“Forgiving violence does not mean condoning violence. There are only two alternatives to forgiving violence: revenge, or adopting an attitude of never-ending bitterness and anger. For too long we have treated violence with violence, and that’s why it never ends.” (Coretta Scott King, Widow of Martin Luther King)
The Catholic Church strongly opposes capital punishment, considering it a type of cruel and unusual punishment. As long as there are alternative methods available to ensure the safety and security of individuals without causing death, the death penalty should be abolished.
The death penalty is still used in the United States, primarily for murder. However, federal laws also allow its application for crimes such as espionage, treason, drug trafficking, and conspiring to kill certain officials or witnesses. Additionally, some states have their own laws that permit the use of the death penalty for offenses unrelated to murder. For instance, aggravated kidnapping is considered a capital offense in Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, and Montana. In Georgia and Montana, aircraft hijacking can result in a punishment of death. Similarly,
placing a bomb near a bus terminal is seen as a capital offense in Montana.
Nevertheless,
despite these current laws supporting capital punishment in the United States today,
there are numerous flaws present.
The death penalty legislation in the United States is currently flawed due to its inconsistency among states, leading to uncertainty and potentially allowing someone who commits a crime in a state without capital punishment to be executed in another state that permits it. To prevent such situations, the United States should either abolish the death penalty entirely or establish uniform laws across all states.
The existing capital punishment laws suffer from a significant flaw: individuals are sentenced to death and executed even when there is not enough evidence. According to Innocence and the Death Penalty, 140 people in 26 states have been released from death row since 1973 because new evidence emerged proving their innocence. This statistic emphasizes the concerning potential for innocent individuals to be subjected to execution or spend their time anticipating their fate on death row.
Although death penalty laws exist in the United States, there are safeguards in place to protect individuals who may have been wrongly accused. Current laws state that once a case has been tried and a verdict reached, it cannot be reopened. However, reopening these cases would primarily serve to safeguard those falsely implicated. While justice is a fundamental right for everyone, the complete legal process often takes time to unfold. Merely apprehending and convicting a suspect does not guarantee that all evidence has been presented or that the case should be permanently closed.
Justice should be used not only to punish the guilty but also to protect the innocent. By saving the lives of those who are not at fault and reevaluating legal cases, society can achieve a state of increased happiness and reduced crime rates. The case involving Rolando Cruz is a perfect example of this. In 1985, Cruz was wrongly convicted of rape and murder, but he was pardoned in 1995. As a result, he was released from death row while the actual perpetrator was caught. To provide more specific information, Rolando Cruz faced two convictions for the rape and murder of Jeanine Nicarico.
Rolando was pardoned after a police officer admitted to perjury and Brian Dugan, the actual criminal, confessed to the offense. In addition, DNA evidence demonstrated Cruz’s innocence (Mills, Chase). However, Ellis Wayne Felker did not have the same luck. Despite the presentation of feeble and inadequate evidence during his trial, he was executed in 1996 for the rape and murder of Evelyn Joy Ludlum. Eventually, in 2000, his conviction was declared inconclusive due to the emergence of DNA evidence and a hidden confession from the true perpetrator that had been concealed during the original court proceedings (Cook).
With the court’s approval to reopen Felker’s case, his loved ones can now find solace in knowing his innocence regarding the tragic event. However, there is a need for legislators to pass an amendment that allows for case reviews to ensure that only the guilty face prosecution, even though no ban on the death penalty exists. It is unjust to deprive individuals of their freedom and liberty when they have committed no wrongdoing.
It is morally incorrect to separate a family based on an accusation without full certainty of the evidence. To execute a parent without absolute confidence in their guilt is not only a crime and injustice towards that person but also towards their entire family. The irreplaceable teachings and lessons provided by both parents are invaluable.
If a parent is executed without enough evidence, the child and their family will need to cope with the sorrow of losing their loved one. Moreover, they will encounter societal disapproval as a consequence of their relative being unjustly found guilty of a crime. Given that there is no opportunity to reevaluate these instances, it becomes unattainable to reverse the decision, causing lasting harm to the family’s reputation and depriving justice for the deceased.
The foundation of American society, as stated in the United States Constitution, guarantees the right for all individuals to pursue happiness. However, denying the reopening of cases by the court system would be a violation of these rights (The United States Constitution). The freedom we cherish is given to us by our creator and should not be politicized but acknowledged as an ethical and moral issue. Capital punishment acts as a fair retribution for those who deliberately take another person’s life.
The Bible teaches that those who commit murder should face the same fate, as man is created in the image of God (Genesis 9:6). Nevertheless, Cain, the first recorded murderer in the Old Testament, was not put to death but instead condemned to a lifetime of exile (Genesis 4:1-16). This suggests a flaw in using killing as a form of punishment. Instead, these individuals should receive life imprisonment as their sentence.
The elimination of capital punishment is advantageous and secure for our society. It poses the risk of erroneously executing innocent individuals, has a detrimental impact on those lacking sufficient legal representation, raises concerns about racial bias in death sentencing, results in high prosecution expenses, and fails to act as a deterrent or facilitate criminal rehabilitation. It should be noted that opinions on this matter vary despite biblical opposition to the death penalty.
The global topic of Capital Punishment, which began in Great Britain and later extended to the United States, has been a source of controversy. Originally banned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1970s, it was subsequently reinstated. However, in the 1980s, the same court deemed it unconstitutional to execute individuals with mental illness or retardation (History of the Death Penalty). The inconsistent position on banning capital punishment in America has led to flaws within existing legislation governing its usage.
Despite a decrease in the number of countries conducting executions, the death penalty remains prevalent worldwide. Presently, 139 countries continue to implement capital punishment, indicating an overall decline in its usage. Excluding China, there were at least 676 global executions carried out last year. Notably, China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, and the U.S. had the highest execution rates during that period.
Rogers states that countries have employed diverse execution methods including beheading, electrocution, hanging, lethal injection, and various forms of shooting. The argument is made for global abolition of the death penalty, not just within the United States. The efficacy of capital punishment will always remain a contentious issue. The families of victims can never fully heal from the anguish caused by losing a cherished individual. Furthermore, the death penalty contravenes the eighth amendment of the United States Constitution which forbids cruel and unusual punishment (The United States Constitution).
The unethical nature of the death penalty, which goes against the biblical example seen in Cain and Abel, necessitates its abolition. By eliminating the death penalty, innocent individuals wrongly convicted without sufficient evidence would be spared. Numerous “ethical” alternatives exist for ensuring public safety from criminals. This argument is supported by various sources: Rhonda Cook’s article titled “DNA Testing Ordered in Case of Man Already Executed” on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution website and Truth in Justice’s website (felker.org/truthinjustice). The Death Penalty Information Center’s website (deathpenaltyinfo.org) also provides valuable information, such as their article “Death Penalty for Offenses Other Than Murder.” The Genesis book of the New American Bible supports abolishing capital punishment, while the Death Penalty Information Center’s article “Innocence and the Death Penalty” further emphasizes this point (deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty). Additionally, Steve Mills and John Chase’s article “Rolando Cruz Seeks Pardon” can be accessed on the Chicago Tribune website (cruz.org/pardon), offering supplementary evidence advocating for capital punishment elimination.”The Death Penalty in Countries Around the World” is an article written by Simon Rogers for The Guardian. The article presents statistical data regarding the global perspective of the death penalty issue. Statistical information about the death penalty can be found at the website theguardian.com/death-penalty-statistics. Another useful resource is “The United States Constitution,” which provides information about the U.S. Constitution and can be accessed online at usconstitution.net/const.html. Both sources were accessed on April 2, 2012.
