 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
CourseworkHelp
:Capital Punishment
There are lots of ways to punish the criminals
but it isn't all about punishing them. Punishment can be used as a deterrent
to stop the criminal committing crime and also to stop others as well.
Punishment can also be a form of retribution or revenge on criminal for
their actions. It makes them suffer for their crime. It can also be a
form of protection to society from the criminal. The criminal could be
dangerous and it could be for the public's safety and the criminal's well
being if he is punished. Punishment can also be a form of reformation,
so they can change the criminal's ways and make him/her less likely to
commit another crime.
There are lots of different types of punishment,
not all of which are present in our society, but are in others: fines,
torture, community service, curfews, attendance centres, jail sentences,
tagging, have your privileges taken away, execution, detentions and many
more.
All of the above punishments are used appropriately
according to the crime committed. Most are used in our society but one
in particular is not- execution. In this essay I will write about whether
I agree or disagree with this statement:
"God
gives life and only god can take it away"
I will give reasons for my answer showing
that I have thought of more than one point of view.
Capital
punishment is the execution for a crime. There are lots of ways to execute
people. Nowadays the only types of execution include gassing, the electric
chair, lethal injection, firing squad and hanging. In our society we don
not use capital punishment as it was permanently abolished in 1970 after
a five-year trial. But in some countries it is still in use. Some people
believe that it should be brought back to deter and to take revenge on
the criminals.
The theory of deterrence for capital punishment
in some people's eyes should be brought back as it would deter the criminals
and others from committing a crime. Those in favour of harsher punishments
usually argue that it should be brought back because in their eyes if
some one does something wrong then they should receive a punishment fitting
for the crime they have committed.
The
arguments for bringing it back can be fully debated. One argument is that
it puts off potential murders as in the theory of deterrence. Some say
that capital punishment protects civilians and police from violence. People
against the cause say why don't they just be put in jail? The argument
for is heavily weighted because they can say that after they have served
their prison sentence they will be let out again and therefore be a threat
to society again and re-commit more crimes. So if they are put to death
then they will not be able to re-offend and be a threat to society any
more.
Another argument for the bringing back of
capital punishment is that it has been in existence since the beginning
of time- so why stop doing it now? It can be traced back to thousands
of years before Jesus' time and proved to be useful.
At the moment as there is no death penalty
the next thing down is a life prison sentence. This so-called "life
sentence" is imprisonment not for life but for only about 25-30 years.
In the eyes of some people, if the crime they have committed is severe
enough and they get a life sentence then they believe that it's the easy
way out and is not punishment enough. Some supporters for the cause have
views on how much a crime is worthy enough for death. Murder or attempted
murder should be punished by death and with constant petty crime, it should
also be considered.
Capital punishment adequately expresses societies
total abhorrence of murder or crimes of equal disgust. Capital punishment
if it were in use shows in reality the way society thinks about people
that commit such crimes and how these crimes will not be tolerated.
One of human natures natural reactions is
revenge. Therefore it is only natural that if a crime of some magnitude
is committed that it be retaliated in an act of revenge. In this case
it is the death penalty. As it is no longer in use, society cannot take
its revenge out on the criminals and cannot get their own back. One type
of crime that is very strongly felt should be punished by death, is terrorist
activities. Terrorism over the last 50 years has been responsible for
hundreds of thousands of deaths. Terrorists do this to put a political
view across and to make sure that there view is heard, but why could they
not just use diplomatic methods? Surely it would be easier than putting
whole communities at risk. As people for the cause believe that these
people are a huge risk to society, their view is that these terrorists
should be expelled permanently by the death penalty.
Some people for the case of capital punishment
believe that the law should be based on the idea of "An eye for an
eye, a tooth for a tooth." In simple terms what you do wrong should
be done back to you. E.g. if you kill someone, you should be killed also.
This view can be backed up in the bible in the book of Leviticus chapter
24:17-20. It says:
"If
the person strikes another and kills him, he must be put to death. Whoever
strikes an animal and kills it is to make restitution, life for life.
If anyone injures and disfigures a fellow countryman it must be done to
him as he has done- Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth."
This isn't necessarily true as in some peoples
eyes capital punishment should be for a fitting crime like in the punishment
of Achan (Joshua 7:20-26). In this story it tells of how Achan stole 2
kg of silver, 1/2 kg of gold and a beautiful Babylonian cloak. Achan confessed
and Joshua and the Israelites took him and all of his family and possessions
to trouble valley where they were stoned to death and burnt his possessions.
Once this was done the lord was no longer furious.
This shows that God allows and supports the
death penalty. It proves that it should be allowed and be brought back
as a punishment or to simply protect society.
In 1975 the British government
ruled that only certain types of crime were punishable by the gallows.
These offences were killing police officers, using guns or explosives,
killing two or more people and killing during a robbery. In 1965 after
much debate capital punishment was suspended for a 5-year trial period.
In 1970 it was permanently abolished. One of the debated reasons was because
of the way the law condemns murder, but then goes on to murder in the
name of the law. Punishing murder by murder is not right. That's one reason
against the case of capital punishment. Another reason why some people
are against the thought of bringing it back is because of the role terrorism
plays in our society. If a terrorist were caught and punished by death
then it would turn the convicted criminal into a martyr. This is not right
making these political extremists into martyrs. Surely it would be better
to imprison these people and at the same time keep them out of societies
way.
A life sentence is another option instead
of the death penalty. In the state of Texas in the USA where the death
penalty is still carried out, it costs on average $2.3m to prosecute and
execute convicted criminals each year, whereas it costs only $400,000
for life imprisonment. This is a massive saving, which could help the
surrounding communities fund for things that are needed.
*
It has been statistically proved 80% of murders are not pre-meditated.
This means that 80% of murders are not planned but are spur of the moment
accidents. It would then seem extremely unfair to punish the murder by
death. This still doesn't take away the fact that it is still murder.
The murder should be punished but not quiet as severely as death. A lot
of people believe that capital punishment would be the easy way out and
they would be escaping a real punishment. So killing the offender would
be like letting them off, which isn't the aim of punishment. The aim of
punishment is to either deter, protect, reform or to take revenge (retribution).
The theory of reformation is an effective punishment that includes an
attempt to reform the criminal (make them see they have done wrong and
turn their ways). This aim of punishment is one that is implied to young
offenders to help them turn away from crime. Capital punishment makes
a complete mockery of this theory. It doesn't give the offender a choice
to right the wrong that they have done previously. Rather than kill the
so-called murderer, we should begin to study their motives and the pressures
society has put them under. This would help us in reforming them.
One of the uses of capital punishment is
to deter other criminals from committing more crimes. This doesn't necessarily
deter. Some speakers of Englands general synod of the Anglican Church
backed this view in 1983. They made the following points: 1. God is merciful
and man shares in God's merciful nature. 2. The taking of a life as a
death penalty devalues human life. 3. There is substantial doubt that
capital punishment has any significant deterrent effect. 4. The abolition
of capital punishment gave prison chaplains a chance to work for the reform
of all prisoners rather than just some of them.
In point 2 it says that capital punishment
devalues human life. Some people believe that all life is sacred and questions
society on the right it has to end it. There are several biblical teachings
that back this view up like Jesus' teaching about revenge in Luke 6:29-30.
It says:
"You
have heard that it was said: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
But now I tell you do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If anyone
slaps you on your right cheek, let them slap your left too. And if someone
takes you to court to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as
well. And if one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack
one kilometre, carry it two. When someone asks you for something, give
it to him; when someone asks to borrow something give it to them."
This teaching tells us to be generous. If
someone does something to offend you, you should forgive them. Another
biblical reading that backs up the view against capital punishment is
"A woman caught in adultery" in Johns gospel (John 8:3-11).
It says:
"The
teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman who had been
caught committing adultery. 'Teacher' they said to Jesus. 'In our law
Moses commanded that such a woman must be stoned to death. Now what do
you say?' He said top them 'Whichever one of you has committed no sin
may throw the first stone at her.' He said to her 'Where are they? Is
there no one left to condemn you?' 'No one sir' she answered. 'Well then'
Jesus said, 'I do not condemn you either. Go, but do not sin again.'
In this teaching Jesus didn't condemn the
woman he forgave her. This shows that humans are able to forgive others.
By learning what this teaching means and relating to capital punishment,
we can try and follow Jesus' example by forgiving.
If someone commits a crime then we should try and forgive them
and punish them accordingly.
Lots of different people have lots of different
views on capital punishment. Some people believe that if it were in today's
society it would act as a deterrent. But then people against the cause
would say that there is no substantial proof to back this up. It could
be used as a deterrent but would it work? Other people would say that
instead of trying to rid them of society forever we should reform them
and help them so they can help society. That point could also be argued,
as you cannot necessarily guarantee the reformation of every criminal.
Some might be mentally unstable and there would be no way in which you
could help them immediately. I believe that capital punishment should
be brought back but only used in certain cases like the Pope said in his
statement:
"
Execution should only be used in cases of absolute necessity, and when
society is put danger and would not be able to defend itself otherwise".
This is the view I have and I also believe that 'life imprisonment' should mean life imprisonment, not just 25-30 years. This should be used more than the death penalty, as it is a fairer punishment, which also allows reformation to take place as well as retribution and protection. I believe as it has already been proved that neither punishment works as a deterrent, they should be punished for the first three reasons. I believe deterrence does not work.
If you still can't find any of the coursework that you are looking for, click here to look at over 30,000 GCSE, A-Level and University Level essays on Coursework.Info.