Sample Essay: Persuasion Speech

Against Capital Punishment

Or

How the Justice System has Failed

There is a fear involved in capital punishment, that fear is failed justice.  In the following essay views on capital punishment, both supporting and denying the legitimacies of the procedure will be explored.  There is a dichotomy on the subject of capital punishment, one side hinges upon criminals being executed for their crimes and the other side with groups such as amnesty international and Christian leagues that state that capital punishment is inhumane.

The fear of failed justice is the pervading fact that often incites to the public that perhaps capital punishment is in fact wrong.  William F. Buckley Jr. states in his article “On the Right.”

It is correct that government is frail and often irresponsible. Mr. Cannon bids for conservative attention by writing that “the courts are just a branch of government, and one that by design has less accountability than the other two.” He drives the point home: “If ideology and experience lead one to the conclusion that government is by nature inefficient and inept, then why should it be astonishing that the actions of one branch of government-the judicial branch-are so routinely wrong?”

There is a definite sense of fallability involved in deciphering the justice of innocents on death row.  There are no absolutes involved that completely condemn a person to death, and this is further extoled with DNA testing in new and old court cases for death row inmates.

Buckley goes on to ask questions of the judicial branch such as, in the matters of right and wrong does a governing body have the inalienable right to persecute and sentence to death a person, and does this in turn give justice to the victim and their families:  As Buckley states succinctly, “If the judiciary process can err, then judicial findings should not authorize conclusive remedies”.

That is the rhetorical of the situation.  Buckley’s stand is that, not of for or against capital punishment but he questions the right of giving such a choice of life and death to the hands of a judiciary body that in their humanity are defined as fallable.

Another stance on this issue is that of complete abiding and supporting of capital punishment.  Capital punishment in its theory and practice for those in support of such methods is believed to deter crime.  As Robert Grant states, “…to retaliate and punish those who commit crimes, especially brutal and vicious murders, thus balancing the scales of justice. To others its goal is to reduce violence overall. The question of capital punishment, then, pits two great demands of society against each other: the demand for retribution for violating the most basic duty of the social contract–the duty not to murder another–and the need to eliminate, or at least minimize, society’s culture of violence”.  Therefore, capital punishment is justified in it will retard the criminality present in society.

It is in the constitution that the judiciary branch finds its justifiable execution, as Grant states, “the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly recognizes and, to that extent, authorizes the death penalty when it states, “No person shall … be deprived of life … without due process of law.” This is because, by implication, a person may indeed be deprived of life with due process of law”.  Although Grant gives reasons in his article against capital punishment, such as it having no real affect on the betterment of society, he gives points by which capital punishment is used and ‘fairly’ used in the court system.

Of course the final position on capital punishment is that is does not in fact deter crime and in some cases an innocent person is put in jail.  This again reiterates the view of Buckley in that the court system is fallible.  In this position, those against capital punishment are against it not only because the judiciary branch they believe should not govern life and death, but also no person should be put to death, because it is inhumane.

There seems to be the case of mistaken identity involved in capital punishment.  With new DNA testing there opens a whole new way in which criminals are detected, and a way in which the court system is less fallible.  In the Christian Century article Death Penalty Doubts, they state, “In Chicago, the newspapers were flooded in recent weeks by a story that underscored some pragmatic reasons to oppose the death penalty. A black man from Chicago’s South Side was released from death row after 16 years of prison. Anthony Porter, who has an IQ of 51, came within two days of receiving a lethal injection last fall. His execution was postponed when the courts agreed to a hearing on his mental competency”.  This causes great anxiety to the entire set up of those on both sides of the fence of capital punishment.

If one case can be proven to have been false, then that means any number of other convicted criminals who are on death row can also be wrongfully committed.  There surfaces great doubt in my mind personally as to the justification of capital punishment especially when DNA has been exonerating criminals since its introduction into the courts.  This means, as Buckley had stated, that justice has its faults and those cannot be overlooked when life and death are being given or taken away.

In my opinion of capital punishment it is with the Christian Century’s statement that convinces me to doubt any absolutes in capital punishment.

Since it took 16 years and the fortuitous intervention of a journalism class to bring justice for Anthony Porter, it can hardly be said that the system worked. Porter’s case brings to light the very real danger that overzealous prosecutors, sloppy legal work and poor legal defense teams will send people to their deaths for crimes they didn’t commit. As long as this is not only possible but likely, how can the death penalty be defended as just?

In light of this evidence, there comes to my mind mistrials, false accused criminals, and with the new age of DNA testing there is of course less margin for false accusations but there still exists the argument that capital punishment is inhumane, as Grant states, “In order to foster a less violent society, the treatment of the offender should be as humane and non-violent as forcible incarceration can allow. Rehabilitation of the offender ought to be a necessary condition of parole. Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole ought to be the alternative to capital punishment”.

There is an alternative to capital punishment, as is in Grants statement.  I am a firm believer in restorative justice, that is, allowing the criminal to be an active part of society by instead of using up tax dollars in prison they do community service or some other service that restores society, restores justice, as Grant states once again, “Restorative justice seeks to eliminate the culture of violence in U.S. society and replace it with a culture of caring”.  Though this is difficult to accomplish with the predetermined ideas of death row inmates and this malice, there are alternatives and more humane alternatives than the death sentence.

Due to the judiciary system being intrinisically inept, there must be questions that arise as to the credibility of capital punishment.  Violence begets violence, and capital punishment is no less warranted to that statement.

The different ideas involved with capital punishment prove that the issue is one with variagated sides, and view points.  There is the stance against capital punishment because it is inhumane, there is the stance for capital punishment because it allows victims to feel a sense of justice is being done and it keeps criminals from committing crimes, and there is the view point on capital punishment that states that it is fallible and should not be left to an inept system to decide the death of criminals.

Though it is with DNA testing that the future of capital punishment of being based one must not forget that there are no absolutes, and especially in law there is more than enough room to be wrong.  I believe that capital punishment doesn’t restore society to a balance, and there is no undeniable way in which death can be administered with absolute justice.  Capital punishment does not deter crime, but reinforces the idea of violence.

Work Cited

Buckley, William F. Jr.  On the Right-Capital Punishment-Oppose What?.  National      Review. July 17, 2000.

Christian Century.  Death Penalty Doubts- Capital Punishment and Christianity. February 24, 1999.

Grant, Robert.  Capital Punishment and Violence. Humanist.  Jan-Feb. 2004.

Human Rights: Death Penalty. http://www.derechos.org/dp/