Wesleyan University Philippines

College of Arts and Sciences

Mabini Extension, Cabanatuan City

Question: Since the death penalty is the ultimate expression of state duty to protect lives, does a
government who does not enforce death penalty is an accomplice of murders itself?

Thesis Statement: Death sentence should be implemented in every country of the world.

Patricia Louinne D. Tolentino

 Effective Writing
Prof. Effraim S. Vidal, Jr.
November 2019
First of all. I would like to define death penalty. Death penalty is when someone was put to
death by using different type of methods for a serious crime such as murder, rape and drug
dealing. It is also known as capital punishment, which comes from the latin word ‘capital’
meaning ‘regarding the head’. So therefore, the most common way of capital punishment is by
hanging or decapitating. In my opinion, the capital punishment must be enforced as it creates a
sense of fear in the minds of criminals, so the one who’s going to commit it might have to
rethink twice beforehand. Now, let us hear first the pros and cons of death penalty according to
the vast majority of people who answered it in the internet. The response below the following
statements were arranged simultaneously in pros statement followed by cons statement.
There are good reasons to maintain capital punishment in our state. The paramount goal of
sentencing is the imposition of justice. Sometimes, justice is dismissing a charge, granting a plea
bargain, expunging a past conviction, seeking a prison sentence, or — in a very few cases, for
the worst of the worst murderers — sometimes, justice is death. A drug cartel member who
murders a rival cartel member faces life in prison without parole. What if he murders two, three,
or 12 people? Or the victim is a child or multiple children? What if the murder was preceded by
torture or rape? How about a serial killer? Or a terrorist who kills dozens, hundreds or
thousands? The repeal of the death penalty treats all murders as the same. Once a person
commits a single act of murder, each additional murder is a freebie. That is not justice.
(Bauchler, JD., 2019)
As a career law enforcement official, I have opposed the death penalty because it is
immoral, discriminatory, ineffective, and a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars. Black and Latino
defendants are far more likely to be executed than their white counterparts. Poor defendants
without a team of lawyers are far more likely to enter death row than those with strong
representation. Your race or your bank account shouldn't determine your sentence. It is also a
waste of taxpayer money. The California Legislative Analyst's office estimates that California
would save $150 million a year if it replaced the death penalty with a sentence of life without
parole. That's money that could go into schools, health care, or restorative justice programs.
(Harris, JD., 2019)
Sometimes, there is no doubt that people are killers because their sins are recorded by
surveillance cameras or bystanders' phones. With that evidence, other than mental illness, there's
no reason not to execute those who commit the most horrific crimes. While executions are rare,
having the death penalty can be a bargaining chip for authorities as they investigate crimes. It's
also necessary to have capital punishment because some crimes simply are so horrific that any
other punishment, including life in a cage, is insufficient. (Muschick, 2018)
The intentional killing of another person is wrong and as Governor, I will not oversee the
execution of any individual. Our death penalty system has been, by all measures, a failure. It has
discriminated against defendants who are mentally ill, black and brown, or can't afford expensive
legal representation. It has provided no public safety benefit or value as a deterrent. It has wasted
billions of taxpayer dollars. Most of all, the death penalty is absolute. It's irreversible and
irreparable in the event of human error. (Newsome, 2019)
In our experience, most survivors want 'justice' for the murderers of their family members.
Repealing the death penalty will not heal these peoples' wounds; it keeps them permanently
open. Moreover, victims' families will always be haunted by the specter that an inmate sentenced
to life without parole will suddenly ask the governor to reduce a sentence – as happened recently
in the case of a Fresno murderer who waited 36 years and applied for clemency. As long as an
inmate sentenced to life without parole lives, the governor could reduce the sentence and a
murderer may be released on the streets. It is dead wrong to assert that the death penalty has been
conclusively shown not to deter crime. Experience and common sense confirm a deterrent effect.
(Schubert, JD., 2016)
The death penalty has no deterrent effect. Claims that each execution deters a certain
number of murders have been thoroughly discredited by social science research. In civilized
society, we reject the principle of literally doing to criminals what they do to their victims: The
penalty for rape cannot be rape, or for arson, the burning down of the arsonist's house. We
should not, therefore, punish the murderer with death. Capital punishment is a barbaric remnant
of uncivilized society. It is immoral in principle, and unfair and discriminatory in practice. It
assures the execution of some innocent people. As a remedy for crime, it has no purpose and no
effect. Capital punishment ought to be abolished now. (ACLU, 2017)
The death penalty. It should be brought back and it should be brought back strong. They say
it's not a deterrent. Well, you know what, maybe it's not a deterrent but these two [men convicted
of killing two police officers in Hattiesburg, MS will not do any more killing. That's for sure.
(Trump, 2016)
Indeed, nowadays the death penalty is unacceptable, however grave the crime of the
convicted person. It is an offence to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human
person; it likewise contradicts God’s plan for individuals and society, and his merciful justice.
Nor is it consonant with any just purpose of punishment. It does not render justice to victims, but
instead fosters vengeance. The commandment 'Thou shalt not kill' has absolute value and applies
both to the innocent and to the guilty. It must not be forgotten that the inviolable and God-given
right to life also belongs to the criminal. (Pope Francis, 2016)
Giving up on the death penalty would mean giving up on justice for crime victims and their
families. The prisoners currently on California's death row have murdered more than 1,000
people. Of those, 229 were children, 43 were peace officers, and 294 of the victims were
sexually assaulted and tortured. Having a functional death penalty law will help us protect the
public from society's worst criminals and bring some measure of closure to the families whose
loved ones were cruelly taken from them. ( LAAPOA, 2017)
Though I was once California's biggest proponent of the death penalty, I now feel
compelled to admit the policy is destructive to our great state. What we didn't know then is that
the death penalty would become an industry that benefits only attorneys and criminals, and no
one else. It's an extreme expense to taxpayers, does not make our communities safer and fails to
deliver the justice it promised. Since the initiative became law, California taxpayers have
unknowingly spent more than $5 billion to maintain a death row that now houses 747 convicted
criminals. During this time, only 13 people have been put to death, at an eye-popping price tag of
$384 million per execution. New studies conclusively show that the death penalty is not a
deterrent to crime. My family and I believed the death penalty would serve as the ultimate
warning to criminals, but nearly 40 years of evidence proves it does not work. (Briggs, 2016)
Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because
governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article
of faith, not of fact, just like the opposite position held by abolitionist detractors, including
myself... The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor
able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no
moral sense, and thus subject even to butchery to satiate human gluttony. Moreover, capital
punishment celebrates the dignity of the humans whose lives were ended by the defendant's
predation. (Fein, JD., 2009)
International and national bodies have determined that several methods of execution are
likely to violate the prohibition of torture, because of the pain and suffering they are likely to
inflict on the convicted person. Studies of the severe pain and suffering caused by other methods
has continued to extend this list, to the point where it has become increasingly difficult for a
State to impose the death penalty without violating international human rights law.The long and
highly stressful period that most individuals endure while waiting on 'death row' for years, or
even decades, and frequently in isolation, for an uncertain outcome, has also been referenced as
constituting torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Furthermore, when the authorities
fail to give adequate information about the timing of executions, they maintain not only the
convicted person but also his children and other family members in permanent anticipation of
imminent death. This acute mental distress, which may be compounded by failure to return the
body to families for burial, or inform them of the location of burial, is unjustifiable. There are
many reasons why we should move away from the death penalty, starting with its capricious and
frequently discriminatory application, and its failure to demonstrate any deterrent effect beyond
that of other punishments. The severe mental and physical suffering which are inflicted by
capital punishment on the person concerned and family members should now be added to the
weight of the argument. The use of the death penalty should be ended. (Al Hussein, PHD., 2017)

Immanuel Kant said it best. He said a society that is not willing to demand a life of
somebody who has taken somebody else's life is simply immoral. So the question really... when
the system works and when you manage to identify somebody who has done such heinous evil,
do we as a society have a right to take his life? I think the answer's plainly yes. And I would go
with Kant and I would say it is immoral for us not to. (Kozinski, JD., 2009)
Executions should be banned by act of Congress for this simple reason: Experience has
shown that the death penalty doesn't serve the cause of justice. How likely is it, really, that a
killer will be more deterred by the risk of the death penalty than by having to spend the rest of
his life in prison? The claim fails the test of common sense. Criminologists and police chiefs say
the death penalty just doesn't influence murderers -- partly because its application is so
haphazard. It's true that the purpose of punishment is not only deterrence but also retribution. But
this doesn't justify the popular view that killers should be killed, any more than it would support
the idea that rapists should be raped or thieves stolen from. To be just, retribution must be
measured and restrained. That's the difference between justice and revenge. The extraordinary
crimes that would justify the death penalty are difficult to imagine, much less define, before the
fact. And, even in exceptional cases, the requirement to prove guilt beyond any doubt is hard to
satisfy. (What does ‘beyond any doubt’ actually mean? Is a psychopath guilty beyond any
doubt?) Let's allow that it would have been right to execute Hitler. But let's also recognize that
restricting the death penalty to the few cases where it would be both just and safe is impractical.
The best pragmatic course is not to use the death penalty more sparingly but to abolish it
outright. (Bloomberg, 2014)
Along with two-thirds of the American public, I believe in capital punishment. I believe
that there are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer
by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It
cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the
murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in
self defense to protect the innocent. (Steward, JD. 2017)
Capital punishment violates the Eighth Amendment because it is morally unacceptable to
the people of the United States at this time in their history. In judging whether or not a given
penalty is morally acceptable, most courts have said that the punishment is valid unless 'it shocks
the conscience and sense of justice of the people.' Assuming knowledge of all the facts presently
available regarding capital punishment, the average citizen would, in my opinion, find it
shocking to his conscience and sense of justice. For this reason alone, capital punishment cannot
stand. (Marshall, LLB. 2009)
Our federal and state constitutions are replete with rights we afford the accused -- the right
to notice of charges, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to confront witnesses, the
right to counsel, and the right against self-incrimination. We as a society have made a profound
commitment to avoid punishing the innocent. This is particularly important to those of us who
support the death penalty in appropriate circumstances. We have determined that there are
instances when the crimes are so egregious that society’s ultimate punishment -- the death
penalty -- may be appropriate. But the imposition of this punishment can be justified only if we
make full use of all available tools to aid in the determination of guilt or innocence. (Spitzer, JD.,
2009)
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception. The death
penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. (Amnesty International, 2017)
On certain empirical assumptions, capital punishment may be morally required, not for
retributive reasons, but rather to prevent the taking of innocent lives. In so saying, we are
suggesting the possibility that states are obliged to maintain the death penalty option. (Sunstein,
JD., 2009)
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;
therefore the principle inherent in the Clause that prohibits pointless infliction of excessive
punishment when less severe punishment can adequately achieve the same purposes invalidates
the punishment. (Brennan, Jr., JD, 2009)
According to Student Press Network Wayland, Since 1608, capital punishment has been
heavily debated. Capital punishment is when a person is sentenced to death by the state for a
particular crime. Ever since the death penalty was created, there has been controversy over
whether or not it should be continued. For many years, our government, as well as average
citizens, have questioned if the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits
the government from cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty should be continued to
increase the prevention of crimes and reduce the billions of tax dollars spent towards prisons.

Many people argue that that the death penalty completely goes against our Eighth
Amendment rights: with its inhuman ways of execution and its possible classification as “cruel”
and “unusual” punishments. However, without the death penalty, lots of citizen’s tax dollars
would go to waste clothing and feeding inmates in jail. Over the years, more and more tax
dollars are being put towards jails than other resources that can help a community.

Believe it or not, America’s prisons are costing taxpayers billions of dollars. According
to the well-known website, Money and Career Cheat Sheet, the Versa Institute of Justice
recorded a whopping 39 billion dollars being spent on prisons. These tax dollars go towards
health care, food and clothing for inmates; a fraction of the money also goes towards correction
officers.

The death penalty should be continued to also prevent an increase in crimes. Imagine
living in a world in which the only form of punishment was being locked in a cage like an
animal. Criminals would learn nothing from their mistakes and when released, who knows what
these unchanged people would do. Not everyone changes in prison, some just become worse.
Time Magazine reported an estimated amount of 2,000,000 citizens of the US who have fallen
victim to some form of crime from assault to murder. Without the death penalty, criminals would
become careless and fearless, and they would commit horrendous crimes. There is a need for the
death penalty to exist.

In conclusion, there are still multiple opinions regarding the death penalty. However, the
most beneficial one would be to continue the process of distributing the death penalty as a
punishment. When you put someone else in harm’s way, and ruin their lives, you deserve to be
treated with the same respect. The death penalty, although scary in the eyes of some citizens, is
beneficial to every citizen and increases the safety of our country every day.
References:

(Camacho, The Death Penalty should be legal, 2017)

Retrieved from: https://waylandstudentpress.com/54118/articles/opinion-the-death-penalty-
should-be-legal/

(Should the Death Penalty Be Allowed? 2019)

Retrieved from: https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001324