In the United States, capital punishment is applied a legal penalty meant to deter the commission of serious crimes. In the country, at least thirty states, military, and the federal government practice capital punishment (Breyer 89). Of the several western countries, it is only the United States that adopts this form of punishment. The current paper is seeking to argue that capital punishment is appropriate for serious crime deterrence, reduction in the cost of prison management, and addressing the current overcrowding of penitentiaries.
In America, there has been and continues to be a substantive debate on capital punishment. In other words, the bone of contention is whether capital punishment ought to be instituted against crimes such as school shootings and murder. However, an interesting point is the conversation on the contributions of capital punishment in addressing the pertinent subject of prison overcrowding in America. On the other hand, Vollum argues that capital punishment leaves behind several casualties and ruptures and the restorative justice should be considered instead (75). In my opinion, adhering to this line of argument will not help in reducing cases of murder and school shooting that has rocked the United States of America. The rate of serious crime in the country has increased exponentially in the last decades. The situation has led to some politicians, human rights activists, and citizens to demand that capital punishment should be applied for severe crimes including murders and school shootings. Moreover, this paper considers that the application of corporal punishment will effectively act as a crime deterrent. In this regard, criminals who engage in these heinous crimes will realize that there are serious repercussions awaiting them. Consequently, the fact is that at no given point in time will everybody support meting out capital punishment on offenders. As much as opponents of the death penalty claim that active participation of the victims in the process of justice helps in mitigating the effects of the crime committed (Vollum 59). The true position is that offenders must face the full force of the law for taking the lives of other people.
As much the nature of crimes committed are serious and interferes considerably with the lives of victims, several arguments have emerged to either support or denounce capital punishment. In the case of those individuals who advocate for capital punishment, there is a perceived feeling that it will help in the reduction of the number of prisoners who are currently overcrowding these penitentiaries. On the other, people who do not support the institution of capital punishment argue that the action is unacceptable and dehumanizes criminals. The opponents of capital punishment reiterate that it is wrong to take the lives of criminals because it is sanctified by the Almighty God. However, I assert that criminals who commit serious offenses such as murder and school shootings need to be hanged too. The rationale for this argument is that once individuals take the precious life of another, they also forfeit their right to live and that the capital punishment is aimed at the crime per se. In some cases, it has been argued that death penalty exacerbates or leads to the harm and grief of the crime as it fails to take into account the potential of restorative justice processes (Vollum 73). However, the capital punishment should be considered as the best action towards retribution.
Similarly, it is imperative to point out even if capital punishment is applied to realize a significant reduction in the number of prisoners in the correctional facilities, it would not entirely address the current challenges of overcrowding. In addition, I have a feeling that most people would support capital punishment as a method of dealing with overcrowding in the prisons in America. The truth is that capital punishment is just one of the numerous ways that can be used to solving the problem. Ideally, there is a need to explore other effective means so as to attain the multi-pronged approach to decongest the overcrowding penitentiaries. Such methods ought to be supported and acceptable by the majority of Americans in order to realize a greater degree of sanity in the society. However, “the overriding theme in many of the statements was dissatisfaction with the long process between the murder and the execution” (Vollum 82).
The subject of capital punishment cannot be discussed without delving into its economic implications. The growing number of prisoners in the correctional facilities means that the government has to allocate more resources to them. In this regard, the cost of maintenance and managing these prisoners is always high. Therefore, if capital punishment is applied, there will be a significant reduction in the number of resources required for upkeep. The use of this strategy will have a ripple effect on taxpayers as they may receive better or improved services instead of the money being allocated to prisons in the country (Leigey 64). However, this points out that any reduction in the amount tax will hamper the operations of these correctional facilities in the short-term such as loss of jobs in the case of guards and other employees. In addition, it suffices to mention that the adoption of capital punishment by the government as a means of reducing overcrowding in prisons is likely to be expensive in the formative stages. However, after all the required policies and institutional plans are operationalized, the cost of running these prisons will be substantially lowered. Despite the favorable economic gains envisaged in this arrangement, underfunding of correctional facilities may yet pose serious challenges. Ideally, just like other government institutions and agencies, the prisons should not be under-equipped as it can lead to unrests and anarchy. As Leigey reports, in most prison cells most capital offenders enjoy their lives and would not engage in behaviors and activities that are illegal as a way of protecting the quality of life (50). This situation ought to be reversed by carrying out frequent capital punishment as they indiscriminately enjoy taxpayers’ money.
The overriding goal of penitentiaries around the country is to help individuals reform and be re-integrated back into society. In most cases, those who jailed are repeat offenders who fail to conform to societal expectations. In this regard, such persons ought to face capital punishment in order to create safe areas for people to live in peacefully. The issue of capital punishment cuts across several disciplines including socio-cultural, political, economic, and legal facets of the society. Consequently, it is paramount that all stakeholders involved should look for appropriate solutions to ensure that there is continued tranquility in the country. However, Vollum writes:
In the scholarly discourse on the death penalty, the term “justice” is bandied about quite a bit, but it is rarely considered in the context of those on whose behalf justice is being exacted when an execution is conducted (84).
For a long time now, there has been a debate on the ethical nature of capital punishment. However, an adoption of either side of the debate is influenced by beliefs, practices, knowledge, and attitudes of the stakeholders. Practically, it is wrong to take the life of an individual for a crime committed, but it should be equally noted that committing an offense in the first place is not acceptable. In addition, the commission of a crime may be dictated by a number of social and cultural issues that need to be examined in approaching the practice of capital punishment (Breyer 6). The idea is the capital punishment ought to be applied as a mechanism for availing life-long lessons to individuals who have a greater propensity to engage in serious offenses such as murder and indiscriminate school shooting that has been witnessed in the country in the recent past. The capital punishment will be integral in restoring order in American society and inculcate a culture of tolerance among the people through effective retribution.
Furthermore, some people have argued that in implementing capital punishment, the feelings and the aspirations of the affected families ought to be put into consideration. However, the proponents of this nature of punishment assert that victims too deserve better treatment in the first place and therefore, the question of leniency on criminals should not arise. In other words, by taking the lives of other people, the offenders prove the lack of concern and respect for the rule of natural justice.
In conclusion, the subject of capital punishment has elicited a protracted debate on its ethicality and the outcomes. In the past decades, American society has experienced rising cases of serious crimes including murders and an indiscriminate school shooting. In this regard, the current paper supports the institution of capital punishment as a way of reducing the challenge of overcrowding in prisons around the country. Moreover, this kind of punishment will help substantially in deterring the bludgeoning crime rate in America while at the same time relieving the taxpayers of the cost of maintaining and managing prisoners.
Works Cited
Breyer, Stephen. Against the Death Penalty. Brookings Institution Press, 2016.
Leigey, Margaret E. The forgotten men: serving a life without parole sentence. Rutgers University Press, 2015.
Vollum, Scott. Last words and the death penalty: Voices of the condemned and their co-victims. LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2008.
