Capital Punishment—A Moral Dilemma?

Ted Bundy. David Berkowitz. Jeffery Dahmer. Charles Manson. Names that have achieved household status for infamy, ruthlessness, and bloodlust. I think it's safe to say that no one would want any of these men as a nextdoor neighbor. I know I certainly wouldn't. Yet there is still a debate over whether or not capital punishment should be enacted for such offenders in all 50 states. Of the four men mentioned above, only Ted Bundy has met with justice in the electric chair. Meanwhile, what kind of consolation is being awarded to the families of the slain victims of the remaining three murderers? Many of these bereaved people not only have to live with the knowledge that their loved ones' killers are still alive and not suffering nearly as much as the victims whose lives they've claimed, but now they also have to support them with their tax dollars. It has been estimated that it costs in excess of $75,000 annually to support each prisoner, but when they are paroled they are usually more corrupt than when they were admitted. This is simply unacceptable. Now I'm not suggesting that all convicts should be executed or all prisons abolished, but it's insanity to expect the honest working man to continue to shoulder the burden of those who, given the chance, would pistol-whip him and take his money. Prisons give low-lives a free, albeit confined, ride. A criminal very often thrives in prison and learns how to be a better criminal, not a better citizen, so when he is finally discharged and is unable to cope with civilized life he soon reverts back to his old lifestyle only to be arrested and have the cycle begin again. In short, prisons don't benefit prisoners or tax payers. Today's prison system treats the symptoms, not the causes.
        I believe prisons should be made self-sufficient, so as to remove the burden from tax-payers. Prison populations should be strictly segregated between the types of criminals in each section or cell block. For example: Those convicted of armed robbery (or violent criminals) should be in a different cell block than pick-pockets and con-men (or non-violent criminals), so that the traits of the more corrupt criminal won't rub off on the less corrupt criminal and hinder the latter's rehabilitation. All inmates should be forced to put in a full day of hard labor in service to the community which he has offended. All prisoners should undergo intensive therapy and training to prepare them for reintegration with society once they are paroled. Having learned a trade and "rehabilitated," a program should be set up whereby the individual can secure proper employment immediately upon dismissal.
        This would give inmates a chance to start over with a clean slate that the prison system doesn't offer presently. However, there are circumstances which call for harsher punishments. Rehabilitation of criminals has often been deemed impossible, and in may cases, this would appear to be true. Repeat offenders may require longer sentences and more intensive therapy. In the case of the serial killer, therapy would probably be useless and the suggestion of rehabilitation absurd. For these criminals, the only law which should apply is Lex Talionis—the law of retribution. "Retribution is not to be confused with a narrow concept of revenge. Retribution reflects society's determination to reject the kind of horrible crimes that necessitate capital punishment; it reflects society's determination simply not to tolerate these kinds of crimes." If a person commits treason, or murders, rapes, or maims another person intentionally he should go directly to the gas chamber with no prolonged wait on death row for execution. The only problem most people see with this is that there is, at the present time, a possibility in some cases that the state would be sending an innocent man to his death. To see an innocent man suffer death would be the ultimate miscarriage of justice, and I certainly wouldn't want to see that. But the real problem isn't whether or not the death penalty should be employed; it is a problem with how the courts presently operate. There are way too many incompetent attorneys practicing law, and justice would not be served if someone were put to death because of an attorney's incompetence. Today's criminals are virtually given carte blanche to rape, pillage, and murder. It has become too easy for the defending attorney of an obviously guilty man to find loopholes to get him off or keep the courts tied up for years with numerous appeals designed, supposedly, for an individual's "civil rights."
        Capital punishment should be enforced in all 50 states equally. What good is a nation if it is divided in its legal doctrines? The way the system is currently organized, a serial killer can tip-toe from state to state, murdering as he pleases without fear of execution so long as he stands clear of the states which enforce the death penalty. This totally invalidates one of the strongest motives for having a death penalty—deterrence. In order for capital punishment to be an adequate deterrent, all the states must unite and have the same laws and enforce them equally, otherwise we are not really a nation, but a nation divided—a conglomeration of small countries.

[Note: This was an essay I wrote in college for an essay writing workshop—March 25, 1993. I obviously had sources for this article but didn't document them. I wish I had. I don't recall where I found the quote about retribution, but I like it. As with "Atrocities," I wasn't concerned with references, the focus of the workshop being writing and style. The sources of my information were from various articles and books I had read up to that time. Scores of books have been written on this subject, so take it for what it is.]