Death Penalty Rebuttal

A rebuttal I wrote to the previous blog entry.

The death penalty is at times the only way to ensure justice. The individuals on death row are there for a reason, they committed serious crimes and thus must be executed in order to ensure the safety of others. These criminals who have committed crimes against their victims must suffer the consequences of their actions. These consequences must be to put the criminal to death for the crime or crimes that they have committed.
These criminals strike fear into the average individual because of the sadistic nature of their actions. The average, everyday, law-abiding citizen should not be put into a situation in which they should have to suffer from fear of the potential aggressive acts being performed upon them by the criminal. Most individuals follow the rules of this nation, and should have been forced into a situation where they should fear the man next to them. One person should not have to fear that the individual next to them is a murderer who is going to commit heinous acts upon an innocent person. These sadistic individuals who commit such disgusting acts against an innocent person must be put to death for what they do.
The victims need to be taken into consideration when examining issues with the death penalty. There is often much press attention dedicated towards the individuals who are on trial for such unlawful actions, however the victims and their families don’t benefit from this in anyway. It only serves as a constant reminder of the brutality that once occurred to these individuals and their loved ones.
The death penalty is not about retribution or vengeance, it is about justice. When a severe crime is committed against a victim, it not only affects them but their family and the community, as well. There needs to be justice for the victims and their families, and justice for the community. There have been serious crimes committed against people and the community, and those actions should receive the punishment that they deserve. The use of capital punishment can serve as a way for the victim’s friends, family, and community to have closure with the situation.
The thought that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent needs more evaluation. There is conflicting evidence to whether or not the death penalty deters people from wanting to commit crimes. Some recent research goes against the common mold of the days, and states that there is a possibility that capital punishment does indeed act as a deterrent to prevent serious crimes from being committed (Pew Forum).
At times, convicting a person to life in prison is not enough for the context of the situation. The individual may be the worst of the worst and must suffer the consequences of their actions. If the individual is not convicted so suffer death, then there is a possibility of them still carrying out their sadistic crimes while they are in jail, or there is a small possibility of escaping where they could continue to inflict fear upon people. For these kinds of situations, it is more proper to put the individual to death, otherwise there could be more innocent lives lost if the criminal offender is allowed to live in prison with a life sentence.
If one of these extremely heinous individuals is allowed to receive only life in prison, the possibilities of their sadistic actions reaching more individuals increases. There is an increase in the possibility of the criminal offender teaching his ways to those serving lesser crime sentences. The heinous criminal offender can thus “educate” other criminals in how to commit more devastating crimes, thus increasing the possibilities of the criminal activities occurring even though the original offender is serving life sentences. Another situation is the criminal offender speaks with individuals on the outside and spreads his sick message to other potential criminals that may then carry out the murders in similar ways.
With recent developments in technology, especially within the field of ballistics and DNA testing, it eliminates the possibility of innocent individuals being convicted of crimes that they did not commit. As a result of these advances, innocent individuals who were thought to be the offenders of serious crimes were found to be innocent and set free. These increases in technology allow for more evidence against a criminal to be brought to the trial, so that the jury can fully understand the situation within its given context, and thus the offender can be sentenced justly for the actions that they have committed.
There tends to be great support for the death penalty by American citizens. “Recent support for the death penalty reached its peak in the late 1980s and early 1990s… the number of people in favor of executing convicted murderers climbed as high as 80 percent” (qtd from Pew Forum). The numbers have dropped since that time period, “today, 62 percent of the public supports capital punishment for people convicted of murder” (qtd from Pew Forum). This doesn’t show a reason for supporting the death penalty, but shows the statistics that a great deal of American citizens support the act of putting a convicted criminal to death for their unforgivable actions. With a large number of individuals supporting the legislation, it appears that it will be difficult for the death penalty to be reversed any time in the near future.
In the past few days, the most common form of capital punishment, lethal injection, was on trial for being considered cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the drug used for lethal injection did not cause enough pain to fit under the statement of being cruel and unusual punishment (qtd from Pew Forum). This means that the lethal injection is still considered a constitutional act.

Works Cited:
1. Fears, Darryl. “After Court Ruling, States to Proceed With Executions.” Washington Post
April 2008. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. April, 27, 2008.
< newsid="15464">
2. Masci, David. “An Impassioned Debate: An Overview of the Death Penalty in America.”
Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. 2008. April, 27, 2008
< http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=270>.