Speech: Capital Punishment

The effect of a death caused by murder spreads far past the abrupt shortening of the victims own valued life. His or her personal plans for the future are prematurely aborted and they are robbed of their right to the experience of their life to come. Unlike suicide, tragic as it is, murder strips the life from a victim that presumably would rather have kept it. This we will always presume, as there is no way of telling how a dead person has reacted to their death, however their families and loved ones bear almost the full weight of this unwarranted departure and are expected to continue with their lives with nothing but photos and memories to fill the new found space. These loved ones’ anger is understandable. For a mother to outlive her child, especially when the reason for his or her life’s denial was caused by another person, is surely an immensely heartrending experience. The effect of such grief in a family or close community, while varied, can be significant and certainly permanent. It is reasonable that these people will desire some form of punishment to stand towards the offender, both to discipline them and to somehow make them pay for some of the pain they have caused, through some suffering of their own. This is where the justice system falls into place, a fair system whereby offenders are punished for their actions. It is in the hands of one or more unbiased outsiders who decide on the sentence, following preset guidelines that define the law. The justice system weighs up the seriousness of the crime, the circumstances present, and decides on a suitable reprimand.

Most people, consciously or subconsciously, make decisions regarding their actions (and responses to those of others) based on what they perceive to be morally right or acceptable. There are cases, however, where for a multitude of possible reasons this line between right and wrong is blurred or totally disregarded, often as a result of testing circumstances and high emotions, and people will act on pure reflex. This is why the justice system is so important. At the very least, the knowledge that we will be punished severely if we transgress the criminal law by committing a serious crime like murder or rape is likely to be one of the most important and socially positive experiences, ultimately shaping or altering our subsequent actions. It is obvious that a system that supports such weight must be watertight and completely unbiased. A significant flaw (or several) in a system so important is obviously going to cause problems in society. If society relies so heavily on the consistency and dependability of the justice system its imperfections must be accentuated and dealt with.

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the State or a serious crime, often known as a capital crime or offence, such as treason and murder. Capital punishment is a controversial and strongly debated issue, but an excellent example of where personal morals come into play in the justice system. In the past, capital punishment has been used in nearly all societies both to punish crime and suppress political dissent. Currently, it is reserved as a punishment for premeditated murder, treason, and espionage. In some countries with a majority religious based population, adultery, sodomy, and some religious crimes carry the death penalty. Other countries carry capital punishment for serious cases of corruption and human trafficking, as well as in military justice where courts-martial have issued death sentences for offences such as cowardice, desertion, mutiny and insubordination. As of 2005/2006, 88 countries have abolished the death penalty for all offences (including Australia), 11 for all offences except under special circumstances, 29 have retained without use for a decade or more and 69 countries have retained capital punishment fully, (including the United States of America). Is capital punishment effective overall, and an effective deterrent for crime? Is it a fair measure for justice, or is there too much of a risk of innocent deaths? Should capital punishment be re-introduced in many of those democratic and non-democratic countries which have abolished its use, including and specifically Australia? If so, does it need to be very specific, applying only to certain individuals in certain situations once a definite and fair protocol has been followed?

Sending those who have committed the most hideous of all crimes, murder, to be executed, effectively means the murderer by taking anothers life has forfeited the right to his own. The death penalty protects further murders or crimes from being committed – the recidivism rate (percentage of freed prisoners who commit further crimes) is 60% in the United States and 50% in England, and provides a deterrent for other would-be killers. If the prospect of going to prison where you are able to receive nearly as many amenities as before, if not more, (e.g. television) complete university degrees, even publish your own book, what sort of deterrent does it provide? Most Australian prisons provide education and training in various careers such as tutoring, computing, reception and administration. They are allowed to make purchases such as computers, televisions, and play stations, and a large majority of the prisons are also heated and air-conditioned[1], and the inmates receive three full (often hot) meals a day, with the freedom to choose their meals from the canteen. There is also no need to pay bills. The ability to confirm the guilt of a murderer increases as does the strength of today’s technology and crime fighting methods. The way in which capital punishment needs to function is that of a selective, thoughroughly checked process. For example, the recent reports of death sentences in Indonesia for “the Bali nine” drug mules. The difference in sentencing between the mules and the alleged ringleaders is an example of how the severity of the crime depends on the sentencing. If the death penalty was to be introduced, it would be for certain crimes and even in specific situations. For example, a man could be found guilty of murder, but under new laws be given one year for appeal, and if gains a successful appeal (innocent) is allowed to receive a lesser or no sentence. If the death penalty was to be introduced, it would mean all those found guilty would need a second trial close to the date of their execution to ensure innocence. In many cases it is agreed that capital punishment is the correct and only sentence for those who have committed. grievous crimes. One opinion amongst those who were surveyed in this assignment stated that the death penalty should be reserved for specific crimes, particularly convicted terrorists (also see bibliography). The death penalty is an effective deterrent for crime.

To play the devils advocate, there is a considerable and perhaps more justifiable argument presented by abolitionists of the death penalty. A fundamental example of basic rights is necessary but not present in every country in the world. A huge number of executions still occur, often in secret, for various so called political or religious reasons in what we consider a backwards and utterly inhumane manner and environment. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to life” (while we could consider that murder forfeits the right to the murderers life, there is still the large question of circumstance and accuracy and fairness of conviction). Article 5 of the Declaration states that, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment”. Not only does the death penalty come into conflict with that, but often the confession of cases occur under duress, or when torture, beating or threats have occurred,. In 1988, Gemandy Mikhasevich was executed in the Byelorussian republic on multiple charge of murder, rape and robbery. The case received wide public attention because 14 people had already been convicted of these crimes, one of whom had already been executed. Newspapers said the 14 were beaten and tortured until they confessed to the crimes. One of the 14 had gone blind in prison and another had been released with apologies after serving a 10 year term. Recently, President Bush has agreed to a ban on torture used by US army personnel, which has been considered a rather late move to adhere to the Declaration of human rights. Many states in the US still practice the death penalty. Another question about the justifiability of the death penalty is the execution of those who were found to be mentally ill or disabled, and the extent to which someone can be excused for murder due to what is called “diminished responsibility”. A well known example is that of James Terry Roach. He was executed in 1986. In 1977 he pleaded guilty to the murder of two white teenagers and to additional charges including sexual assault and kidnapping. He was 17 at the time. He was sentenced to death despite a finding by the trial judge that he had acted under the domination of an older man, was mentally retarded, and had a personality disorder. He was reportedly very passive, co-operative and wanted the approval of everyone around him on the day of his execution. By the time of his death, aged 25, he was found to have a total IQ of 70, that of a 11 to 12 year old child. One final, horrifying argument to the abolition of the death penalty is the reports of its inefficiency, no matter what the method. In Taiwan, for example, a prisoner was found to be breathing over an hour after the first two volleys from a firing squad had been fired. A Thai construction worker hanging in Kuwait in 1981 took more than nine minutes to die because, as medical reports revealed afterwards, his slight weight did not suffice to break his neck, and he died of strangulation. James Autry was executed by lethal injection in Texas in 1984. The US magazine Newsweek reported that “he took at least ten minutes to die and throughout much of that time he was conscious, moving about and complaining of pain”. In 1986 the Military Governor of Niger State ordered that people convicted of armed robbery should be executed slowly, by successive volleys of bullets fired at intervals, starting with shots aimed at the ankles. The Nigerian courts have passed at least 33 death penalty sentences since 1999. The Islamic Penal code of Iran stipulates: “In the punishment of stoning to death, the stones should not be so large that the person dies on being hit by one or two of them; they should not be so small either that they could not be defined as stones”, with the most recent case for execution by stoning being May 2001 for a woman for adultery, and is still in use. On the 28th June 2000, In Missouri, America, Bert Hunter had an unusual reaction to the lethal injection, his violent convulsions prolonging an agonizing death. Reports from the Deathpenaltyinfo.org website have numerous cases from the 1980’s up to this year of botched lethal injectionexecutions, considered to be more human than the gas chamber or electric chair, of up to half an hour for a vein to be found and around 10 minutes for the convicted to die. Not only that, but once the IV is connected, the inmate is left alone to die, and it was revealed recently that it was known that a percentage of the inmates are conscious and experience a drowning sensation and severe pain. A recent report by the Human Rights watch stated that the drug used in the third stage of the cocktail for condemned men has been deemed by vetenarians too cruel for putting down dogs and cats.

Capital punishment is a controversial and very much current issue. Is the death penalty justifiable as a form of punishment for political dissent, adultery or armed robbery? Is a life for a life the correct way to function, or in some cases a life taken for many lives? Can we justify the percentage of released inmates who recommit crimes, even though we cannot know in reality what the executed would have done once released? Is the main question the protection of further innocent lives from convicted murderers? It has been said that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than one innocent life be lost. Do we need to modify the method of trial used in those countries that use the death penalty? If all were to abolish it, do we need to modify the number of years without parol to a capital crime? If one has been found guilty of murder, treason, espionage or other forms of assault, are they entitled to receive three full meals a day, entertainment and a higher education and training when any life or opportunity has been unjustly taken from the victim? Do we need to investigate the desolate conditions those on death row are kept in even today? Even if the act of murder effectively forfeited ones right to life, can we tolerate the violent, often prolonged, painful and inhumane methods used to kill?

Although there are many considerable and justifiable arguments both for and against capital punishment, the most immediate action needed to be taken is the kind of treatment inmates on death row receive, and the methods of execution, Once that has been changed, we need to question the validity of the death penalty as a punishment, and the accuracy and circumstance it is delivered in, such as for world wide agreed crimes such as murder and acts of terrorism and perhaps not lesser crimes such as adultery or peaceful political dissent, no matter what the religion or beliefs. The questions facing the death penalty and the problems with it often depend on a personal point of view. I invite you to form your own opinion on capital punishment.