Capital Punishment Midterm Essay

Capital Punishment Argumentative Essay Murder is wrong. Ever since we were children it has been taught that this is the irrefutable reality. Capital punishment, or the death penalty is “the execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense” (Encyclopedia Britanica), or, in a simplified way: the act of one person taking an others life. We can ask ourselves then, why is capital punishment any different than murder? This essay aims to explore the unethical nature of the death penalty and the encouragement of its abolishing through its irreversibility, the fact that it goes against the basic human “right to live” and its counterproductive effect on crime rates. First and foremost, death is an irreversible punishment, yet final judgments may result in innocent people dying for crimes they did not commit. In Texas, 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham, was falsely accused and executed for starting a fire which killed his three daughters. After his execution, evidence concluded he was innocent (Amnesty International). Since death is an irreversible punishment, this man lost his life to a crime he did not commit. Cameron is not the only one. A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2014 revealed that “a surprising number of innocent people are sentenced to death" (Pema Levy). Precisely, 1 in every 25 people in the US is falsely executed- one person per year. Given, the system of justice goes through rigorous investigation not to execute people who are innocent, as well as going through numerous appeal processes. Despite improvements in forensic technologies and thus judgements, these “mistakes” still occur and one can no longer call it a mistake if its results in death of an innocent person. As District Judge Jed S. Rakoff debated that it is “fully foreseeable” that by “enforcing the death penalty a meaningful number of innocent people will be executed who otherwise would eventually be able to prove their innocence” (Jed Rakoff). After all, death is an irreversible punishment, often with no time to prove an innocent person is in fact just that- innocent. Moreover, other than the irreversible nature of capital punishment, the death penalty ignores the basic UN right to live. Therefore, as Amnesty stated: “there is no humane way of killing” (Amnesty International). The death penalty goes against our moral views and assertions of a fair and impartial government. No human or government has the right to judge whether another deserves to live. People are not money that loses value as time passes; nothing, no matter how horrific, can make a person less human. Easily forgotten is every one of the “1,100 executed since 1970s” are humans, not merely numbers (Wikipedia). Ultimately, capital punishment is the most overseen example of the government acting hypocritical; “we kill people who kill other people to prove that killing is wrong” (Rachel Khan). Capital punishment is murder pursued by the government. As citizens, we honour and treasure the government, their truth and justice. On the other hand, how can we persist to consider the government just if they do not hold the same rules they demand from their citizens. How can murder by a person have severe ramifications when murder by the government is not only constitutional, but also advised? Overall, the death penalty is an example of the government going against a humans most important right- the right to live. Finally, in addition to ignoring the human right to live, the death penalty defeats its very purpose: to deter crime rates. Whilst many might argue that the death penalty is effective as it lowers crime rates, this is proven to be false. In fact, the FBI Uniform Crime Report concluded: “the region of the U.S. that carries out the highest number of executions (the South) also had the highest murder rate”. Thus, if it has been proven that the death penalty almost increases crime rates, why would we consider it an effective type of punishment? This is not just a pattern in the US, Columbia Law School's Jeffrey Fagan also “compared murder rates in Hong Kong, where capital punishment was abolished, and Singapore, where a death sentence is mandatory for murder”. The researchers found “little difference between the two Asian metropolises” (Max Ehrenfreud). If the death penalty does not make a difference on crime rates, then one must ask themselves why it is still implemented and legal in various states and countries around the world? Thus, it can be concluded that the death penalty defeats its very purpose, to decrease crime rates. In conclusion, capital punishment does not give a chance to innocent victims, ignores the “right to a life” and the promises of the country, as well as having an adverse effect on crime rates. We are told “no positive can come from hate”; thus, no positive will ever come from the death penalty. This form of punishment can longer be accepted by a nation that claims to have different values than its government delivers. A criminal is still human and every human deserves to live.