Persuasive Speech on the Death Penalty

Introduction

            The rate of violent crimes in the United States is one of the highest in the world despite the fact that the US has one of the harshest penal systems in the world. To this end, the US criminal justice system has been on the receiving end of numerous criticisms with regard to its effectiveness in controlling crime. The subject of contention relates to the form of justice adopted and determining which method is effective between restorative, retributive and punitive punishment models. Intertwined with this is the issue of the use of the death penalty as a form of punishment for high profile crimes (Johnson and Johnson 517). Should the criminal justice system adopt a more lenient approach and abolish the use of the death penalty for capital offenses, or should it embark on a more restorative form of justice? This paper argues for the use of the death penalty in the criminal justice system as a form of administering punishment to capital offenders.

The first reason why the death penalty is a justifiable form of punishment is because it guarantees public protection. Mandery (147) maintains that the main appeal of the death penalty is that it guarantees that capital offenders will never get their way back to the streets. In addition, the death penalty addresses the potential loopholes associated with the prison system; in this regard, the death penalty guarantees that capital offenders are incapacitated completely and will never escape out prison. In the light of this view, Mandery (147) argues that the death penalty is a surer sanction. In addition, Mandery (148) argues that the only way that the streets can be free of capital offenders is through the death penalty, which in turn, guarantees public safety and protection.

The second reason why the death penalty should be incorporated as a form of punishment for capital offenses stems from its retributive power. Hodgkinson and Schabas (178) assert that capital offenders such as rapists, violent robbers and murderers require sufficient punishment because of the monstrous nature of these capital crimes. In this regard, Hodgkinson and Schabas (178) maintain that the death penalty matches the gravity of the capital offenses committed. The underlying argument is that capital offenders need to face an execution that has an equal gravity as the crime committed. Since human civilization, humanity has always viewed taking another person’s life is only punishable by death. According to Hodgkinson and Schabas (178), it is apparent that the death penalty is both retributive and punitive. From the punitive perspective, it is only justifiable that capital offenses can be punished by subjecting the offender to the same situation that the offender placed his/her victim. From the retributive point of view, it is justifiable that that the death penalty is the only equal punishment that can be administered to capital offenses such as murder (Gavrilă 82).

The third argument in favor of the death penalty is that it guarantees crime deterrence. Atwell (45) maintains that the death penalty offers sufficient deterrence of potential capital offenders; the death penalty is unquestionably harsh and its deterrence impact cannot be underestimated. According to Atwell (46), the death penalty is in line with the goals of the criminal justice system, which is preventing criminal behaviors. Basing on the rational choice theory, the most effective crime deterrence method should place emphasis on stopping individuals from participating in deviant or criminal behavior by influencing their rational decision making process (Neumayer 25). From this perspective, Atwell (48) asserts that the deterrent capability of the death penalty can be attributed to the severity of punishment. The death penalty is the harshest punishment and guarantees deterrence, public safety and retribution.

A number of arguments have been raised against the use of the death penalty in the criminal justice system. First, the death penalty does not offer offenders a second chance to rehabilitate their behavior, which is one of the core objectives of the correctional system. In this regard, Bradley (487) maintains that the death penalty is a more punitive model that fails to address the root causes of criminal behavior such as rape, homicide and violent robbery. Bradley (490) argues that the death penalty uses a reactive approach instead of a proactive approach, which entails addressing the core social issues that influence’s deviant and criminal behavior. However, Atwell (48) refutes this argument on account that rehabilitation cannot be undertaken at the expense of public safety and that rehabilitation is rather probabilistic, which is contrary to the surer sanction of the death penalty.

Another argument raised against the death penalty stems from the irreversible nature of the punishment. In this regard, Bradley (488) asserts that the death penalty is vulnerable to cases associated with wrongful executions and provides no room to review the conviction. In this regard, Bradley suggests alternative forms of punishment with equal severity such as life imprisonment without parole. These alternative forms of punishment provide reasonable grounds for the death penalty to be abolished. For instance, life imprisonment without parole is equally severe and addresses the loopholes associated with the death penalty such as wrongful convictions.

In conclusion, it is evident from this paper that the arguments in favor of the death penalty outweigh the arguments raised against the death penalty. The principal argument is that capital offenses can only be punished by capital punishment such as the death penalty. To this end, the death penalty guarantees public safety and retribution, and is a surer sanction. Therefore, the death penalty should not be abolished in the criminal justice system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Atwell, Welek. Evolving Standards Of Decency: Popular Culture And Capital Punishment. New York: Lang Peter, 2004.

Bradley, C. “The Juvenile Death Penalty and International Law.” Duke Law Journal 52.3 (2002): 487-535.

Gavrilă, Adina. “Should The Death Penalty Be Abolished? Arguments For And Against The Centuries-Old Punishment.” Journal for Communication and Culture 1.2 (2011): 82-98.

Hodgkinson, Peter and William Schabas. Capital Punishment: Strategies for Abolition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Johnson, Jeffery and Colleen Johnson. “Poverty and the Death Penalty.” Journal of Economic Issues 35.2 (2001): 517-523.

Mandery, Evan. Capital Punishment in America: A Balanced Examination. New York: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011.

Neumayer, Eric. “Death Penalty Abolition and the Ratification of the Second Optional Protocol.” The International Journal of Human Rights 12.1 (2008): 3–21.