The Use of Death Penalty as a Punishment

The use of the death penalty as punishment for various offenses has been in existence long before it was written into the criminal justice system. The Death Penalty Information Center provides an extended overview of Americas’ use of the death penalty. Early death penalty laws consist of twenty-five different crimes punishable by death, but the number would soon increase. The death penalty was being carried out by methods such as crucifixion, drowning, beating to death and burning just to name a few. It wasn’t until the eighteen century that the first electrical chair was built serving as an attempt to make execution more humane. In addition to the electric chair, lethal gas and legal injection were developed. From 1823 to 1827, what were once two hundred and twenty two crimes punishable by death was now one hundred. The execution itself was an act of entertainment as many would gather in public venues to view the execution of one whose faith had come to an end. During the nineteen-century, executions began to move into correctional facilities, and away from the public eyes. Also put into effect was the separation of trial and sentencing into two entirely different deliberations. A trial would decides the guilt of a criminal, and only after found guilty would a second deliberation be held to sentence him or her to death or a lesser punishment such as prison time (“The Death Penalty Information Canter”). There have been many attempts to reform the death penalty, for instant, only using it in serious crimes such as murder and treason, but the battle to abolish it completely still continues today.

The debate over whether to abolish or retain the death penalty has been one of the most controversial issues of its time. In Anna Quindlen’s essay, “Execution,” she argues against the use of capital punishment. Quindlen recognizes that like a hand in a glove, some crimes and capital punishment seems to fit. However, she believes that the killing of someone for killing another is both immoral and illogical. Emotionally, Quindlen sympathizes with the first response of society to want retribution, for she herself would want to harm a human being if they were the cause of her daughter’s life coming to an end. Nevertheless, she believes that societies desire for criminals to suffer as their victims did is unattainable. Quindlen believes that the emotional satisfaction we seek is not feasible even with the death of the offender. She suggest that we live in a civilize society where we are not allowed to take the law into our own hands; therefore we should not stoop to the level of the criminal by killing.

In contrast, H. L. Mencken in his essay, “The Penalty of Death,” states that two reason people do not agree with the death penalty is because the job itself is disturbing and used to discourage others from committing crimes; however Mencken refute these arguments. Mencken suggests that many jobs in society