Written Extended Argument Capital Punishment

What do we know when someone says Capital Punishment? We think Death Penalty, we think Death Row, and we think the worst. Let’s define these; Death Penalty, legally known as capital punishment, is the lawful imposition of death as punishment for crimes. Forms of execution include death by lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, hanging, and firing squad. The United States stands apart from Western Europe's clear opposition to the death penalty and is one of 94 countries and territories in the world that use the death penalty today. Now, we argue “Theory of Deterrence-Pro/Con”. There are two common arguments in support of capital punishment: that of deterrence and that of retribution. We’ll get back to this in a little bit, let’s look at the costs.

Prosecution of even a single capital case costing millions of dollars. Example: Cost of executing thousands of people has easily risen to billions of dollars. Because of our recession problem America now faces today. Our valuable resources that have been used to carry out death sentences would be better spent investing in programs that work to prevent crime, such as; improving education, providing services to the ill, and putting more law enforcement on our streets (not necessarily physical officers, but even just Neighborhood watches). We should make sure that monetary value of money, resources, life, and energy should spend to improve life. But why do we destroy it?

The purpose of the death penalty to remove from society someone who would cause more harm, remove him/her/thing from society, whom is incapable of rehabilitation, purpose of the death penalty to deter others from committing murder, to punish the criminal, to take retribution on behalf of the victim. Revenge or Avenge, which we all know is not going to bring their loved ones back from the dead anyway, it will not make the matters any better; no will you ever feel at peace. Sometimes, this makes matters worse, because you the one that seeks it are no better than he/she/it is.

Capital Punishment does not deter violent crimes. In short, a potential murderer does not have an option to consider the possible parole, automatically convicted to face the death penalty before committing a murder. In many experiences, and through even the eyes and hearts of those who stand accused, spectators watching, judges, governors, attorneys, the DA, doctors there to make sure it is downright by Medical Ethics code, families of the prosecution all have changed their views of the Death Penalty. “This should be abolished”, they say, “what was I thinking, this is wrong!” As they cried, not because of their lost loved ones, but because it’s another life, who are we to judge a man’s/women’s/its life. It’s cruel how we are, human nature, war after wars, fights after fights, rape after murders. We are just much of an animal to take a life, as the one who did the crime.

Whether some murderers deserve to die for their crimes is generally not an issue in dispute between supporters and opponents of the death penalty. The issue is whether the death penalty should be allowed in the United States. This last February of 2010 during the Valentine’s Weekend, my wife and I went to Monterey, California for the Public Defender’s Seminar to support the abolishment of the Death Penalty. It was more like going to college all over again, classes at certain times, taking notes, mingling with other lawyers, and others. While attending the first Session in the big ballroom at the Portola Hotel, we were introduced to an accused sentenced to Death Row, till later was appealed. He was released because of DNA evidence that nowadays, we have forensic science to help deter the false prosecution. This is why the two prong effect (Represent the counsel the best of his abilities (Not being lazy, come now), Where one counsel would do the same representation of defense, as if the next counsel will represent him the same way, without reckless abandonment). Ineffective Assistance of Counsel should not be present, for when an appeal finds out noticeable cause, original counsel can be sanctioned. Followed by a hearing in court to make sure the accused original defense represented him right. When misrepresentation is found through Mensrea, or otherwise, that representing counsel can have their B.A.R. card (Right, license-like to practice law) pulled, suspended or even revoked. Just like a driver’s license, but worse. I know this because I have met some of the most unworthy attorney’s I’ve ever encountered, shameless to say; they were horrible people in general. This is irrelevant I know, back to the argument.

Example: Look at cases like Ted Bundy, two death sentences, put to death in Florida. Very smart, intellectual LAW student, who studied his first two years of college in Psychology and oriental studies. Became a writer later on, managed the Seattle office of Nelson Rockefeller’s Campaign for Presidency. Re-enrolled in college with a Major and Degree in Psychology. Enrolled in LAW school, dropped out spring of 2004. Now, researching this, did anyone think to find out what was going through his head, was DNA evidence irrelevant in those days, who know? NO. He was convicted of killing thirty of the raped-women murders, hundreds more that were not related to his serial killing spree. Someone needed to be convicted otherwise, even if Bundy himself was not the original rapist of the other unknown murders. In our judicial system, someone has to be punished for the crime. His forte was Necrophilia (sex with someone already dead). This is another subject that can be discussed in another time.

Theory of Retribution, on the Old Testament and its call for “an eye for an eye.” Proponents of retribution argue that “The punishment must fit the crime.” According to The New American: "Punishment, sometimes called retribution, is the main reason for imposing the death penalty.” (In Gregg v Georgia, the Supreme Court wrote that "The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man.")

Opponents of retribution theory believe in the sanctity of life and often argue that it is just as wrong for society to kill as it is for an individual to kill. These are the religious nut-heads. As people of faith, we take this opportunity to reaffirm our opposition to the death penalty and to express our belief in the sacredness of human life and in the human capacity for change.
In 2005, Congress considered the Streamlined Procedures Act (SPA), which would have amended the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). AEDPA placed restrictions on the power of federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to state prisoners. The SPA would have imposed additional limits on the ability of state inmates to challenge the constitutionality of their imprisonment through habeas corpus.

Reference this page it's important. According to Gallup, most Americans believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to homicide, which helps them justify their support for capital punishment. Other Gallup research suggests that most Americans would not support capital punishment if it did not deter murder. Social scientists have mined empirical data searching for the definitive answer on deterrence since the early 20th century. And "most deterrence research has found that the death penalty has virtually the same effect as long imprisonment on homicide rates." Studies suggesting otherwise (notably writings of Isaac Ehrlich from the 1970s) have been, in general, criticized for methodological errors. Ehrlich's work was also criticized by the National Academy of Sciences - but it is still cited as a rationale for deterrence. From Referenced page, we go back to the issue at hand.

Some say, or may argue that the Death Penalty will deter crime, yes I agree. Some may argue that it will reduce our economy, it will not. I will tell you that right now, the Death Penalty will actually increase prices to even put someone in Death Row, it cost money. Doctors are needed to administer and make sure the Medical Ethics is up to par, we have the engineers, to operate the machines and such; we have the visits, the extra guards, and so forth. It actually cost money to bring in a visitor to the prison, trust me. This is not an appeal to authority, it’s a fact.

There was a session I went to when I entered that John Steinbeck Forum Room, it looked like a huge college classroom, and learned that we are now more dependant in forensic sciences, including another topic which was carefully entailed in anti-terrorism interrogations, public defender’s defending terrorists openly admitting to cruel and unusual punishment (Unorthodox, and inhumane ways of interrogation). Okay, I said too much. That’s enough for this argument.