How Would You Feel Watching Someone Die Right in Front of You?

Many people never have or never will watch someone watch someone die by the death penalty. After reading an article explaining the D.C Sniper, John Allen Muhammed, and his experience with the lethal injection, I do not think that I could watch a life be taken. This does not mean I do not support the death penalty, but I do not know how people proceed with "handling" the situation or sit behind a pane of glass to watch it take place.  A reporter who watched stated, "He didn't say anything. At 9:07 you could see him twitch a lot. You could see him blinking a lot. You could see his breathing increase." He stopped breathing after just seven breaths. Lethal injection is just one way to die though. People have been executed throughout by hanging, electrocution, and even stoning or burning at the stake. I am not sure if any of these ways are acceptable, but maybe theres another one out there. A experience truly put to words the emotion of the actual execution. Muhammed was speechless and did not have any last words to say before his death, but what can you say to a bunch of people you do not know? Lethal injection might kill someone fast as it did to Muhammed but is there a better way than today's use of lethal injection to formally execute someone under the law?






http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-10/justice/virginia.sniper.execution_1_sniper-john-allen-muhammad-washington-area-sniper-larry-traylor?_s=PM:CRIME

Death Penalty and Abortion... Related?

While typing death penalty into the search box of Google, I noticed an interesting suggestion. It read, "death penalty abortion." I have never even thought about associating those two issues. After thinking about them, they do both have the commonality of killing a human being. In abortion, it is argued that that being is innocent, and most of the times there is no doubt about guilt while someone is being put up for the death penalty, but sometimes there is a question of innocence. This article that I came across (found at the hyperlink below), introduced me to the idea of hypocrisy between these two issues. Some people are against the the killing of unborn babies, while they are completely for the death penalty. While proving beyond a reasonable doubt proves guiltiness in a court room, there is still a small chance that a person is truly innocent. So how is it not okay to kill an unborn innocent baby, and kill an adult who may be innocent? How can people have two different views of killing people based on the fact of perceived innocence?

In my opinion, a baby does not know what is happening to them while in the womb, and they do set limits on how mature a fetus can be developed in order to have an abortion. I am not saying it is right to kill unborn babies, but to kill a person who knows their situation and has been living enough years to become an adult is not right either. If you have two different views on each issue, you may want to rethink the hypocrisy intertwined between abortion and the death penalty.


http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/letters/2011-01-31/death-penalty-abortion-expose-hypocrisy

Excuse Me.... SInce when has a Women been Executed?

Not many people have ever heard of a women being put to death through the American justice system. Researchers argue that women usually tend to commit less serious offenses than men, but many also say that courts do not convict women to the extent of the lethal injection or electrocution. Most people refuse to convict women of such a punishment due to the fact that it is proven that men have a much more violent nature. Whatever the reason, women have a much smaller conviction rate that men and the public is not aware of it. Most almost never hear of women being executed, since only about forty have been executed in the past one hundred years.

The Death Penalty states that only about two percent of the total people executed in the United States have been women. That is an extremely small number considering women are arrested for ten percent of all murders. That does not necessarily mean that the numbers should be the same for the amount arrested and the number executed, due to cases being judged case by case, but in my opinion they should closely correlate. These statistics prove that the numbers do not really match up.

Is this a coincidence, or is it the result of some time of injustice? What do you think is the cause of such possible injustice?

Insanity

Recently, I looked at an article, “Texas to execute mentally ill man in controversial case.” It closely examined a whole new aspect to the death penalty, insanity. Insanity within the judicial system is extremely controversial, and when the issue of the death penalty is brought into it, it becomes that much more complicated.

The story that the article focuses on is the case of Jeffery Wood, a man involved in a case of armed robbery. Wood’s defense attorney stated that Wood did not kill anyone in the incident, but it was rather his partner, Daniel Reneau. This past year, Wood has been appealing the death penalty that has been sentenced to him. But  according to the law, one can not be given the death penalty unless the crime they have committed involves murder.

Besides not even killing anyone, Wood was seen as mentally ill. But as I have learned in my Justice class, there is a big difference between mentally ill and mentally competent. In order to be put on trial, one must understand the situation and that they have committed the crime. As long as someone can understand that they are being put on trial, they can be tried, but this does not declare them mentally stable.

This presents quite the challenge. How should the courts determine if someone is mentally competent, and should that be determined by if they are mentally ill? Yes, most would agree it is not fair to execute someone if they have a mental disability, but some argue they are still a threat to society. Would it do the victim and their family justice to send the perpetrator to the hospital until they are mentally stable? It is hard to answer these questions, and it has been debated in the legal system, but yet a solid response has yet to be reached.

So what should happen in such cases at Jeffery Wood? Put aside the fact that he says he did not personally murder the victim, but rather that he was involved in a murder case, but is seen as mentally insane. Should the courts be able to give him the guilty verdict of the death penalty if he is “mentally competent?” 

Is it Worth the Moolah?

Many people would assume most peoples problems with the death penalty, morality...right? Many have a big issue over the cost of the death penalty. The editors acknowledge the issue about the price of the punishment because they want to convince each state of another different reason the death penalty should be banned. The New York Times recently released an article that argues that the cost of the lethal injection is a huge issue, that not only affects the government or the person being put to death, but also the community as a whole.

The New York Times asserts many facts about different states and their costs for completing the punishment of the death penalty. New York Times believes that the money should be spent elsewhere. They complain that the mass amounts of money are spent on the execution itself, high security and maintenance, and the long tedious appeals process which may take about fifteen to twenty years.

Personally, I believe that the cost of the execution is quite insane. The New York Times insists, "Perhaps the most extreme example is California, whose death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year beyond the cost of imprisoning convicts for life." This means the citizens of the state are paying for crimes committed by an individual. Yes, the community would be paying in taxes for the guilty persons life imprisonment, but in relation to the death sentence. the price of imprisonment just cannot compare.

Not does the New York Times claim only is the death penalty morally wrong, but they hope that the states will pay more attention to an economic view of the issue. It is argued in the article that, " If lawmakers cannot find the moral courage to abolish the death penalty, perhaps the economic case will persuade them to follow the lead of New Mexico." Morality may be argued differently between diverse groups of people, but money is money. Nobody wants to spend money that is not needed and is one-hundred percent preventable.

I agree with the economic standpoint that the death penalty is very costly, and that the taxpayers should not suffer do to an unrelated person proven guilty of a particular murder. Morality though, is seen differently by every person of a society so it is hard to say what is right or wrong, but cost is not really debatable. Millions of dollars spent by the public is expensive, no one wants higher taxes than what they already have to pay. I do not think it is right it is the duty of the taxpayers to pay for a crime that they did not take part in. Who's responsibility do you think it should be to pay the millions of dollars that the death penalty costs?


Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28mon3.html

Effective or Not?

The Article, “Does Death Penalty Save Lives? A New Debate “, published by Adam Liptak examines the relationship between the death penalty and the crime rates. It is focused towards the public trying to reason whether or not the death penalty is justifiable or not. The article mentions multiple opinions throughout the article, so it is hard to identify the author’s true opinion and where he stands on the issue. He mentions however that some research has shown that the more executions that have taken place, the more the crime rate has decreased. He also reveals that many experts also say that there are far too little executions for data to prove that theory.

Liptak then discusses the expense of following through with the death penalty. Justin Wolfers, an economist, states that money should not be spent on the lethal injection, and rather the money should be focused towards other causes, such as the prevention of crime, which he suggests would have a greater impact. Liptak identifies his point that there is not sufficient data to determine whether the death penalty is effective or not.

This article was written in 2006, so there has been more research done, but with such a small amount of executions performed, the article states about 1 in 300 homicides result in the death penalty, so it is still hard to tell whether the death penalty prevents other crimes due to a lack of evidence.

I believe that the death penalty probably does not significantly change the crime rate because the crazy people out there do not question whether or not to kill someone based off the fact that they may get the death penalty. I also agree with the fact that the death penalty is quite expensive, but also maybe necessary in certain cases.  If people continue to kill, the price of the death penalty is less than multiple lives that may have been prevented. Some also may suggest life imprisonment, but taxpayers also pay for the guilty to live their lives under a federal or state roof.

Liptak is writing to question the public on whether or not the death penalty is efficient or not and should people consider different options. Should the United States reconsider the death penalty due to its effectiveness or ineffectiveness?

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html

Why the Death Penalty?

My blog topic is concerned with the issues of the Death Penalty. I chose this topic because it is so controversial and most people have an opinion or something to say about it. I am interested in this topic because it relates to my major and I am particularly interested with crimes and the punishments that fit a certain crime. There are many different sides to the death penalty argument, and many people take different things into account. For example, how the person was brought up might affect their view on the death penalty, or even who the suspect is and crimes they have committed beforehand. Some say it is inhumane, and we have laws against murder, but others think it is only fair after the crimes they have committed and the damage they have done. Im leaving this question to the audience, "Do you think the Death Penalty is acceptable in our society?"