A Permanent Death Capital Punishment

A Permanent Death - Capital Punishment

Let American Consumer Counseling Help you Get Out of Debt!

A

Permanent Death - Capital Punishment

There are five basic reasons that society
uses when imposing "punishment" that I've been able to conclude from my
readings. I will discuss these societal concepts and show that the death
penalty does not serve to further them. As a result William Smith should
not be subject to the death penalty and in fact the same should be abolished
from our system of "punishment".

Deterrence

Deterrence is basically defined as "the
punishment should fit the crime." Under this concept, the individual committing
the crime and society are prevented from committing this action again.

In the case of the death penalty, an individual kills another human and
he is "punished" for it by death. Punishment is supposed to be a temporary
penalization for a wrongful action. Death is far from temporary. One is
to learn from one's mistakes. How can the person learn if they are paying
for their mistake with their life? In Ernest van den Haag's article, "The

Ultimate Punishment: A Defense" he states, "The death penalty is our harshest
punishment. It is irrevocable: it ends the existence of those punished,
instead of temporarily imprisoning them." (Haag, 251). By imposing the
death penalty the individual does not learn from their mistakes and neither
does society.

Economy

Under this concept, punishment should
be economical. As Haag points out, "...the monetary cost of appealing a
capital sentence is excessive." (Haag, 253). Further, "...actual monetary
costs are trumped by the importance of doing justice." (Haag, 253). Additionally
there are specific costs associated with keeping an inmate on death row,
(i.e. the cost of the specially built prison blocks, the need for maximum
security, etc.) and more. These costs clearly out weigh the regular costs
incurred to house a regular inmate. Deterrence is clearly not served by
imposing the death penalty and society aims for justice are thwarted.

Restitution

Society demands that the punishment should
fix the harm it has done. By sentencing a person to death no harm has been
fixed. You can not bring the murdered person back by taking the prisoner's
life. "Punishment-regardless of the motivation is not intended to revenge,
offset, or compensate for the victims suffering or to be measured by it."
(Haag, 253).

Retribution

The community demands that justice be
served. Would justice not equally be served and in fact may be better served
by life imprisonment? I believe it would be a worse punishment to endure
a life sentence in prison. The individual is deprived of his liberty. He
will then suffer and live the rest of his or her life within three lonely
walls and a set of bars. It gives the individual time to think and wallow
in his own guilt.

Someone kills another. The State then proceeds
to kill him for doing so. This is not punishment but revenge. Revenge is
inconsistent with society's demands that justice be served because the
punishment has to fit the crime. Justice Brennan has insisted that the
death penalty is "uncivilized, " "inhuman," inconsistent with "human dignity"
and with the "dignity of life." (Haag, 254). Brennan speaks of moral imperatives.

It is morally wrong for someone to kill someone. If so, then the state
is committing a morally wrongful act. As they say, "two wrongs don't make
a right."

Rehabilitation

Society desires for its members to reintegrate
themselves into society. Punishment includes preparing the person to reenter
society and lead a productive life. Without doubt, if you impose the death
penalty there is no opportunity for rehabilitation.

Overview of the William Alvin Smith case

William Alvin Smith robbed and killed
the owner of a grocery store in Georgia when he was 20 years old. He turned
himself to the police and signed a confession. The local jury condemned

Smith to the electric chair but a federal judge ordered a new sentencing
hearing for Smith on the grounds that he lacked the ability to understand
the significance of waiving his rights to remain silent and to have an
attorney present. Smith has the mental capacity of a ten-year-old.

Analysis of the William Alvin Smith Case
in Relation to Society's Expectations of Punishment

William Smith stands before you guilty
but guilty of what? That is the question. I propose to you that the only
thing we can condemn William Smith for is being guilty of being a child
and acting the way a child would. Let us examine his actions. William Smith
in whatever state of mind he was at the time he committed this act fully
acknowledged that he did in fact do something wrong. I propose that he
did that in exactly the manner that a child would go to a parent and admit
their wrongdoing in order to obtain the parent's forgiveness or perhaps
their help.

The State now stands in the role of parent
in this case. Let us examine the position the State has taken when dealing
with children that have committed violent crimes. I have but one question
to ask: Do we kill our children? Let me give you a recent example - the
teenage girl in New Jersey who knowingly and premeditatedly murdered her
newborn baby at the prom and then went back to the prom dance. Another
case comes to mind of the teenagers who conspired and did murder the girlfriend's"competition." An even better example would be the rash of murders committed
in the nation by children in schools. In all these cases these children
knowingly committed the heinous crime of murder.

Once again I ask you: Do we kill our children?

Has the State, exercising its discretion decided to impose the death penalty
on any child? In every single case that I have just cited, these children
have not been condemned to murder but their ability to comprehend the seriousness
of their actions and other factors related to their youth have been taken
into account. All have been sentenced to prison terms to be served in a
youth facility.

Another legal fact comes to mind in that
some teenagers that have committed murders have petitioned the Court to
treat the minor as an adult. The law allows a juvenile to be treated as
an adult if it is determined that the juvenile in fact is a juvenile in
age only yet has the mental capacity of an adult and should be treated
like one. It stands to reason that there is room in the law for the inverse
to apply.

Why should this man die? He can not think,
act or feel like a "normal" 20 year-old man. In this case, we have a situation
of a person who has been adjudicated to have the mental capacity of a ten-year-old.

How can we then shut our eyes to this basic fact of William Smith's mental
capacity and just look at age as the overriding factor to consider when
punishing him for his crime?

Society demands that the punishment fit
the crime. I have outlined above what society expects from punishment and
the punishment that the State decides to give out to children in these
matters. On both accounts it is clear that society is not served. Can you
examine your conscience and decide to give a child, maybe your child, the
death penalty? If so, go ahead and sentence William Smith to death and
in doing so, that's exactly what you will be doing. You will be deciding
- let's kill our children.

User Comments