Essay Example on Death Penalty: Arguing Against Bedau's Ideas

Introduction

Death sentencing is an issue that mooted a debate in society today. Heinous crimes are subject to severe punishments. Some people believe that Murder offenses require harsh punishment execution, while others perceive that death penalty should be abolished. Killing is as the most heinous crime in an society. Bedau is one of the opponents of the death penalty. In this paper, I will argue against the ideas of Bedau based on the death penalty. In the first section it is essential to look at the arguments of Bedau on capital punishment, In the second section, I shall argue the reason why I object Bedau's arguments, In the third section it is crucial to address the objections to my point of view.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Bedau's Argument

Bedau (2), argues that it is unreasonable to believe that executing the death penalty can help to deter the death penalty. He argues that the death penalty is not cannot be employed consistently and promptly. He argues that only people convicted with first-degree murder can be sentenced for murder, while the rest forms associated with killing are not subject to the same judgment. Additionally, the author argues that the murder trial takes a long time before the jury decides to give the death penalty sentence. Moreover, according to the writer, it is impractical to deter murder by the sentencing death penalty to those found guilty if they have little care about the consequences that they may face. The authors assert that life imprisonment is more effective in combating capital crimes than capital punishments.

The judicial systems make an unfair ruling on capital punishment. According to the Bedau (3), trials should be conducted in a fair manner, especially in cases irreversible punishments such as the death penalty. However, cases of racial prejudice on death sentencing have been rampant. Many black offenders have been sentenced to capital punishment compared with the number of white people. Additionally, gender and social and financial status of the offenders may determine whether an individual will face death sentencing or nor not. The poor and the minority groups have received unfair judgment sin they cannot afford to hire attorneys to represent during their trials.

Moreover, despite the justice systems having the legal procedures that they should follow before they give the final verdict, the jury makes the ruling based on reserved discretion. Therefore, the jury has makes the final decision whether the offender committed is first degree- murder, second-degree murder, or manslaughter. Under sentencing discretion, the financially unstable, the uneducated and the minority groups have received unfair judgment.

Thirdly, Bedau (3) the method is more costly than any other form of punishment. Murder trials take longer time when the offense is likely to result in death penalty sentencing. The trials require to take more time, and therefore, more taxpayers money is spent on the judges, the prosecutors, the court reporters, and the public attorneys. The cost involves approximately double the amount required that can be spent in the case of term imprisonment.

Also, Bedau (5), argues that any form of punishment is retributive, and a person can execution is not the only form of retribution for criminal offenses. He asserts that sentence should be imposed based on the severity of the crimes they have committed. However, the argument is enough to support capital punishment. Human beings are compelled to act beyond just and humanity.

My argument

The society uses punishment to discourage any of criminal behavior. Murder is the worst form of criminal behavior in any community, and therefore, the only way to deter crime is to use a reliable form of punishment that can prevent any individual from doing it. If murder is reciprocated with the death penalty, then the people will have to think twice before they kill. Additionally, capital punishment is a form of incapacitation. Just as the robbery offenders are imprisoned as a way of deterring them from conducting the offenses again, so should the murder offenders face death penalties to combat them from committing murders in the future. If they are imprisoned, they can also make murder attempts in the prisons.

I also disagree with Bedau's idea that the death penalty cases are conducted in an unlawful manner. The judicial system holds the cases with the utmost discretion, and therefore, each crime is treated as unique, since the circumstances of each victim are varied and the offenders are different. Only first-degree murder offenses are having a degree have a mandatory death penalty (Cohen 1). Additionally, judicial systems use legal procedures to conduct all trials (Randazzo & Richard, 270). The methods are impartial, and therefore, there are minimum chances of favoring offenders based on their color social or economic status. The jury makes decisions based on the evidence provided in the court and not based on the personality of an individual.

Moreover, I disagree with the opinion that the death penalty should be abolished because it takes more time, and it is costly. In any case, enough time is needed to ensure that the investigators collect more evidence that is helpful for the trials and the sentencing. Punishments to the offenders should not be executed based on the costs that the country will incur but should aim towards achieving justice and discouraging criminal offenses in the community.

I disagree with Bedau's argument that the death penalty is not a means of retributive justice. Severe punishments aid in balancing murder offense. The death penalty is a way to avenge on behalf of the families of the victim who are in deep pain and grief. The families of the bereaved can only be served with justice if the offender is exposed to the sternest agony.

Critics

The critics argue that the death penalty cannot reduce rates of murder in any country. Additionally, people who kill do not expect that they will be caught and therefore, they do not worry about the possibility of facing execution or life punishment. Moreover, most people who commit murder are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or they are I moments of anger. In such circumstances, offenders have no time to think about the dire consequences of their actions. Additionally, no research proves that the death penalty is a better deterrent than any other form of punishment. Life imprisonment is a better form of deterring the inmates guilty of capital offenses since they separated from society, and therefore, public safety is guaranteed.

Also, the critics argue that that death penalty is arbitrary punishment. The critics say that there are no specific guidelines of when the prosecutor applies the death penalty, when the jury should advocate it or when in what circumstances the judge should use it. Lack of standards on it its applicability makes the death sentencing be mans of discrimination among minority groups, the economically unstable and genders.

Besides, the critics suggest that taxpayers' money should be used effectively on issues that benefit its society. The extra costs spent on the death penalty can help in driving other economically viable projects. Moreover, death penalties increase the budget of the judicial systems. The legal system may be forced to overlook some development projects such as building new infrastructure, hiring new judges and prosecutors due to substantial costs incurred as a result of executions.

Moreover, sharp critics on the retribution of death penalty are the religious leaders. They advocate that human life is paramount and it should be respected. The leaders perceive that the death penalty is a way of perpetrating violence since it promotes vengeance. Violence breeds violence, and none of the parties benefit. Additionally, they argue that pain and suffering cannot be comforted with the retribution of death penalty. The agony in people's heart can only be consoled through personal growth and God's grace (Schalmz 1).

Conclusion

To sum it up, Bedau's argument on death punishment is not sufficient to withdraw the death penalty in our society. Crimes related to murder should be treated with extreme severity to ensure that community is discouraged from engaging in criminal activities. However, critics suggest that it is crucial not to overlook the human dignity even when we determined to impose punishments. The death penalty cannot relieve pain. However, we need forms of punishment that extreme enough to achieve a safe society.

Works Cited

Bedau, Hugo Adam. The case against the death penalty. American Civil Liberties Union, 1973.

Randazzo, Kirk A., and Richard W. Waterman. "The US Supreme Court and the model of contingent discretion." Justice System Journal 32.3 (2011): 269-292.

Cohen, Andrew. "The Death Penalty: Why We Fight For Equal Justice." The Atlantic, 2011, https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/the-death-penalty-why-we-fight-for-equal-justice/245101/. Accessed 18 May 2019.

Schalmz sMathew."Is The Death Penalty Un-Christian?". The Conversation, 2019, https://theconversation.com/is-the-death-penalty-un-christian-76687.