When American colonists struggled for and won independence, they accepted England’s laws, including capital punishment. Ever since then, Great britain and our other close allies have abandoned the process of putting criminals to death. We are, however, allied with Russia, China, Libya, Iran, Cuba, Chile and Saudi Arabia in the use of capital punishment. Waco Handcrafted Signature Candles
The way we legally put criminals to death has changed frequently since colonial times in the interest of making human beings in a more, “civilized manner. ” Hanging and firing squads were hottest before the electric chair was invented in 1890. Electrocution stayed with us until relatively recent times, being replaced mostly by the gas chamber, then finally deathly injection, which is now the more widely accepted method of performance.
Hanging, electrocution, and the gas chamber were all criticized as legal forms of torturing the condemned, and they all misunderstand the the like of witnesses. Shooting by firing squad didn’t get as much criticism, but was too bloody and therefor misunderstand witnesses’ the like. Injecting deathly dozes of chemicals into the condemned, however, doesn’t make witnesses ill, and it fulfills their macabre desire to watch the condemned die. Now that method in addition has come under criticism.
Capital punishment stopped for a time, and it was assumed that it was solely as a result of lording it over by the You. S. Substantial Court. In fact, it ceased because of public disapproval and a reluctance of juries to convict the accused in cases requiring mandatory death penalties. In 1967, public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to capital punishment, and the Substantial Court removed it. In 1976, public opinion moved and the Substantial Court re-instated it.
The key argument by advocates for capital punishment is that it meets society’s need for retribution and justice, and it is a deterrent to capital criminal activity. Abolitionists disagree, stating the punishment is too harsh to serve justice, and it will not deter the committing of heinous criminal activity. The scriptures of the world’s major religions apparently agree with, “an eye for an eye, ” advocates while at the same time concurring with abolitionists that, the death penalty–no matter the circumstances–is an immoral punishment. From these the other views, we must conclude that scriptures were published by human beings, some accepting, others rejecting capital punishment. Therefore, it isn’t possible to go to non secular writings to find a response acceptable to everyone. In searching for solutions, however, we should look at the Oklahoma City bomber’s (Timothy McVeigh) performance.
First, overwhelming publicity made McVeigh’s performance look like a P. T. Barnum three-ring circus. Television newscasters interviewed survivors, loved ones of the dead patients, and McVeigh himself. Our government provided 230 arranged seats for survivors and loved ones of murdered patients of the Oklahoma City bombing, the news media, friends of McVeigh, and officials to watch this main event. Closed routine television brought the look of the, “humane, ” 21st century legal killing method to another 231 witnesses. Television news reporters even interviewed their own people who chatted of, “the arrogance that McVeigh showed in the judge was gone when he went into the death chamber. ” If arrogance was a crime, politicians would form a line from the Atlantic to the Pacific Region.
Do we have capital punishment because we can’t come up with a better solution to carry out justice? Life in penitentiary without parole is accepted by abolitionists, but not by advocates of capital punishment. There are, however, two alternatives that might satisfy everyone accept especially those with minds closed so snugly new ideas can’t seep in. These methods of serving justice could be used for the most heinous offenses while keeping life without parole for ruthless but lesser criminal activity.
One alternative would be to modify life in penitentiary without parole to confinement at hard labor for life without parole. This alternative would are the absence of communications with the outside world such as letters, radio, television, computer, telephone and visitation, except when earned by the prisoner after lengthy confinement.