POSITION PAPER FOR DEATH PENALTY

Introduction

Death penalty has been an inalienable part of human society and its legal system for centuries,
regarded as a necessary deterrent to dangerous crimes and a way to liberate the community from
dangerous criminals. However, later on this type of punishment came to be regarded as a crime
against humanistic ideals by many, and its validity in the legal system has been questioned. Until
now, the debate rages on. This resulted in a wide discrepancy of laws on this issue. Some nations
including China, the US, Iran, Belarus, and others preserve the death penalty as an option, while
others like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and almost all European nations have abolished capital
punishment. Still others keep the norm in their legislations, but have de facto suspended execution of
criminals sentenced to capital punishment. This paper will seek to prove that death penalty has to be
preserved as a valid means of prevention serious crimes. It will examine the effect of death penalty
on society and its relevance to the protection of interests of common citizens.

Background

The history of death penalty is almost as old as the history of mankind. Various means of capital
punishment involved burning, hanging, drowning, crucifixion, breaking on the will, boiling to death,
electrocution, firing squad, gassing - the list can be continued. The choice of a particular method in
Europe in the Middle Age, for instance, depended on the social status of the condemned. Painless
and respectable ways were reserved for the aristocracy; and more painful for the common people,
such as hanging or breaking on the wheel. In other cases, the choice of the method was warranted
by the time of crime: witches and heretics had to be burned at the stake. Capital punishment was
envisaged for a broad array of crimes, including robbery and theft, even if nobody was physically

harmed in the action (Wikipedia). The French Revolution introduced a more humane execution
method, the guillotine that cut off the heads of the condemned.

The first decision to abolish capital punishment was made by the Grand Duke Leopold II of Habsburg
in Granducato di Toscana (Tuscany) on 30 November 1786. The duke cancelled the penalty and
ordered to destroy all the instruments of murder in his nation after being influenced by the book the
Italian Cesare Beccaria Dei Delitti e Delle Pene "On Crimes and Punishments". The anniversary of
the decree is since 2000 celebrated as a holiday in Tuscany.

In 2004, as reports Amnesty International, 3,797 people in 25 nations were executed. China
accounts for the bulk of these executions - 3,400 cases. Kuwait is the leader in the number of
executions per 100,000 residents - 400 compared to 260 in China and 230 in Iran, the runner-up on
the total number, 159 (Wikipedia). In most nations, death penalty is used to punish criminals for war
crimes or serious crimes associated with physical injury. In Asia (Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand) it is
used to punish for drug-related crimes, even though these crimes are mot related to physical injury.

As part of anti-death penalty movement, this call to repeal this measure has been upheld by various
international organizations. For instance, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,
which among other things forbids capital punishment for juveniles, has been signed and ratified by all
countries except the USA and Somalia (Wikipedia). Some international conventions such as the
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Sixth
Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights have been adopted, although they only bind
nations that have ratified them. Organizations like the European Union demand from new members
the abolition of death penalty as a condition of entry. Thus, there is a significant pressure on nations
to cancel it. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are two prominent organisations
fighting against death penalty.

The issues involved in the discussion of death penalty usually focus around two main parts. First,
this punishment is analysed from a purely utilitarian perspective in an effort to find out whether
application of capital punishment really helps to deter crime and reduce the risk of recidivism, when
criminals commit repeated crimes. The evidence for this is sought in crime rates in regions and
nations where executions are carried out. Second, supporters or opponents of death penalty need to
find out whether this penalty can be acknowledged on moral grounds, solving the problem of
whether human beings are justified in killing other human beings.

Although the arguments stated remain basically the same throughout history of the discussion,
evidence can vary, and the findings, although controversial, can tilt the public opinion to one or the
other side. Thus, the support for death penalty surges in nations where especially outrageous
murders take place. On the contrary, a lower criminal rate reduces the support.

Argument

Death penalty, in my view, has to be supported on the ground of just retribution for murder. Still, I do
not believe in death as a form of punishment for drug dealers, however heinous their activities might
be, since they did not violate human lives. Political crimes should not be punished with death either,
as this would open the way to political repression and physical elimination of political rivals, as it
happened in Stalin's times in the Soviet Union. However, when a person murders another person,
death is the right kind of retribution. This is analogous to penalties imposed for instance for robbery
or theft - the criminal often has to forfeit one's possessions for taking the property of another person.
Similarly, it is fair that one who has consciously taken the life of another person should suffer death.

In a research paper Is Capital Punishment Morall Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs
by Cass R. Susstein and Adrian Vermeule, the authors suggest that death penalty is morally justified
on the basis of distinction between acts and omissions. Most opponents of death penalty argue that

it is barbaric for a government to take a human life since there is a difference between an act, such
as killing a person, and omission, such as refraining from the act. But, researchers argue, by
forbidding official penalty, government officials de facto allow numerous private killings that are left
unpunished. However, a government that fails to maintain the welfare of the citizens by omitting
death penalty from the criminal code will leave citizens unprotected and decrease their welfare just
as would a state that failed to enact simple environmental measures that could save a great many
lives (Sunstein, Vermeule 2005:41). Therefore, punishing the criminals is a necessary part of any
state policy. The interests of victims or potential victims of murders cannot be overlooked in order to
consider the interests of the criminals guilty of the most heinous crime - taking a person's life.

One of the most important arguments in favor of death penalty is the fact that it helps to deter capital
crimes. This issue is debatable since there have been suggestions that application of death penalty
has no serious effects on the rate of murders, for instance. Besides, opponents of death penalty
claim that it is not possible to deter so-called crimes-of-passion committed in an emotionally affected
state when a person is not capable of thinking about future punishment. However, there is evidence
that application of capital punishment can indeed prevent crimes, even those that are committed by
intimates.

A study by Joanna M. Shepherd Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and Deterrence of Crime
points to the existence of a correlation between the number of crimes and death penalty. To find this
relationship, she looks at monthly murder and execution data using least squares and negative
binomial estimations. Her conclusion is that one execution helps to avert three killings on average.
Capital punishment also has an effect on murders by intimates and crimes of passion. The influence
is evidenced by rates of crimes committed by victims of both European and Afro-American descent.
The deterring effect of death penalty, however, was found to be reduced by longer waits on the death
row. As a result of this trend, one less murder is committed for every 2.75-years reduction in death
row waits (Shepherd 2003:27).

Another paper exploring the relationship between crime rates and death penalty is State Executions,
Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder by Paul R. Zimmerman uses U.S. state-level data over the
years 1978-1997 to find out if capital punishment indeed has a deterrent effect. The paper, in
evaluating the deterrent effect of capital punishment, adjusts the data for the influence of simultaneity
and therefore comes up with estimates of a deterrent effect that greatly those of previous findings.
Zimmermann has found that the estimates imply that a state execution deters approximately
fourteen murders per year on average Zimmerman 2004:163). Besides, he has established that it is
the announcement of death penalty that drives the effect.

The above-mentioned findings suggest that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is present and
should not be neglected. If the killing of one criminal can prevent at least three, or fourteen deaths,
by different calculations, this opportunity has to be exploited. We cannot forgo an opportunity to save
the lives of honest, innocent, law-abiding citizens. Although any human life is precious, the efforts of
the society have always been directed mostly at maintaining the well-being of those who live by its
rules. They are getting more economic benefits that anti-social elements and can enjoy a more
secure future. Thus, these people have to be protected by the law in the first place.

Death penalty, however improper it may seem from the point of view of defending criminals' interests,
is a guarantee of no repeat crime (NCWC). Evidence of repeat offenders returning to normal life is
scarce, and instances of recidivism are abundant. Once again, the solution depends on the main
goal set for the legal system: is it to defend the interests of everybody alike or is it designed to
support those who spend their lives without harming each other? If we side with those who believe
that the system should in the first place support those who are law-abiding, the focus will be on
prevention of deaths though murders as the greatest evil generated by crime. Despite the abovementioned deterrent effect, we cannot effectively prevent crimes by first-time offenders. It is much
easier to prevent those by repeat offenders.

One of the most outrageous instances supporting the above claim was the incident that happened in
Alabama prison in 2001: Cuhuatemoc Hinricky Peraita, 25, an inmate who was serving life without
parole for 3 murders was found guilty of killing a fellow inmate (Recidivism). The killer was finally
sentenced to electrocution. However, if he had been sentenced to death right after the first murder,
the other three could have been prevented. The life of an inmate who died at the hands of Peraita is
no less valuable than his own. In fact, I strongly believe that it could have been more valuable:
maybe that person has repented and was going to return to the society a re-born person? Maybe
that person was not guilty of such a heinous crime as murder? Unfortunately, there is too much
evidence that certain individuals tend to commit murder while others are less prone to it. Death
penalty would then free society from the return of such individuals.

Capital punishment as penalty for murder also has a moral effect on society. It signals to the
criminals that murder is a serious crime the community feels strongly about. In fact, it creates the
useful perception of human life as something so precious that taking it has no justification. Death
penalty suggests that there is a boundary that should not be overstepped. This should send a
message to society members that taking a person's property, however reprehensible, is not to be
condemned via taking a life. On the contrary, murder will not be tolerated, and people who have
committed this crime should be removed from society as incapable of social living.

Another common argument given in favour of death penalty is an economical consideration.

Comparisons differ depending on the bias of the people carrying out the comparison. Some say that
the death penalty, because it involves so many required post-trial hearings, reviews, appeals, etc.
ends up costing more than life imprisonment (NCWC). However, these extra expenses have to be
diminished through increasing the cost-efficiency of the legal system, and society that is spending
huge amounts on legal services would benefit from such a reform. Just considering the cost of
keeping a 25-year-old inmate incarcerated till the end of one's life is startling and endorses the view
that society has to select death penalty as a cheaper option.

Refutation

Opponents of death penalty have given a number of arguments to support their position. In the first
place, it is opposed by people on religious grounds. Representatives of various religious groups
claim that only God can take a human life and human being are then not sanctioned to kill each
other. However, in the Hebrew Scriptures there is evidence that Jews applied death penalty to
criminals for selected types of crime. The only instance in the Christian Scriptures includes punishing
by death for lying about Church donations: Acts 5:1 to 11 describe how a couple, Ananias and
Sapphira sold a piece of real estate (Religious Tolerance). The couple was killed for lying about the
size of the proceeds from the sale of a house in an effort to conceal part of their income.

Proceeding to the Christian Scriptures, one finds some evidence that was said to be indicative of
Christ's opposition to death penalty questionable. Thus, there is a renowned episode with the female
sinner (John 8:3 - 8:11) who was supposed to be stoned to death and saved by Christ saying He
that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. Jesus was not in fact censuring the
right to kill the woman according to the ancient law. Besides, there is evidence suggesting that this
passage was not present in the original version of the Scripture and was later added by an unknown
person (Religious Tolerance). Besides, the passage from Matthew 5:21-22 is supposed to condemn
killing: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall
kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." These words implicate a person who kills out
of anger, but is hardly applicable to cases where a person is murdered through a verdict of qualified
jury.

Thus, Christian intolerance of death penalty appears doubtful. To negate death first of all would
mean the moratorium on wars that take lives of more people than death penalty. The war casualties
are often innocent peaceful people who just happened to be caught in the cross-fire, unlike recidivist

criminals who end up on death row. Yet most Christian states prepare military doctrines and
demonstrate to each other readiness to employ their military machine to kill people if necessary. Still
others are practicing war if it suits their political goals. How significantly will then abolition of death
penalty forward the goal of living a Christian life?

The same argument applies to the anti-death penalty claim that the legal system should not be
allowed to execute because there is a possibility of a legal mistake that will result in the death of a
wrong person (NCWC). On these grounds, wars have to be forbidden in the first place since they
keep killing people that are not to blame at all. They either do their best fighting for their motherland
in expectation of a heroic death or just, as mentioned before, get caught in cross-fire. Thus, any
nation that does not exclude a war should not exclude death penalty that is a much more balanced
mechanism. Besides, the legal system is unfortunately prone to mistakes, as are all social
institutions, but this does not mean that they should not be used to carry out their functions. Most
other penalties like imprisonment take a heavy toll on human life, yet they are applied to criminals,
even if there is a threat of ruining a person's life by mistake. Besides, returning to the incident in
Alabama in the previous section, a person dying at the hands of an acknowledged murderer in
prison is also a fatal mistake of the legal system. If the system rightfully recognized the capacity to
continue killing in the criminal, his final victim would have saved his life.

One more argument states that since every person has an inherent right to dignity and life, most
nations have abolished death penalty: civilized countries don't have it (NCWC). First, it is still
preserved in many nations including the US that fits into many criteria of a civilized country. Besides,
quite a few nations that have it in their penal codes like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Barbado, Bangladesh enjoy a relatively low crime rate. This underscores that death penalty
adequately serves the main purpose of the legal system: to protect law-abiding citizens.

Conclusion

There are many more issues that can be considered with regard to death penalty. One can evaluate
the racist argument, for instance, claiming that death penalty is more often imposed on AfroAmericans than European Americans and see how it relates to crime rate in the two groups.
Besides, ethical perspectives on this issue can be diverse and supported by many different theories.
With the arguments presented above, however, it seems clear that there are many valid reasons in
support of death penalty. On the contrary, anti-death penalty arguments need to be assessed
critically, as, for instance, the religious argument.

Further research into the topic is necessary, with more authoritative studies on the deterrent effect of
death penalty on the criminal rates, tracing various states in the US as well as evidence from other
nations. It would also be interesting to examine the historical background of nations that have both
capital punishment in their law codes and extremely low crime rate to see how death penalty affects
crime rates. On the more practical level, it is my deepest belief that currently capital punishment has
to be preserved in order to protect potential victims. Any consideration of the crime rate cancellation
would become viable if the crime rate at least for murders goes sharply down. At present, however,
capital punishment serves as an important barrier on the way of criminals ready to take another
person's life.

Bibliography

North Carolina Weslyan College. Death Penalty Arguments & Internet Resources.
<http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect15.htm>.

Recidivim. < http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/repeat_murder.htm>.

Religious Tolerance. Capital Punishment: The Death Penalty: All Points Of View.
<http://www.religioustolerance.org/execute.htm>.

Shepherd, Joanna M. Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital
Punishment. Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 283-322.
<http://people.clemson.edu/~jshephe/DPpaper_fin.pdf >.

Sunstein, Cass R., and Adrian Vermeule. Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance
of Life-Life Tradeoffs. Working Paper 05-06. <http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?
id=1131>.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Capital punishment.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment>.

Zimmerman, Paul R. State Executions, Deterrence and the Incidence of Murder. Journal of Applied
Economics, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 163-193.
<http://www.cema.edu.ar/publicaciones/download/volumen7/zimmerman.pdf>.