuroscience, studied t he brains Of those who commit violent acts versus the brains of those who do not.
In the human brain the preferential cortex is connected to the amazedly. The preferential cortex is responsible for a higher level of thinking whereas the amazedly is an emotion center which goes into overdrive e when faced by a threat. Normally the cortex sends a message to the amazedly to calm down, b UT if the wiring is ‘faulty the message may not get through. Bucktooth found that those with the ‘faulty circuit’ are “more likely to respond with greater amazedly activity and greater emotional arousal”.
Certain genes compromise this circuit; however, even if people have those genes and their wiring appears weak, there is no guarantee they will end up violent. Biology alone ca not influence the brain and behavior. Both nature and nurture must operate together in order t o shape the brain. The use of nurture and conditioning can change the chemical structure of gene SE by switching them on or off. An example of this is the “licking rat” experiment co inducted by McGill University. Researchers discovered that baby rats that have been licked frequently by their mother grew up to be calmer and gentler adults.
But if the mother was a aloof when her babies grew up, their biology and behavior were different. When placed in a s trustful situation, he neglected rats would scream and attack whereas the conditioned rats re maimed calm. The effects Of nurture and nature on humans are much like the rats. If someone experiences an immense amount of neglect and cruelty, it is possible to develop mental illness sees. When being put down all the time, the only thing desired is control and attention. That’s w hen violence is implemented in order to gain power.
There is no justifiable reason to murder and a form of punishment is necessary; however, the punishment should not be as cruel as the death penalty. If these perpetrators were in a negative environment that impacted them to kill n the first place, placing them in an even more hostile environment in death row takes away a NY chance of redemption. Conditions in death row can severely impact an inmate’s mental health. These pr. Sooner can sometimes be locked in a cell for years without any sunlight, knowing that their death is looming in the distance.
Often death row lasts at least 1 0 years but can contain u for 20 or more years. The Death Penalty Information Center writes on its website, “This raise s the question of whether death row prisoners are receiving two distinct punishments: the dead h sentence itself, ND the years of living in conditions tantamount to solitary confinement. ” Inns dead of killing these criminals, governments should focus on prevention and reformation. Factors that lead to these crimes should be addressed in order to create a safer and healthier society.
E ending the death penalty and establishing systems to prevent the need for such a punishment would save the lives of the innocent and the criminals. ‘Killing’ the detrimental mind is more effective than killing the person itself. Capital punishment is unjust and a violation of natural rights. It is wrong for e everyone involved: criminals, victims’ families, and our nation. The death penalty does not uphold the promises in our legal system, deter crime, give closure to victims’ families, and does not guarantee safety for innocent victims.