Mr. Mark DeWine,
This letter is a request for the discontinuation of capital punishment in the state of Ohio. This argument will focus on three key themes including the human rights perspective, cost analysis, and deterrence. The main argument revolves around the question of whether individuals should have the right to debate about the lives of other people.
Capital punishment is one of the most controversial contemporary issues in the world. This type of punishment still exists in modern America due to various reasons. The debate about the morality of the death penalty has been around for a long time. The central question remains on whether capital punishment should be legal. Various issues always feature in this debate despite the position that one chooses to adopt in this argument (Torin, 2016). The Eighth Amendment in the United States Constitution highlights that each American Citizen has the protection against unusual and cruel punishment in the criminal justice system. American history also shows multiple cases where judges ruled against the death penalty leading to the question of the morality of capital punishment.
The basis of this type of punishment was that it could deter criminals and prevent citizens from committing violent crimes. It is also viewed as a cheap financial way of punishing wrongdoers in a manner that provides retribution to crime victims and their families while at the same time affirming righteous life. Edward Koch originally refuted this argument supporting capital punishment claiming that it was intentional, hypocritical, and government-approved murder in a society that frowns upon taking away human life. The Supreme Court Case of Furman V. Georgia was able to abolish the death penalty in 1972 because all the available methods of capital punishment including electrocution, hanging, and the gas chamber were forms of unusual and cruel punishment.
Edward Koch supports this understanding, pointing out that the seizure of any human life cheapens the value of life as a concept, and mankind should never put a price on it. Many people, however, view this type of punishment as an economical way of dealing with criminals as opposed to spending funds taking care of them in prison. States around the world also carry out a cost analysis of each policy to gauge its impact on the budget. Capital punishment is one of the policies considered in this setting. The way an individual defines the cost of the death penalty, however, is relative depending on their analysis. One could choose to take into account each step taken during a death penalty case, inclusive of the investigations, trials, and appeals. One might also choose to analyze the extra costs that states could use after capital punishment (Peter, Et al, 2016). The most common perception is that capital punishment saves money because the state no longer has to take care of the criminal. Contrary to this belief, a study conducted by the Death Penalty Information Centre revealed that states pay up to $1 million more for each death penalty trial as compared to non-death penalty cases. New York and New Jersey are some of the states that chose to abandon the death penalty due to the high costs of prosecution (Peter, Et al, 2016). The argument that the death penalty saves money is shallow and inaccurate.
The question of capital punishment as a form of deterrence is also a major theme. The basis of this argument is whether or not the death penalty can prevent individuals from committing murder crimes. In the 18th century, this understanding was the most crucial reason for the implementation of capital punishment. Most states implement various laws to deter individuals from potentially carrying out unlawful acts (Dezhbakhsh, Rubin, and Shepherd, 2008). This logic implies that if murderers receive the death sentence, any other individual willing to commit a similar crime would have to think twice or risk losing their life. Criminologists have tried analyzing data on murders to find out whether there is a correlation between the two factors. These investigations reveal that death penalties are not effective deterrents (Donohue III, and Wolfers, 2006). This observation is evident in the United States where states that do not have the death penalty have fewer murder cases as opposed to those that still implement capital punishment. These investigations further reveal that the rate of murder in states that support death penalties went higher after the publication of murder. A study by Ehrlich and Northeastern University reveals that the death penalty does little to reduce murder crimes but instead increases the rate of these delinquencies. The results of this study prove that death penalties indeed have the opposite effect in deterring crime. Multiple other studies have replicated this research and found similar results.
This argument is simpler when viewed from a human rights perspective because each individual has the right to life. This perspective does not focus on the costs or deterrence effect but rather on the question of whether states should have the power to decide who dies or lives. Capital punishment essentially gives the state the right to kill, which has in the past been misused even for minor offenses. The holocaust and the Second World War proved that civil society had a critical role to play in restricting the state's authority to kill. Human rights advocates highlight that capital punishment breaches two important human rights. Each individual has a right to life and a right to live free of torture (Yorke, 2016).
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
In 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which protects these two rights against capital punishment. States should thus abolish this practice since they should oblige to the international norm. Capital punishment is a final and irrevocable act that no human should have over another. Its worst characteristic is that it does not take into account the probability of human error or the possibility of mistakes occurring in the justice system. Exonerations from death row are not rare and people from different states have been released due to their innocence (Borchard, 2013). Capital punishment could cost the life of an innocent person which again explains why states should eradicate this act.
Modern society is also greatly unequal in terms of classes which means that this power to kill can easily be misused to target certain social groups or political opponents (Davis, 2011). The frequency and means of the method of capital punishment might have changed over the years but the trend of the racial, regional, and economic pattern has persisted even in the 21st century. This is evidenced by the fact that the South took a different course from the North regarding capital punishment because this region had an abundant number of slaves hence the constant need to discipline the captive workforce. The use and adoption of capital punishment simply set the ground for more killings. Within this observation and analysis, murders and capital punishment are the same sides of a coin. Any state that seeks to protect the human right to live should not use capital punishment since it is an instrument that can easily abuse the rights it claims to protect.
In the process of policymaking, people must not miss the major point, especially in sensitive issues such as the death penalty. If states are not happy about people losing their lives to crimes, then they should not use capital punishment as condemnation. Instead, states should consider having an alternative form of punishment that does not involve killing anyone. For example, states could create a new type of prison that specifically caters to people who carry out heinous crimes. Capital punishment is a naïve solution as witnessed in the case of Osama Bin Laden whose death did not reduce the number of terrorist crimes around the world. His death in the United States was neither cost-effective nor a deterrent to criminal activities. Again, with the emphasis on the awareness of human rights in this century, no state should implement capital punishment (Yorke, 2016). The argument that it offers victims and their families is also wrong because this understanding implies that victims should feel entitled to kill their perpetrators. Such an understanding can only work with people living in a lawless society. Additionally, killing criminals would then make the victims the perpetrators and create a never-ending cycle of murders.
With this in mind, this letter concludes by requesting the State of Ohio to avoid becoming the monster it is trying to fight. The state should get rid of capital punishment and instead find an alternative that deters criminals from carrying out heinous activities.
Sign,
Grace Oppihle
References
- Borchard, E. (2013). Convicting the Innocent, and State Indemnity for Errors of Criminal Justice. The Justice Institute, USA.
- Davis, J. (July 01, 2011). Race, Class, and the Death Penalty: Capital Punishment in American History: Book Review. Peace & Change, 36, 3, 474-477.
- Dezhbakhsh, H., Rubin, H. and Shepherd, M. (2008). Does capital punishment have a deterrent effect? Economics, Law and Individual Rights.
- Donohue III, J., and Wolfers, J. (2006). Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate (No. w11982). National Bureau of Economic Research.
- Peter, C., Robert, B., Matthew, H., & Mark, L. (September 05, 2016). An Analysis of the Economic Costs of Seeking the Death Penalty in Washington State. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 14, 3.
- Torin, F. (August 24, 2016). The Death Penalty vs. Life Incarceration: A Financial Analysis. Susquehanna University Political Review, 7, 1.
- Yorke, J. (2016). Against the Death Penalty: International Initiatives and Implications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stuck on your essay?
