As previously mentioned, our country’s method of capital punishment is administered arbitrarily in many different aspects including race, geography, age, and mental capabaility. If the United States’ court system does not implement a standardized plan for applying the death penalty, the issue will continually be subject to debate. What kind of example is the United States setting by not abolishing the death penalty and by once applying it to juveniles and the mentally retarded, when many other civilized countries, those establishments which are also sophisticated socially and technologically, have done away with the procedure? These countries have replaced capital punishment with a life sentence in prison. The very idea that our country once practiced the execution of the mentally retarded is appalling. Many situations prove that a mentally retarded person’s eagerness to satisfy can cause them to falsely admit to crimes. Jason Misskelley’s situation, where officials interrogated him for hours and displayed pictures of the mutilated boys that could have scared the young man into wrongly confessing, exemplifies the problems of our court system trying those who are mentally challenged. What does the fact that the United States trials those who are incapable of understanding their constitutional rights say about the establishment as a country? This point is exemplified in the case of Robert Wayne Sawyer, who was executed in Louisianne despite his proven mental retardation. When Sawyer's lawyer asked him to explain reasonable doubt, which is a level of comprehension that one must possess before deciding one is guilty, he revealed his misunderstanding and mental handicap by responding that the “smoke was reasonable out.” What if other countries fail to network with us due to our stance on the death penalty because they feel we are too barbaric? Such establishments as the European Union require that a country practice abolishment of death penalty in order to partake in membership. The United Nations, a group which facilitates international cooperation, has opposed the death penalty in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Rights, which opposes anything that compromises one's right to life. Amnesty International is a group that strives to promote international abolition. Is the United States, as a leading institution, promoting death and indirectly, warfare by enforcing capital punishment? Even though the United States has employed discreditable practices in the past of executing many, the country is gradually implementing better policies such as abolishing capital punishment for the mentally retarded and juveniles. To totally ensure that everyone is treated fairly under such amendments in the Constitution as the Eighth and Fourteenth, there needs to be a constant plan for carrying out the death penalty. If a standardized implementation, where all facets under consideration (race, geography,etc.) are treated equally, cannot be reached, the death penalty needs to be abolished. The United States needs to catch up with other civilized countries such as those of Western Europe and develop a more humane justice system. If the United States fails to take a stand, people will continually be tried under unreasonable circumstances, and capital punishment will remain an unrelenting debate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I think you bring up a great point regarding our foreign affiliations. However, I doubt any country is going to lose respect, or anymore than they haven't lost already, for the United States due to our alleged inhumane capital punishement laws. I agree that it should be abolished, but The U.S. is the most powerful country in the world. I don't see that chaning anytime soon. At the same time, I think that capital punsihemnt can never be abolished. It is not because it makes sense, but because topics as debateable as this one are usually not halted. They are merely altered. An end to the death penalty will be seen by many sates as the governement interloping on their state rights.
I think bringing up the death penalty with our foreign affairs is a great spin on this ongoing debate. I think that our country, which is suppose to be the land of the free, is contradicting itself by using the death penalty. We were suppose to be the country where others came to to start over, a new beginning, almost like a land of forgiveness. But it was our ancestors that came and retrieved this freedom and fought for it and now we have had it since we were born and are abusing it and don't appreciate its true value. So what kind of statement are we making to other countries when we are executing our own people? Where is their second chance, a chance to repent? How can other countries respect us if we can't respect the value of our own people's lives, let alone trust us? In other words, thank you for raising this issue, I think it could be a possible outcome in our future if the death penalty remains.j
I agree that the administration of the death penalty in a progressive nation like the United States is apalling, however I agree with Dei in that I don't believe other countries are going to refuse to network with us just because of it. It's not as though we have a justice system which is fundamentally flawed - we have a justice system which is fundamentally sound with a few lapses which tarnish its overall image.
Define more clearly what kind of standardized plan, and what accounts for a civilized country. Towards the end, explain more on the past descreditable practice and how we are moving towards better policies. List more clearly the unreasonable circumstances upheld now. I kind of felt like I was left wondering about the details of the arguement.
Ok so I thought your word usage was great. There were two things that I felt needed just a bit more explaining. With the case of Robert Wayne Sawyer, what was his final punishment...and was he mentally handicapped? Also I like how you compared the US to other civilized countries, but what are these other civilized countries doing in place of the death penalty? Your question about other countries wanting to work with us was a very good point, I just thought it was a bit too brief. Again it goes back to what have these countries replaced the death penalty with to make them view us as too barbaric. Also, what type of standardized plan could they use? Again maybe using an example from another country on how they changed might fix this problem. Overall I thought it was a great read!!
you could define more clearly what our "method of capital punishment is." Also you need to explicitly state what will happen in the future if we keep the status quo. You allude to it involving foreign relations at one point but do not expand on it. You did a good job showing how the current system is barbaric and needs to be changed, but this post should focus more on the future.
hey Katie... I support your stand against the death penalty, and so really appreciate your efforts in laying out the consequences that America might impose upon itself. However, coming from another country that also practices the death penalty, I do not think that people would call a country 'barbaric' for simply having one style of punishment. Although I do see a future shift towards removing the death penalty, I don't think it is fair to say a country is 'barbaric' because they practice capital punishment, or 'civilized' if they don't. There is just too many other factors to consider in categorizing countries under such strong terms. I think one needs to look more at how it is administered and under what historical and contextual factors they are imposed. Like in Singapore, we have managed to control the drug problem that many other countries suffer from, because drug smugglers face capital punishment if caught for smuggling only a quarter's weight of drugs. I won't say whether such a punishment is good or bad, but I would like to highlight that without it, Singapore might no be able to control the smuggling of drugs as efficiently as it does today. What do you think?
Wow, you make a compelling argument. It is interesting that other countries have abolished the death penalty and we have yet to do so. I'm curious though what are the statistics for crime compared to our? I'd would be interesting for those who argue for it because it acts as a deterrent. I find it appalling that the rest of the world is trying to make an advancement in protecting human rights (the UN) and we still stand here and violate some of them. I agree with you that getting rid of it completely would simplify things and reduce our country's subjective legals system. It would help reduce the number of people our courts put to death over prejudices .
I agree with you completely! If the United States is the greatest country in the world(which I'm pretty sure it is) then why do we continue to use the barbaric methods of the death penalty? What kind of message are we sending? Is it that the best way to correct killing, is more killing? Is that moral, under any circumstances? The media perpetuates violence and we have gotten so used to being surrounded by it that people really think that under the right circumstances normal and moral people could kill someone and that would be civilized and OK! This is completely wrong? I personally feel that we use the death penalty today because good ol GW himself has NO problem with it(look at how many people were executed when he was the governor of Texas!). As his regime crumbles maybe we should give thought to the credibility of giving the death penalty, just like we know now that there was no credibility to invading Iraq.
Post a Comment