Capital Punishment Essay

[Scuba_Steve]

okay guys, I wrote this essay for a class, and I was wondering what you thought of it.

(also, if your going to come in here simply to say that capital punishment is right, do it in an essay, because I'm not here to argue, just to get some feedback)

Also, we had to write about Capital Punishment being either Right Or Wrong. We couldn't pick the "oh, in some cases" stance (not that I would have done that anyway).
---------------------------------------------------------------
Civics Assignment- Position Essay

Capital Punishment

If there is one thing that we haven’t given up during our path from cave dwellers to modern day humans, it’s the need for revenge. Revenge is one of the primal instincts that we think we need in order to live. And this has manifested itself in a form of punishment used in some countries called “Capital Punishment”, this form of punishment isn’t only simplistic, cruel and sadistic but it is also completely unnecessary. Not to mention the fact that it is common knowledge since growing up that “two wrongs do not make a right”. And finally, there is the fact that capital punishment directly conflicts with the United Nation’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”.

An article in the U.N’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” states the following- “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” This means that every single person in the entire world is entitled to the right to live, including people who may have committed the worst crimes imaginable. Unless after all, being sent to prison makes oneself “Inhuman”, and that alone sounds absolutely ridiculous. Any country that is affected by the U.N (most of the world) and still practices capital punishment should take a serious look at itself, after all, what gives a group of people (in this case, a nation-state) the right to end life where they see fit?

No one does, and that is why people can be arrested for the murder of another human being. How come all of a sudden it’s okay for governments to kill a killer? That makes no sense at all. We’re taught as children that “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” And it is amazing that once another person’s life is at stake, the basics we learned as children cave in and make way for such a primal instinct as revenge. Capital Punishment doesn’t help a community it any way at all; the criminal will still be behind bars. Unfortunately there are still people in the world that think that the most effective way to take care of a problem is to wipe out the source of the problem, never even solving the real problem. Either that or people are sick enough to get some sort of gratitude out of watching someone die.

There are many other things that could be done to eliminate the need for capital punishment, such as simply having the prisoners live the rest of their lives in the prison, which some would argue is even worse than being killed. Not to mention that many people can be rehabilitated, and even if they never return to public they can do basic labour in a prison, further contributing to society from inside the prison. Also, in the cases of crimes not related to mental instability, these criminals could move on to be important public figures, discouraging possible criminals from following that path, therefore making the future world a safer place.

In the end, Mahatma Gandhi said it best; "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Punishment to this degree ceases to be punishment and moves closer to what it is trying to combat, that being crime. Purposely killing a criminal for any reason is unethical, barbaric, and most importantly of all, it happens to be completely unnecessary. And the entire world needs to learn of this, because although it may seem a good idea at the time, in the future people will almost certainly look back and feel disgrace that their descendents had to resort to such animalistic behavior.

[CardCheat]

I like it. The introduction and conclusion are the best parts I think, with the allusion to the history of man and the Gandhi quote.

Just a little mechanical note, though, when you wrote: "And this has manifested itself in a form of punishment used in some countries called “Capital Punishment”, this form of punishment isn’t only simplistic, cruel and sadistic but it is also completely unnecessary." I'm pretty sure that you should start a new sentence after the words "Capital Punishment".

[Scuba_Steve]

Just a little mechanical note, though, when you wrote: "And this has manifested itself in a form of punishment used in some countries called “Capital Punishment”, this form of punishment isn’t only simplistic, cruel and sadistic but it is also completely unnecessary." I'm pretty sure that you should start a new sentence after the words "Capital Punishment".

ahh thanks, thats the sort of stuff I was hoping people would pick up on here.:)

[Jharaski]

Not to be critical at all but

The whole claim about capital punishment being revenge can be refuted by saying "these people cannot be rehabilitated", "they're a waste of space" and the like, so refute any counterarguments like that.

Plus.. it's not really powerful for someone who believes in capital punishment. A good persuasive essay can make the other side believe in your cause.


No one does, and that is why people can be arrested for the murder of another human being. But all of a sudden it’s okay to kill a killer? That makes no sense at all. Fix the grammar and make it sound more formal.

[Light Fantastic]

The whole claim about capital punishment being revenge can be refuted by saying "these people cannot be rehabilitated", "they're a waste of space" and the like, so refute any counterarguments like that.He pretty much addresses that by saying nobody has the right to make such a decision, no?

[Scuba_Steve]

I dont think it was so much supposed to be persuasive as it was just to show what our personal stance on it was.

I know what you mean though, and thanks for the grammar tip.

[Jharaski]

He pretty much addresses that by saying nobody has the right to make such a decision, no?

Revenge is different than punishment. That's what will stick out in the mind of someone who's very pro capital punishment. It's sort of my belief, and the essay calls me to question it. But I'm not the 100% kill-em-all-republican woo hoooo kind.

[griftadan]

capital punishment isn't about revenge

[HazMatBlue]

capital punishment is about detering crime by placing logical punishments for crimes

[Hababi]

capital punishment is about detering crime by placing logical punishments for crimes

:thumb:

I'd rep you, but I've given too much rep in the last 24 hours :(

[Light Fantastic]

Because it's logical to say murder is wrong and kill people for doing it.

[Akira]

In all honesty, I thought the essay wasn't great. The tone sounded too informal, and some of your points make no sense. “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” If that makes capital punishment wrong, does it not also make mere incarceration wrong? That is depriving someone of liberty. When you commit a crime, you lose certain rights. You still have rights regarding a fair and speedy trial, and rights to be treated as a human, but the fact of the matter is if you committed a crime you don't deserve all the same rights as a law-abiding citizen.

I do not support capital punishment, but I feel you could have done a much better job arguing the point.

[griftadan]

Because it's logical to say murder is wrong and kill people for doing it.

killing isn't the same thing as murdering

[The Odyssey]

Short essay, what grade.

[thedeadwalk!]

capital punishment is about detering crime by placing logical punishments for crimes
But there's no proof it deters any more than prison.

[Africa]

It's hard to rob JC Penny when you're dead.

[Hagbard Celine]

capital punishment is about detering crime by placing logical punishments for crimes

and how do you propose we establish a measure of crimes deserving of state sanctioned murder? please, use logic.

[Chameleon]

I don't really know what the task set was, or what weight the essay has toward a final grade, but it seemed short, kind of under-prepared and a bit disorganised.

I think you'd do better to approach the issue in a factual manner, and colour it with some of your personal beliefs, or other peoples' emotions.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Badly written and very poorly argued essay. Trying to use the Universal Declaration like that is a really poor way to begin. And, like Akira has already said, the tone of the essay was misjudged. You don't seem to have spent much time actually writing: you completely overuse lame rhetorical questions; you use lots of lame, informal expressions; it's sloppy, and you even have innapropriate parentheses in there.

The whole thing is somewhat patronising, whilst being very, very glib. You even finish up with the most obvious, lame quote possible for this issue.

[Chameleon]

and how do you propose we establish a measure of crimes deserving of state sanctioned murder? please, use logic.

Out of interest, what's "logical" about imprisoning somebody for life, because they killed somebody?

And please, use genuine inferential logic to explain.

[Hagbard Celine]

Out of interest, what's "logical" about imprisoning somebody for life, because they killed somebody?

And please, use genuine inferential logic to explain.

I can't defend that punishment because lifetime imprisonment isn't how I would prefer to deal with a murderer.
Your entire post rests on the assumtion that I'm in support of the current penal system, wich I am not. I have no interest in defending it. :]

[Chameleon]

I can't defend that punishment because lifetime imprisonment isn't how I would prefer to deal with a murderer.
Your entire post rests on the assumtion that I'm in support of the current penal system, wich I am not. I have no interest in defending it. :]

Doesn't matter, I want to hear your idea of a "logical" punishment.

I guarantee, the closest thing you'll come is execution, and still that's not completely logical. But "an eye for an eye" has a certain degree of logic to it.

[Hagbard Celine]

Exile for those that would otherwise face death.
Not technically a death sentence, if you have any ability to adapt and survive outside human society.

As for the rest, rehabilitation and restitution instead of just punishment.

Here's my thinking:
You don't want to act as a rational member of society, then you won't be a part of it.

[Chameleon]

Sorry, but why is that any more "logical" than life imprisonment, or execution? It makes sense, sure, but there's a big difference between common sense and logic. It "makes sense" to take an eye for an eye as well. The only thing preventing that from happening in some places, is a specific sense of morality.

[Hagbard Celine]

some opinions may differ.

[HaVIC5]

I guarantee, the closest thing you'll come is execution, and still that's not completely logical. But "an eye for an eye" has a certain degree of logic to it.
By that logic, the punishment for someone who rapes somebody else would be to be raped back in return.

[Chameleon]

some opinions may differ

Exactly, which is why many people believe that logic should, in fact, NOT be used in dictating sentences. It was you who attacked somebody for not using logic, not the other way around.

By that logic, the punishment for someone who rapes somebody else would be to be raped back in return.

Correct. That is the closest thing to logic you'll find. If you don't like it, be glad we don't employ logic as the primary means for assigning punishments to crimes, with the possible exception of the death penalty in the U.S..

[RockAndRoll]

That is the closest thing to logic you'll find. If you don't like it, be glad we don't employ logic as the primary means for assigning punishments to crimes, with the possible exception of the death penalty in the U.S..
That's not true at all.

Logic can (and should) be employed extensively when determining the punishment for crimes.

[Chameleon]

That's not true at all.

Logic can (and should) be employed extensively when determining the punishment for crimes.

Go for it, give me a list of crimes and the logical punishments for them.

Then explain the logical process for each.

[RockAndRoll]

Go for it, give me a list of crimes and the logical punishments for them.

Then explain the logical process for each.
There is no logical response to anything except in light of a certain goal or with certain agreed upon premises.

But have you heard of philosophy? There's a great deal of logic used in deciding these things, legislators and judges don't just sit around and go 'Okay you robbed a bank? Well then your punishment is a new microwave, next!'.

[HaVIC5]

The main arguments in support of Capital punishment are generally retributive and deterrent accounts of criminal punishment. Most retributive accounts will piggyback to the deterent account anyway, so in essence, deterrence is the chief defense of the death penalty (I'll answer lex talionis objections if anybody has them). If we assume that killing is bad, then we, with some degree of difficulty fending off those pesky Kantians, can take the utilitarian position and say that any measure that we take that reduces the total number of people killed will not only the morally correct thing to do, but benefit society as a whole. This means the life of criminal is forfeit if it can succesfully deter a statisically relevant number of killings, and generally benefit society as a whole.

The problem with this, is though in priniciple it works out to a moral equilibrium, in practice, it doesn't. Most every sociologist and statistician will tell you that there really isn't a significant relevance in the United States between the number of homicides and the number of executions executed. Many theories exist as to exactly why this is so, but the conventional assumption is that the death penalty isn't issued swift enough, or often enough. Juries are very reluctant to issue death penalty sentences, and once a death sentence is issued, there are light years of bureaucratic tape to cut through in the court system, which amount to inmates spending an average of 15 years on death row. Add mandatory appeals, and you get an average of only 40 percent of all death sentences carried out. No wonder criminals aren't fazed in the slightest.

What options do we have then? Well, in order for the death penalty to work as a deterrent, we'd have to be a lot stricter and a lot swifter in handing out our punishments and delivering them. We'd have to be a lot less lenient on crime, and select juries who would be more likely to give death penalty sentences. Basically, we'd have to have a legal code more like China's, one we have condemed to "affronts on human rights" for many reasons, one of them being the sheer number of death penalties they hand out. Assuming that this is still a possibility, we would then have on our hands a terrible moral quandry. We would certainly kill more bad guys, and there would be a deterrent effect on the population, but the judicial process isn't perfect, and we would in turn kill an unknown number of innocents. In order for this supposedly morally just system of deterrent capital punishment to work, one would have to accept a system that essentially arbitrarily killed innocents. This is unacceptable.

[RockAndRoll]

Many theories exist as to exactly why this is so, but the conventional assumption is that the death penalty isn't issued swift enough, or often enough.
I would have imagined it was just due to the state of mind the murderers are in. I would imagine that for whatever reason they either don't consider the consequences, they imagine they won't get caught or think any sacrifice is worth it. Even a lifetime in jail is a hefty price to pay, and it seems to me if you're willing to serve that sentence you're willing to serve just about anything.

[xxxwookie]

http://geocities.com/fivestringwookie/academics/deathdiscrim.doc
That's an essay I wrote during my undergraduate on discrimination in capital punishment. I really should've transformed it into a .pdf by now but I've not

General arguments pro CP
- 'Deserved'
- Religious grounds
- Deterrent
- cost effective
- democratic

To write an essay you must take the pro CP arguments and discuss the reasons why perhaps this is true and why it's not. For example to take religious grounds, you'd describe the fact that many people in the USA today are pro CP because their religion says that it should be that way, "Eye for an eye" etc. You may then argue that Jesus also said "The life of a man is worth more than his worst sin" and that many churches, including the catholic church formally oppose the use of CP, the last pope himself officially protesting an execution.

The use of CP as a deterrent also has it's pros but there is a strong argument against it. It has actually been demonstrated by many researchers that CP does not reduce the incidence of capital crimes and some researchers have shown that when an execution takes place in a city, the number of capital crimes actually increases during that month. In order to make it a deterrent it would need to be swift and swift executions are inhumane as there is no time for appeal. long terms on death row are also inhumane which raises another issue

Cost effectiveness. Well, it's not. Because of the facilities required to house and secure capital criminals as well as the lengthy trial process and appeals processes it costs more money. it costs on average about 60% more to complete a death sentence than it does to complete a life sentence

Democratic. Well, it is indeed democratic. The majority of people within many countries are pro CP. I think in the UK polls suggest about 55%. The question is, just because the public want something should they get it? The public want no taxes, I don't see many people offering that. The USA is not a democracy, let's not pretend it is. The reason there are research departments in a government is to inform the public about what's best and carry it out. Generally these people are ignored.

Hope I was of some help. There's a lot more to discuss on the subject

[HaVIC5]

To be honest, I see the deterent principle to be the most convincing, even if it isn't true in real life for the US. Any pro CPers here?

[Danger Bird]

Any pro CPers here?

Serenity

[spitfirejunky]

Go for it, give me a list of crimes and the logical punishments for them.

Then explain the logical process for each.

The motive for punishment is really just crime prevention. If you kill criminals that you cannot rehabilitate, you'd be reducing crime.

[nitzguy]

On the essay, start off with a fact... end with the Gandhi quote at the very end.

Everyone has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of whatever; Rights we are born with but, rights can be lost when you destroy the rights of others-hence prison.

i'm against capitol punishment, except for people who beat/kill/rape little children... they can go f'ucking die

[Oma And Papa's]

i'm against capitol punishment, except for people who beat/kill/rape little children... they can go f'ucking die

That's kind of inconsistent.

[DBoons Ghost]

Less as a tool of revenge, more as a tool of dissuasion as others have said. If someone knew they would be put to death for taking a life, they'd be less likely to do so. In the same token, life in prison with 3 hots and a cot isn't going to deter anyone from committing crimes as we all already know thanks to overcrowded prisons and human rights groups meddling with what rights criminals should have.

Your essay was very well written. Good luck on a good grade!

[Smokey D]

Um, we know that capital punishment doesn't disuade either, for the same reason.

[Scythe404]

okay guys, I wrote this essay for a class, and I was wondering what you thought of it.

ESSAY


Not bad. Should be great for High School, but just barely okay for college/university level. I'd advise you to drop phrases and wordings like "how come" and replace them with such things like "why is it..." There's also no need to go over the top and be dramatic "And it is amazing..."

Secondly: While the point of a position paper is to argue your opinion, it's always better to let facts argue for you. Subjectivity only gets you so far; cold, hard facts that make your argument 'right' in a way strike a much better chord. Many argue that the death penalty, even if morally justifiable, is wasteful and futile; it hasn't been shown to statistically deter murder in any way, and the appeals processes and death row sentences often eat up more cash than a life sentence would in many states.

The one big problem is that you don't go deeply enough into why you feel it's wrong. You call it unethical and barbaric, but you don't exactly tell us why. I'd say it's because it appeals to the worst in humanity; satisfying a sort of Biblical-style need for revenge on a societal scale, and for victims' families, personal. We feel we need to make ourselves the righteous and punish the guilty. It gives us Godly entitlement and satisfies revenge, two things I feel are morally reprehensible.

I won't go too much more into that because, well, that would be giving you a paper for free (;)). Think long and hard and get deep into the morality of it. Ask yourself: What about this very concept is morally negative for the human person? Show your reader why this is an 'amazing' moral atrocity, don't just tell them that it is.

All in all, it's still a good start. Good luck, and happy writing. :)

[I'm blue dabadeedabadie]

The essay could have used loads of more effective arguments-- impracticality, the massive amounts of court appeals, tax dollars, is one thing you didn't mention.

The fact that America is the only first world country to still condone it would be good to have mentioned as well.

You also should, in the topic of CP, cite all the available statistics-- mainly ones that explain how CP is not an effective deterrent.

Also, it could have been written in a more formal, or at least mature sounding tone. It reads too melodramatically.

(one more thing: you can't start sentences with "and").