User talk:Mickoli

High School Paper on the Death Penalty
They’re Gonna Die Eventually… Murder and rape: when someone commits either of these two crimes, it is known as a capital offense, a crime that could get him or her put on death row. The death penalty is a very real threat to capital offenders in most of the fifty United States. Their criminal actions could cause the government to punish them – by taking their lives. By executing the accused, the state government is eliminating any chance these people have of compensation; they will never be able to take responsibility for their mistake(s) (Williams 36). Also, the government is denying these people the right of life, the most basic and sacred thing of all. America is one of the only countries that still authorizes the death penalty meaning that the other countries of the world have found other, moral ways of punishing capital offenders (Kadish 141-142). The taking of lives, whether they are guilty of a capital crime or innocent, should be abolished as a form of punishment in the United States. When consulting about capital punishment, anti-abolitionists protest that the death penalty creates a safer environment since the rapists and murderers are dead and have no possibility of breaking out of prison. However, evidence shows that states which punish capital crimes with the death penalty have had no significant change in rate of homicides. Capital punishment can actually increase the rate (Marzilli 39). By executing the criminals, the state is lessening the value of a human life in the eyes of the citizens, making murders more likely to occur. It also causes the inmates on death row to become more violent with or to kill the guards or other inmates in their jail, since they have absolutely nothing to lose anymore (Marzilli 39-40). The people in agreement with the death penalty may also argue that the families of the victims of the capital crimes feel better if they know the offender is dead. So really they are using capital punishment as a source of revenge to soothe their broken hearts. In reality, the rush of relief, which the families expect to receive immediately after the execution, hardly ever comes. Even if some relief does come, a moment of satisfaction does not change the fact that now two people are dead instead of one (Progressive). Still others object that these criminals deserve to be put to death. If death is the worst thing these people can think of as a punishment for the accused, they have not completely considered the idea of life imprisonment without parole (Dutta). The criminals would have the rest of their lives to think about the wrong things they’d done in the past and to possibly repent. When arguing about this controversial topic, it is apparent that there are strong cases on both sides. Currently in the United States, capital punishment is administered by the following mediums: lethal injection, electrocution, hanging, gas chambers, and firing squads. All of these methods are inhumane in their own ways. For example, lethal injections come in a series of chemical shots. The first shot is of an anesthetic to alleviate pain, which, if administered too heavily, could be lethal itself. The next shot is to paralyze the lungs and diaphragm, meaning the person essentially suffocates to death (Marzilli 13-14). Gas chambers, besides forever being associated with the genocide of Jews by the German Nazis, cause reactions from the convicts such as head banging on the doors of the chamber, drooling, gasping for air, and moaning while being executed. The side effects from the electric chair are by far the most gruesome, however. The electrocution causes electric currents to run throughout the body creating third degree burns and paralyzing the muscles. It has also been scientifically proven that death by electrocution is not immediate and that the subject remains conscious and the nerve activity remains intact for a while (up to fifteen minutes) before death occurs. This form of execution is said to inflict unnecessary pain, physical violence, and mutilation to the victim (aka the convict) (Johnson). Undoubtedly, death by any of these means would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. According to the eighth amendment, “We the People” are forbidden to inflict cruel and unusual punishment upon others (Connolly). By allowing the states to empower the death penalty, the government is violating the constitution. If the government does not follow the doctrine on which our country was founded, for what reason should the people abide by the government appointed laws? Not only does capital punishment take away lives of criminals, it also takes lives of innocent men and women. Since 1900, 416 innocent people have been convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death. Of that, twenty-three were executed (Radelet, Bedau, and Putnam). It was only after they had died that the lawyers and courts found them to be innocent after all. One sad case occurred in Florida in 1984. An African-American man named James Adams was accused of murdering Edgar Brown, a white man. The grounds on which he was convicted go as followed: one man claimed he “thought” he saw Adams at the scene of the crime; Adams waved at pedestrians while driving through a predominantly white neighborhood; another witness claimed he positively saw Adams at the scene of the crime (it was later discovered that this man was particularly hostile towards Adams because Adams was having an affair with the man’s wife, obviously making his statements biased); Edgar Brown had black hairs clutched in his hand; and Adams had a dollar bill in his pocket with a dried blood stain of type O-positive blood, which was the type of blood of the victim. If only the police had taken into account that forty-five percent of the population has an O-positive blood type then maybe James Adams would still be alive (Radelet, Bedau, and Putnam). Innocent people are convicted mainly on two accounts: faulty witness statements and discarded evidence. They can also be convicted because of forced confessions, which can be obtained by hypnotizing the witness or accused (Mitchell 304). This means that police can actually play “mind tricks” on the witnesses in order to get them to confess things they might have seen, or things their minds just made up. The previous case proves it true that minorities are discriminated against, even when disputing the death penalty. Taking innocent lives and being racist eliminates the possibility that capital punishment is a form of just punishment. Many think that the death penalty is an unjust form of punishment. This is obviously true when evidence proves that it unfairly affects minorities and the poor. Surveys show that nonwhite people are more likely to be sentenced to death than whites (Kadish 139-140). The majority of death row inhabitants are black or Hispanic. The statistics also show that capital punishment is racist towards minorities; twelve percent of nonwhite defendants were executed compared to the six percent of whites executed. According to stats, whites are more likely to work out plea bargains saving them from death than blacks or other minorities (Progressive). The death penalty is also an unfair form of punishment according to the jury picked for the trials. The juries are picked according to which jurors are most likely to vote the defendant ‘guilty’. Also, minorities are said to be less harsh on the defendant, so the prosecutors try to eliminate these people from the jury. The juries are influenced by the victim’s family members as well. The family members make it hard for the jury to make a decision based solely on “relevant evidence”. The juries also make their decisions based on public pressure. Depending on how they convict the criminal, the public could view them as racist. Or if they did not convict a felon and that person was let out of prison and committed another crime, the jury members wouldn’t want to be blamed for returning a killer to the streets (Marzilli 56-58). Capital punishment is also unfair towards those people living in poverty. People who are convicted of a crime but cannot afford a lawyer are automatically appointed one by the court. The only problem with these court appointed lawyers is that they are overworked, underpaid, and can sometimes lose money by taking a capital offense case (Marzilli 79). Therefore, the poor are rarely spared the death penalty, because they cannot just “buy their lives” as the rich can. Money spent on the death penalty should be used to go towards salaries for court appointed lawyers so the poor have somewhat of a chance of living. A common argument in favor of capital punishment is that it would cost a lot more money to feed and board a convict for the rest of their life than to bring an end to it. This is absolutely untrue. In Texas, a single death penalty case can cost $2.3 million, which is three times the amount it would take to keep a cell with the highest security for forty years (Ross). The government would save close to $1 million per execution if the death penalty was eradicated. Capital cases are so expensive because they are required to have three major hearings: one to determine the guilt or innocence, one to determine the sentence, and one appeal to the Supreme Court, which is a mandatory appeal to protect the accused from only the state laws. It also cost money to keep maximum security on death rows at all times (Williams 122). Not to mention the death machines themselves; gas chambers are very technical pieces of equipment that require regular upkeep (Johnson). Since “death is different” by capital punishment, the safeguards required cost a lot of money as well (Ross). Obviously, it would be a lot less money to taxpayers to not inflict the death penalty on any human being. Capital punishment should not be utilized as a form of punishment in the United States or in any other country of the world. Fortunately, there is a possibility that it could be wiped out forever in America. Support for the death penalty has fallen lower and lower over the years (Progressive). Alternatives to capital punishment include life in prison without parole. This way the public would forget about the criminal, the criminal would be locked up, and if someday new evidence proved that he/she was innocent, they could be set free (Dutta). Not to mention the states would save money which could go towards community support systems for the victims of capital crimes or more funding for court appointed lawyers (Marzilli 84). Wisconsin does not employ the death penalty but Illinois is notorious for it; if letters from citizens containing this paper were sent to an Illinois state Supreme Court official, the death penalty could be revoked. The death penalty needs to be abolished before more innocent or unfortunate poor people are killed. While it’s immoral for a murderer to kill someone, it is just as immoral for the state to kill the murderer.

Works Cited

Connolly, D.J. “Cruel, But not Unusual, Judicial Mischief”. 13 December 2005. http://tempknak.home.att.net/yohoho.html Dutta, Sunil. “Capital Punishment Cannot be Justified.” Opposing Viewpoints Research Center. Thomas Gale. 08 December 2005. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC Johnson, Robert. “Execution is Inhumane.” Opposing Viewpoints Research Center. Thomas Gale. 08 December 2005. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC Kadish, Sanford H., ed. Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice. New York: The Free Press. 1983, 139-140. Marzilli, Alan. Capital Punishment. Philadelphia: Chelsea House. 2003. Mitchell, Hayley R., ed. The Complete History of the Death Penalty. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. 2001. Progressive. “Capital Punishment Should be Abolished”. Opposing Viewpoints Research Center. Thomas Gale. 08 December 2005. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC Radelet, Michael C., Hugo Adam Bedau and Constance E. Putnam. “Innocent People Have Been Executed”. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomas Gale. 08 December 2005. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC Ross, Michael. “The Death Penalty is Too Expensive”. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomas Gale. 08 December 2005. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC Williams, Mary E., ed. The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press. 2002.