An informed opinion is premised on two fundamental ingredients of knowledge and belief. The nature of death sentence provides good grounds for both knowledge and belief; this is because it is a legal, political, and cultural issue that has a lot pertaining to knowledge. On the other hand, the death sentence is an emotive issue that has been the subject of continuous public debate, which has in turn created a strong premise for firm belief. From a definitive perspective, the death sentence involves the outcome of a criminal case where an individual is convicted of a capital offense and sentenced to be killed. Therefore, there must be in existence a law that gives death as the outcome of conviction for a certain crime, a fact which brings the perspective of premeditation. However, from a cultural, religious, and even ethical perspective, formally killing someone or even providing circumstances where a human being will be condemned to death must be wrong. The death sentence should be discouraged because it is extreme, unfair, and ineffective.
Background
In the year 2012, the story of John Burbine, a 49-year-old man from Wakefield in Massachusetts filled the airwaves. Burbine was a convicted sexual offender who had served his time and been released. His released was based on what is believed to be a foolproof system that makes it impossible for a sexual offender to repeat the offense. Upon release, Burbine joined his wife’s business as a child daycare worker. He took advantage of the situation and not only raped as many as 13 children but also recorded himself on video while doing it. The most heartrending part of the entire story was the age of the children. Adduced evidence show that the molested children were between three days and three and a half years. This is within the age bracket of innocence when a child is too young to understand what is going on let alone put up any form of defense. Further, the parents of the children were not at fault under the circumstance, as they believed they had opened the door to a professional, not a predator. This case brings into sharp focus the issue of the death sentence and whether or not an individual such a Burbine, having committed such atrocities ought to be sentenced to death.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Extreme
The extremity of the sentence is among the focal considerations to be made regarding whether or not the death sentence is necessary even in the light of crimes such as those committed by Burbine. The act of killing was traditionally considered as taboo and when it happened, cleansing was necessary (Koch, 2017). Currently, killing is considered as an act that creates a rift between a community and God. No matter what perspective is applied, culture abhors any form of killing, even the accidental one and finds intentional killing unconscionable. It is for this reason that killing is considered as extreme. Further, the process of carrying out the death sentence begins with an investigation by police using the tax-payers money. It then proceeds to a court case that also uses taxes. Finally, the convict will be housed by the state and finally executed by the state using taxes (Koch, 2017). It would be, therefore, correct to say that each taxpayer has contributed both in the passing of and the carrying out of the death sentence. The aforesaid taboo contained in the death sentence is, therefore, spread to the entire populace. Finally, the procedure itself, both for passing the death sentence and carrying it out is deeply flawed. So many innocent people have been condemned to die and even executed only to be found to have been innocent (Koch, 2017). The execution process is considered to be benign and human based on so-called expert opinion yet none of the experts have ever had a lethal injection or been electrocuted to death. These processes form part of the sentence being considered as extreme.
Unfair
The death sentence is unfair and unfairness must be construed to be an injustice. This is inter alia based on the representation of justice using Justitia as the euphemism thereof. Justitia is shown carrying scales on her left hand which is balanced at the center, a clear sign of fairness (Minor, 2009). This makes fairness of prerequisite of justice and condemns acts of injustice as acts of unfairness. The fact that the process through which a death sentence is arrived at is not fool proof makes the permanence of the sentence itself to be unfair. Unfairness, in this case, is based on the fact that if a mistake is realized later, the convict cannot be given any compensation that is commensurate to the sentence. Further, the process of killing is extremely unfair in that the convicts know that they are going to die and why they are dying. The human dignity is, therefore, taken away from them towards their death which is manifestly unfair (Minor, 2009). Finally, placing the obligation of life and death in the hands of the individuals involved in the process from the investigating officers, the jury, and the penal officers is manifestly unfair.
Ineffectiveness
Punishment is mostly not a pleasant process but for it to be considered as punishment and not sadism, there ought to be a purpose. Under the current judicial systems in the free and democratic world, the focus for punishment is rehabilitation. Rehabilitation involves a change from a societal misfit into a societal asset (Connor, 2010). The process of punishment, therefore, ought to be set in a way that it has a corresponding process of change of character. The death sentence negates this in that the very first sentence meted is not only permanent but also irreversible. It makes rehabilitation unnecessary and futile since the convict will not be available to exhibit better conduct. Indeed, once someone realizes that they have committed a capital offense, they will not have anything to lose and will become viler due to the knowledge that the world has written them off (Connor, 2010). The totality of the foregoing makes the death sentence ineffective as a form of punishment.
Self-Reflection
As indicated above, an informed opinion is based on two main ingredients of knowledge and belief. The incident involving Burbine did not change the existence of knowledge relating to why death sentencing should be discouraged. However, acts of Burbine created a scenario where in spite of the knowledge about the death sentence, I still felt that Burbine should not only be killed but also executed in the most painful way necessary. Indeed, at some point, I even considered that if I were allowed the opportunity, killing Burbine would indeed be a pleasure. This was a moment of a complete turnaround in opinion to me in relation to death sentencing. Two years into the trial of Burbine and his wife for the said atrocities reports circulated that he had been found dead in his cell, out of an apparent suicide. At this point, I found myself joining the opinion bandwagon that felt that perhaps Burbine did not commit suicide but was killed by fellow inmates and jailers. Instead of feeling apathy that a human had met death under such appalling circumstances, I found myself internally applauding this death, a fact that I could not admit aloud. It was at this point that I realized how far my belief in the sanctity of life, justice and freedom had changed (Zimbardo, 2016). This created a moment of self-reflection for myself. I wondered if the death sentence was indeed necessary, and if it was, if all the knowledge that I had developed based on information relating to the death sentence and outlined above was baseless. This led me to realize that I had allowed emotion to come in the way of intellect and a desire for vengeance to countermand belief. The self-reflection led to the realization that in spite of the necessity of death sentence, its extremity, unfairness, and ineffectiveness have not changed thus my position on its discouragement stands.
Knowledge is developed through emphatically processing information. Based on this knowledge, belief is created. As well shown hereinabove, it is possible for an emotive happening to seemingly change the informed opinion about something. This creates the necessity to revert to how the knowledge and belief were developed. The story of Burbine and his alleged crimes create a scenario where extreme emotions and a desire for vengeance can clearly obscure knowledge and belief about death sentencing. However, a careful analysis of the available information will clearly show that the death sentence is extreme, unfair, and ineffective. The necessity of the death sentence in cases such as that of Burbine, cannot and should not change this fact. Therefore, the death sentence should be discouraged.
References
Connor, E. M. (2010). The undermining influence of the federal death penalty on capital policymaking and criminal justice administration in the States. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology , 100 (1), 149-211
Koch, I. (2017). Moving beyond punitivism: Punishment, state failure, and democracy at the margins. Punishment & Society, 19 (2), 203-220. doi: 10.1177/1462474516664506
Minor, K. a. (2009). Prohibiting the death penalty for the rape of a child while overlooking wrongful execution: Kennedy v. Louisiana. South Dakota Law Review , 54 (2), 300-332
Van den Haag, E., & Conrad, J. P. (2013). The death penalty: A debate . New York, Springer Science & Business Media
Zimbardo, P. G. (2016). Carrying on Kurt Lewin's legacy in many current domains Lewin Award 2015. Journal of Social Issues , 72 (4), 828-838
