Contradictions in the Theme of the Death Penalty

“Controversial, giving rise or likely to giving rise to public disagreement.” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). The Death Penalty defines controversy, the subject of whether your going to kill someone for a specific crime or give them jail-time. This topic has many different viewpoints, because of the objective of granting someone’s death. The Death Penalty, although very controversial is also debated whether it should be used or not. Though some people believe the Death Penalty should be kept and expanded, others believe that it’s a waste of time, effort, and very illogical.

First off, the death penalty reduces the crime rate all around the United States. The University of North Carolina had stated “every execution of a murderer deters, on average, 18 murders.” From this, it’s considered that crime becomes less common due to the fact that there’s an imminent threat of death. Statistics from Researcher Karl Spence of Texas A&M, “there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders… But within a few years, with 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250.”(Source 1) Within these statistics, it has shown that with few executions, murder rates would be on the rise. The death penalty also grants the fact that crime would go down “22%” (Source 4), meaning less break-ins and minor league criminals. This allows the benefit of the economy and safety of a regular citizen.

The death penalty also allows the government to be more involved and help discipline the community in a positive way. With the death penalty so imminent, it’s easier to discipline with the gigantic threat of death. Of which, being able to control large populations like the United States as a whole. “Two dangers constantly threaten the world, order and disorder” stated Paul Valery a french poet on the discussion of government. This concept applies to the death penalty because with using the penalty, theres order to our government and to the people threatened by these mass murderers and terrible criminals. Although, with disorder if there’s no such law as this, these terrible people could still have influence over the inmates put with them and could harm many others in prisons. Contributing to the fact of overfilled prisons.

Eliminating the worst of the worst.. What many of these people become accustomed to, because of the crime that they commit. This what the death penalty was made for, the riddance of the horrific humans. The reason, not letting a legacy live on for many to follow. Often times, when leaving prisoners alive who commit acts of terror, “they become influentials” (source 1), meaning they still have influence to the outside world. The death penalty, is an efficient system to downgrade the fact of letting these people live on, but to stop them from harming and persuading others.

Although there are very good points backing up requiring the death penalty, there are many situations/reasons where the death penalty should be abolished. This penalty, is often a waste of time as “it took almost an hour to find a vein and complete the execution of Jack Jones.” (Source 5). Thus, how much effort and time to execute someone is overall a waste of time because you can throw them in prison for life, rather than wasting time and resources. The United States has had way to many problems with the death penalty, “the U.S. has struggled to make the practice of capital punishment appear peaceful and precise… failed to transform into a bureaucratic operation” (Source 5), this explains how situations go down, as they aren’t “comfortable” to all.

Also showing how again the death penalty isn’t effective on these terms. Furthermore, there’s huge amounts of effort and work in determining someone for this penalty. They have to be examined by many judges and qualified by much of the government to be in the requirements. Overall, there’s many months to determine and qualify, while the easier option without spending time and money is putting them in jail for life. Also, the death penalty takes into account the executions that are less common, such as firing squads or electrocution. Even though those are some examples from the past, it still would of been an “unconstitutional” (Source 5) consequence. In an electrocution, you experience 2000 volts of electrocution running through your body, with this pain it harms your body immensely and very badly. Exclusively, the amount of pain a person would feel would kill them experiencing terrible amounts of pain.

Secondly, abolishing the death penalty, would ultimately benefit the mentally ill, that get in situations like these. Many of the current mass-shootings, the shooters were affected mentally, that made the trigger to kill and pursue horrible things. First off, when entering a courtroom, with jurors, they often don’t consider the fact that ones mentally ill. (Source 2). This allows an unfair advantage because a person with a mental illness is sick and needs actual help. Giving someone with this sickness a death wish wouldn’t benefit anyone. With ridding of the penalty, many people suffering with mental illness could then recuperate in a learning/stable prison to help the person affected. “Those suffering from a mental illness can be more vulnerable to police pressure and more likely to give false confessions.” (Source 2).

This also affects the death penalty, because if they were involved, but didn’t do anything bad, it’s makes someone who’s mentally ill very vulnerable and frightened. Ultimately affecting the outcome of that person, and inconsideration of the whole situation. In addition, rather than punishing someone mentally impaired, the government could help them evolve passed this state of terror. Getting people with these traits real help, instead of wasting time and effort killing someone whos sick. “While the Supreme Court of the United States prohibited the execution of people with mental retardation in the case of Atkins v. Virginia… it is not yet ruled unconstitutional.” (Source 2). This explains that situations such as these have been evaluated and considered, yet no change, but without the penalty, there would be a difference in consideration.

Overall, the discussion of the death penalty stimulates the minds of many people all around the United States. It’s a very “harsh” topic to be discussed because it brings up many different viewpoints and personalities into the mix. It’s somewhat fragile because there’s many qualities that go into it, and many decisions that alarm people and often shock the public. It’s oftenly a debate that ends on a stalemate and thats because of the controversy that’s involved within this subject. Moreover, it displays both viewpoints benefiting society and harming society, because it’s already a set standard, and if its changed it may either benefit or harm. In other words, our society could be affected in a miserable way, or in a beneficial way. As there are many, many perspectives with this, many people think that the death penalty should be expanded and kept, while others think its a waste of opportunities, effort, and overall time. In the end, this penalty has been around since the early ages. Within kingdoms of beheading and within the early times of civilization.