About Death Penalty

Kiwon Kim


Mr. Guista

English 103

April 15th, 2010

The Necessity of the Death Penalty

Should we abandon the death penalty or implement it? This argument has been disputed for a long time and never solved. Since ancient times, the death penalty has been enforced. However, after the seventeenth century, Enlightenment thinking and its ideas about human dignity by philosophers like John Locke challenged the death penalty. After that, many people opposed the death penalty. Arguments about whether the death penalty should be abolished persist to this day. The reason that the argument cannot be resolved is that both sides stick fast to their respective opinions. Opponents of the death penalty maintain that an innocent person might be executed by mistake and capital punishment cheapens the value of human life and dignity. That’s why the opposition insists that the death penalty should be rescinded. However, I think the opposition’s arguments are wrong and the death penalty should exist to save wasted resources and prevent crimes.

The opposition argues that an innocent person might be executed by mistake. They assert that the judge might sentence a person with faulty evidences or incorrect verdicts. If someone is executed by mistake, nobody can revive him. A well-known example involves the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed for conspiracy to commit spy. According to the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were indicted for conspiracy to transmit classified military information to the Soviet Union. The chief evidence against the Rosenbergs came from Greenglass, Ethel’s brother, and his wife, Ruth. Both Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were found guilty and executed the death sentence. However, the case aroused much controversy. Many claimed that the political climate made a fair trial impossible and that the only seriously incriminating evidence had come from a confessed spy and also according to “The ABA Moot Court trial,” in 1993, members of the American Bar Association re-enacted the 1953 trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, a moot trial conducted with expertise and meticulous concern for accuracy The unanimous verdict of twelve jurors was “Not Guilty.” Many opponents of the death penalty fear that similar mistakes continue to be made. Overall, according to “Death Penalty Information Center,” from 2000 – 2007, there has been an average five exonerations per year. Therefore the opposition argues that the death penalty should be abolished in order to avoid sending an innocent person to death.

However, the risk of such error is extremely low. We can’t deny that the death penalty is the punishment to kill the people no matter what the reason is. Sentencing the death penalty is absolutely pressure to the judges and the jurors. But the one incorrect verdict can put an end to innocent person’s life in a moment, so the judges will try to reduce the mistake. When the judges sentence the death penalty, they will reflect not only their opinions, but also the other judges’ or the jurors’ opinions. According to “For an Honest Death Penalty,” by Alex Kozinski and Sean Gallagher, there was a man named Mr. Harris who was executed in 1992. Before he was executed, his case was reviewed by at least thirty judges and justices on more than twenty occasions over thirteen tears. His case can’t represent the all the death penalty cases, but I want to show you that how much the judges put their efforts not to make exoneration. The efforts of the judges and jurors can reduce the percentage of misjudgment.

Moreover if you calculate the percentage of the exoneration, then you can see well how little the percentage is. For example, “in 2008, there were 16,272 cases of murder and 89,000 cases of forcible rape.”(Dept. of Justice) Both crimes deserve death sentence. Among the crimes, “111 people were sentenced the death penalty.”(DPIC) Among those sentenced to death, “there were 4 exonerations in 2008.”(DPIC) It means the percentage of possibility of mistake is only 0.0038%. This percentage of mistakes is not enough to abrogate the death penalty. It is like flying. People fly even though there is the rare possibility of accident. Death penalty is the same. To isolate the cruel criminal from society forever, we should take a tiny risk, or the criminal is released from prison and kills other victims.

The opponents also maintain that capital punishment cheapens the value of human life and dignity. They argue that although criminals have committed horrible sins such as murder, rape, etc, it is undeniable that criminals are also human beings and have equal rights and dignity. According to George Ryan’s work, “Speech Announcing Commutation of All Illinois Prisoners’ Death Sentences.,”

If by ordered death, society is really protected and our homes and institutions guarded, then even the most extreme of all penalties can be justified. Beyond its honor and incredibility, it has neither protected the innocent nor deterred the killers. Publicly sanctioned killing has cheapened human life and dignity without the redeeming grace which comes from justice metered out swiftly, evenly, humanely. (617)

However, the one who discriminates between criminals and citizens and cheapens the value of human life is not the government, but the criminals themselves. When using the death penalty to isolate the criminal eternally, a government considers deeply and carefully. However, the criminal commits murder only for their pleasure or by accident. When the criminal murders someone, he/she already invades the victim’s human dignity. It is ironic that the one who disrespects the others dignity insist this dignity as a human. We do not need to keep their dignity. If there is someone who maintains the criminals’ rights or dignity, he might seem to ignore the victim’s right or dignity. The victims’ or citizens’ dignity is more important than criminals’, so death penalty should exist. Besides, for protecting citizens, we should allow the death penalty. It will stop to repeat the offense.

The world economy is depressed and some states like California are in financial emergency. In this situation, we should save our resources. Compare the cost of the death penalty with the cost of life imprisonment without parole, and you can figure out how economically better the death penalty is. According to “Death Penalty and Sentencing Information,” by Dudley Sharp, the cost of life imprisonment without parole is $3.1 million dollars per year. This price is calculated $34,200 per year for 50 years, at a 2% annual cost increase, plus $75,000 for trial and appeal. In contrast to, the death penalty case cost $1.88 million dollars per year which is from $60,000/year for 6 years, at a 2% annual cost increase, plus $1.5 million for trial & appeals. It is no doubt that the cost of the death penalty is obviously less than life imprisonment without parole. The margin between the cost of death penalty and life imprisonment without parole is 1.22 million dollars. I think there is no difference between death penalty and life imprisonment without parole. To the criminal, both punishments are hopeless. The difference is only who dies first. This allows the death penalty and executes the criminals, saves the resources for supporting the sick and the poor who cannot afford to study. This support is an investment for the future of the country and gives hope to the sick and the poor.

Through the death penalty, we can not only save resources, but also deter crimes. Death is the biggest fear for a human being. Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of Qin, tried to find medicine for living eternally in whole his life, though he couldn’t find it. This story shows how people fear death itself. The fear of death is same now and then. The existence of the death penalty gives a warning to criminals, and thus deters crime. For example, according to the article, “How Punishment affects crime rates,” by Jon Silverman, “in England and Wales, the murder rate has risen substantially since the death penalty was abolished in 1965.” It shows the death penalty had prevented the crime rate before the death penalty was abolished. There is another example. It is Singapore. Singapore still enforces the death penalty, and according to Singapore Police Force, their overall crime rate was reported 1,021 per 100,000 citizens in 1998 and decreased 715 per 100,000 citizens in 2007. Those two examples show that death penalty can prevent the crime rate.

In summary, opponents insist that an innocent person might be executed by mistake, but the percentage of incorrect verdicts is too low to argue to rescind the death penalty. The oppositions also maintain capital punishment cheapens the value of human life and dignity. However, what cheapens the value of human life is not capital punishment, but crime that violates the victim’s dignity. The death penalty has advantages of lowering the crime rate and saving resources. In conclusion, if there is one thing to request readers to do, that is to obey the law. The law is the minimum duty that people should follow.

































Work cited

“Death Sentences in the United States from 1977 to 2008.” DPIC(Death Penalty Information Center). 15. April. 2010. .

“Innocence and the Death Penalty.” DPIC(Death Penalty Information Center). 15. April. 2010. .

Kozinski Alex and Gallagher Sean. “For an Honest Death Penalty.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed, Barnet Sylvan and Bedau Hugo. 8th ed. Boston. Bedford/St.Martin’s. 2007. 654-657

“Rosenberg Case." The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia. publishing as Infoplease. 14 Apr. 2010 < http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0842422.html>.

Ryan George. “Speech Announcing Commutation of All Illinois Prisoners’ Death Sentences.” Current Issues and Enduring Questions. Ed, Barnet Sylvan and Bedau Hugo. 8th ed. Boston. Bedford/St.Martin’s. 2007. 612-625

Sharp Dudley. “Death Penalty and Sentencing Information.” 1. October. 1997. 14. April. 2010. .

Silverman Jon. “How Punishment affects crime rates.” BBC News. 21. November. 2005. 14. April. 2010. .

Singapore. Police Force. Beyond the Call of Duty. 14. April. 2010 .

“The ABA Moot Court Trial.” Journal. 10. August. 1993. 14. April. 2010. .

United States. Dept. of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Violent Crime. September. 2009. 14. April. 2010. .