Capital Punishment Essay

Observation through time displays that people clearly have tendencies to rebel against the rules and often break the law. Crime can practically be found in any part of the United States from small misdemeanors to capital offenses.Throughout history, there has been major controversy as to how these capital offenders such as murderers, should be punished. On one side of the scale, it is believed that although these offenders have committed a terrible crime, the man does not deserve to die, but deserves to sit and rot in jail for the rest of their lives without possibility of parole. On the other side of the scale it is believed that these murderers deserve die for their crime. These death penalties date back to as far as medieval times where …show more content…
Thier reasoning comes from an old biblical phrase that has used for many years “an eye for an eye”. In other words this means that those who do something wrong, deserve the same harm done to them as punishment in return. Ernest van den Haag says that “humans are responsible for their actions and should be punished in proportion to the crime” (qtd in “Capital Punishment” (1). With this being said it is clear he believes that those who commit small crimes deserve small punishments, while those who commit murders deserve to die. Many wouldn’t only argue that the death penalty is just, but that it also prevents murders from happening. Jay Johanson states that during 1965 and 1980, which was a period in which the death penalty had a few occurrences due to it being banned in the 1970s, the numbers in homicides increased dramatically. Once the Death penalty resumed in 1995 with aggression, the annual number of homicides had decreased. He states that if the death penalty is applied consistently then the homicide rate in america will ultimately decrease (1). Those who are in favor of the Death Penalty have many reasons why they support it. One of these reasons is that those who are murderers are placed in prison for life instead of being executed, could potentially harm or kill other inmates or possibly Correctional Officers. These …show more content…
If a man were wrongfully accused, convicted, and placed in prison with life without parole, the man could possibly become a free man again if he was later proven not guilty. With this is as the case, if he were placed on death row and killed, it would then be too late to change anything if he was proven innocent in the future because he would be dead. An innocent man would have been murdered in the hands of the government. Not only would it be terrible if an innocent man were killed, but also somebody who is mentally ill and has no control over their actions. Sam vaknin says, that those who have mental illnesses should not be killed for things that they simply can not control, they should be placed in a mental hospital to receive the proper care and help that they need (1). This is true, if somebody acts out because of an illness, it should not be legal for the government to kill them for it, they should be put into a position where they can 't hurt anybody and receive as much help as possible. According to Susannah Sheffer, the death penalty is not the proper punishment for violent crimes, especially for those who are mentally ill (1). The biggest issue with Capital punishment is that the current law is unconstitutional, so it should not be legal in the United States. John Paul Stevens says that the 18th amendment in the constitution clearly “prohibits the use of