The misconceptions of capital punishment

There are few issues more contentious than the death penalty. While other democratic nations have abolished and condemned the death penalty, the United States is one of the last to still carry out capital punishment. In spite of this fact, I believe the use of the death penalty in the U.S. can be justified in cases of murder. Capital punishment does not violate human rights and is an essential part of any judicial system. 

I imagine that I am taking a very unpopular position among the student body at Columbia University. Therefore, to prevent any misunderstanding or animosity, I feel it necessary that I state that my beliefs have nothing to do with the political party I happen to affiliate with. I came to support capital punishment after studying the issue and looking at the facts. I also feel that I must state that while I support the principle of the death penalty, I still hold some reservations on its implementation in the United States. In order to better understand my beliefs on the issue of capital punishment, I think it necessary to clarify some misconceptions about the death penalty. 

First of all, it must be understood that the death penalty does not violate human rights. It seems funny to me that those against the death penalty will ardently fight for the human rights of a murderer while ignoring the rights of a victim. Doesn’t a victim have a right to life that was infringed upon by a murderer? The U.S. Constitution guarantees many rights. It is understood that the rights to prosecute are given to the state when the law is broken. After all, there is no outcry when citizens are incarcerated for robbery. Is this not a violation of their right to liberty? No, it is understood that the state had the right to take away their right to liberty after they committed a crime. Even the Fourteenth Amendment states that the right to life, liberty, or property can be withheld after due process of the law. This country only issues the death penalty by means of due process. Therefore no human rights are violated.

Secondly, the death penalty is not a form of revenge—it is a form of justice. If the death penalty is simply a form of legalized murder used to exact vengeance on a murderer, then life imprisonment is a form of legalized kidnapping. We are not “stooping to the murderer’s level” by carrying out the death penalty because the murderer is receiving due process for his crimes (something, I would like to add, they denied their victim). The execution of a murderer follows a trial and appellate review. It is not a form of revenge, but rather a form of justice. 

Finally, it must be understood that the death penalty does not deter murder. (I can imagine the joyful cries of those opposed to the death penalty who think they have caught me in a trap. That’s right, I agree with you guys. Confused yet?). The purpose of any punishment is not to deter, but to enact justice and remove dangerous people from society. No punishment, not even capital punishment, can deter all crime. When people are desperate, they will not think of long-term consequences. This does not mean that all punishments should be eliminated because they cannot deter. Punishment has another purpose. Likewise, the death penalty cannot be eliminated because it cannot deter. This was never its purpose. 

However, I still hold many reservations about the implementation of the death penalty in this country. To clarify, when I refer to implementation I am not referring to particular methods of execution. (After all, I believe that the electric chair and other “inhumane” methods of execution are only fitting for a convicted murderer). By implementation, I mean who gets executed. There is great disparity in the American judicial system regarding who gets executed. I would like to see a system where all murderers, regardless of their income level, have to pay for their crimes. I also fear that the innocent may be executed far too often in this country. To fix these problems, I propose that the government more aggressively encourage competent, experienced attorneys to give back to the community by becoming prosecutors. I also propose that standards in the investigatory process be tightened and better enforced to prevent innocent citizens from being accused of murder. With such new policies, many of the problems with the current judicial system could be fixed. 

Philosophically, there is no good argument against capital punishment. It is morally justifiable. The only reservations are based on implementation and practicality. If both sides in the debate understood these facts, then solutions that could bring about the successful implementation of a death penalty could be found. 

The author is a Columbia College first-year.