capital punishment as a failed ideology
...y where government protects the people from any unnecessary harm and morality proves capital punishment unjustifiable and wrong. Proponents of the death penalty have always insisted that capital punishment is a stronghold of our society in protecting the people, and have often based their arguments on providing for the good of society. Edward J. Allen, in response to various accusations against the death penalty, argued in favor of the death penalty. Opponents of capital punishment suggest that the death penalty does not deter crime. However, Allen, in his article Capital Punishment: Your Protection and Mine, states that there is no definitive proof that the death penalty is not a deterrent and therefore, capital punishment does deter crime. Contradicting the belief that the death penalty "brutalizes" human nature, Allen contends that the opposite is true - unpardonable murder brutalizes human nature and cheapens human life, not the penalty for its perpetration. He claims that capital punishment is the guarantee against murder and the brutalization of human nature. Challengers of the death penalty often argue that swift and certain punishment is more effective than the deliberate killing of so-called "criminals". However, the quick punishment is not always the just punishment. Suppose a bank robber was quickly and certainly given a thirty day imprisonment. Also, suppose that a rapist was swiftly and certainly given a $25 dollar fine for the brutalities that he had committed. Would either punishment honestly deter the criminal from perpetrating the same acts again? Obviously, such hurried judgments cannot be the most just. Therefore, swift and certain punishment is not more effective than capital punishment in preventing crime, nor does its swiftness provide the safety which society seeks from its government. Allen proposes that the deciding factor in the case of the death penalty should be the consideration of justice - the primary, if not the sole business of the government. It is the duty of the government to protect the people and capital punishment is one safe method by which the government can do so. Jacob Vellenga, in his article, Christianity and the Death Penalty, argued against the propositions of those opposed to the death penalty. Vellenga states that opposition to capital punishment is not for the common good of society but sides with evil because it shows more compassion for the criminal than the victims of the crime and it weakens justice and encourages murder. Society should not look away from the pain that victims of crime feel. Rather, society needs to give support to those who hurt, rather than worrying about the welfare of the criminals. Once a person commits a crime of terrible proportions, that person gives up his right to society and should no longer be considered a part of it. Each murderer knows that taking a life is wrong and should be prepared to suffer the same fate of his victim if he chooses to take a life. However, opposition to capital punishment would have justice undermined by the abolition of the death penalty in that criminals would not feel deterred by the possible punishments for their crimes. As J. Edgar Hoover once suggested, no one, unless, he can probe the mind of every potential killer, can say with any authority whatsoever that capital punishment is not a deterrent. If there is no proof that capital punishment does not deter crime, then society must continue to utilize it as a means of protection against terrible crimes. Vellenga also suggests that opposition to capital punishment is weak because it does not distinguish between murder and killing, crime and punishment. As Edward J. Allen indicated, the death penalty does not "brutalize" human nature; rather, murder abuses human nature and robs innocent people of their rights and privileges. The death penalty is the response to the brutal and shameful acts of violence committed by the criminal. It is the only sure means by which society can be safe from terrible crimes. While proponents of capital punishment may appear to make a strong case in favor of the death penalty, in reality, capital punishment cannot be justified by any argument. Josh Rubak reflected the idea that capital punishment is ineffective as a deterrent and it is morally wrong. He argued that the criminology involved in capital punishment cases is unsound. Capital punishment by its own methodology is not rehabilitative, not punitive, and overtly brutal. Rubak suggests that the death penalty fails as a deterrent because people assume that the punishment for the crime is known before the crime is committed and that the criminal knows that he will get caught. If a criminal knew that he would be caught and knew the consequences of his actions, it would not make sense to commit the crime. Therefore, capital punishment fails as a deterrent because people continue to commit brutal crimes. Rubak also indicates that capital punishment is more expensive than keeping a criminal in prison for life. The costs involved in death penalty cases (jury selection, extensive trials, appeals, maintenance of death houses, etc.) exceed those of any other...