Updated Draft of QRG

The Death of the Death Penalty: Transition Towards Morality

With the 2016 election approaching, America is constantly highlighting new points of controversy, and their desired outcomes based on the various points of view, and arguments of the candidates. This brings me to a central component of the justice system that has sparked controversy amongst the world for decades; the debate over the practice of the death penalty in judicial systems.

Typically, conservative politicians were known to support the practice of the death penalty in legal systems. These views are supported on the basis that capital punishment presents itself as a “useful tool” of justice. Seeing as conservatives rallied in favor of the death penalty, one can deduce the tendencies of liberal voters to refute capital punishment.

Today, The Huffington Post’s Kim Bellware attempts to shed light to the traditional political values threaded in modern society, and the revolutionary changes appearing in the upcoming election. Bellware’s article reflects a shift in the current debate over the constitutionality and morality of the death penalty, and seeks to depict the growing condemnation of the practice of capital punishment in national courts from both political parties. Bellware analyzes this societal change through the drift of conservative opinions through a recap of various viewpoints from Republican politicians: ‘"The more you know about this issue, the more you’re going to be concerned about the death penalty and the way it’s being carried out. People are waking up and saying, ‘this really isn’t worth it anymore.’"’

That being said, the death penalty ultimately undermines morality and constitutionality in that psychological treatment and individual rights are sacrificed in order to satisfy a modern obsession with supremacy and revenge; thus shedding light to a convoluted form of criminal justice that collectively damages standards of humanity as a whole.

What are the differentiating perspectives of the debate?

Some argue, through their rage and emotions towards the horror of felonies, like murder or mass fraud, that capital punishment essentially contributes toward the betterment of society by ridding the population of ruthless criminals whom solely cause destruction. In other words, an eye for an eye. This mentality would lead to a better society in that the plague of crime would be lessened, and those convicted of harm would receive a punishment as grave as their actions: death. This ideal was generally considered a conservative outlook in political races.

Others may refute this perspective by analyzing the nature of humanity. Most stable individuals do not wake up in the morning with a burning desire to kill, or damage the world in some terrible way. Hence, psychoanalysis can prove that elevated emotional levels, no matter what extent, or mental illnesses of any severity are the underlying causes to most crimes leading to the death penalty. With this in mind, an argument supporting the scientific and psychological exploration, as well as treatment, of criminals suffering from mental deficits (as opposed to execution or lethal injection) would lead to a more advanced field of neuroscience, and a better world as a whole that avoided unnecessary death and a society of healed convicts. Essentially, the death penalty condemns murder, but appears hypocritical in that mentally obstructed individuals who cannot help their irrational behaviors are in the same sense “murdered”, and punished in the same way as the victim. This argument tends to embody liberal traditions in political history.

Where do we draw the line between right and wrong?

Typically, individual perspectives rest upon personal values, morals, and perception of rights. For example, most hold belief in the entitlement to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. More specifically, health-care, gun control, education, and foreign policy present themselves in the news as “hot-topics” of debate.

Bellware addresses personal morality through the questioning of values and human nature. As a population, the belief of peace, and fear of killing are engraved into our minds. Thus, Bellware’s controversial analysis attacks emotional appeals in order to reflect the inhumane aspects of the death penalty. Bellware implements direct evidence from Republican politicians and their shifting viewpoints due to an enlightened sense of humanity:“"But on the opposite end of the spectrum, you have someone like [Texas Gov.] Rick Perry, who says he sleeps quite fine after signing somebody’s death warrant," Hyden said. "I have to feel troubled when I hear things like that."’

We base our decisions on morality through experiences we have lived through. Therefore, if you lost a family member in the military, you are most likely inclined to offer support (monetary or emotional) to the army fund nationally so that the other soldiers may not be sentenced to the same fate as the one you lost. Most decisions within the voting polls are drawn from personal moralistic views. The tendency to side with the candidate, or belief system, that supports our positions can be long traced in history- it is common knowledge that we stand up for what we believe in.

How do we assess one’s mental state in terms of justice and morals?

An individual suffering from mental illnesses or elevated emotional reactions is not in their “right mind” when a crime is committed. A psychopath does not possess the capacity to feel guilt- their brain literally does not produce the chemicals that result in synaptic connections inducing feelings of compassion, love, or aggression. One who is mentally ill may be experiencing symptoms of paranoia- that is, picturing outside forces or make-believe voices insisting on the completion of a task or adherence to a belief system. Schizophrenics cannot filter sounds or voices, and everything sounds mutilated and corrupt. Mental illnesses are not made up, or representative of someone “crazy”. Mental illnesses are chemical imbalances that completely alter the sanity of an individual; suddenly, merciless murder cannot be separated from a simple trip to the grocery store.

In questioning the analysis of one’s mental state, we must also consider the implications of our actions. Ghandi says, “an eye for an eye will make the world go blind.” Thus, when the death sentence is carried out we are essentially hypocritically stripping the world of an opportunity of healing while silmultaneously torturing and abusing the rights and sentience of individuals. Wayne Goodwyn of NPR depicts a botched lethal injection in Ohio through intense emotional imagery in order to convey the immorality of the death penalty to his readers. ‘"Suddenly he opened his mouth," Kiefer says. "His mouth sort of made this funny round shape, and you could see this expulsion of air, and we all jumped. This was something different."...The executioner eventually came out, turned on the death chamber microphone, and tried to reassure everyone that Wood was asleep, and it was OK. But Kiefer says the sounds emanating from the condemned man that were suddenly brutally audible behind the executioner's voice only added another layer to everyone's distress. An hour passed.’

Hence, the death penalty undermines morality in that it ends the lives of those who cannot help their actions. Even if a mental illness is not diagnosed, the human brain is programmed to defend itself when it feels under attack. Any dramatic shift in neurotransmitters will result in a mood change that often results in dangerous action. The bottom line is, most criminals are not themselves in the moment that they are committing a crime; yet, the death penalty literally ends the individual of their right to life and the potential of health.

If the death penalty clearly resembles murder, why do we continue to use it?

When tragedy strikes, humans naturally attempt to ease their pain and sense of loss. These actions present themselves in many forms, from a desperate search for closure, or burning bloodthirst to avenge the victim, or even belief in equal punishment (back to the eye for an eye ideal). But what could we do to prevent natural human reactions in order to better society and simultaneously address the pain experienced by those who lost loved ones?

Ultimately, the lack of knowledge about the death penalty and general thirst for revenge result in a seemingly indifferent mindset amongst the public. The Huffington Post constructed a statistical poll in order to determine the national population’s perception of the morality and cosntituionalty of the death penalty. “While 44 percent of Americans in the HuffPost/YouGov poll say the death penalty is usually applied fairly, 26 percent say it's generally unfair and 30 percent aren't sure. That means 39 percent of Americans who think the death penalty is usually applied unfairly support it anyway, as do 43 percent of those who don't think it deters crime, and 47 percent who think that innocent people are at least occasionally executed.”

What would the world look like without the death penalty?

If more individuals continue to shift towards an anti-capital punishment stance, opportunities for scientific advancement, unity, increased compassion, and human understanding are inevitable. Every single person born onto this Earth holds the possibility of greatness- of bettering society in some way, whether through service, intellectual achievements, or simply fulfilling one’s duty of acting as a good samaritan. However, anatomical inhibitions prohibit these aspirations and expectations of society. We are a very egotistical world- we support selfishness in that we strive to be the best individuals we can be, even if those around us are struggling. This is essentially a response to the overwhelming immensity of corruption in our world. If we were overcome with devastation and depression everytime a crisis occurred, humans would live in a dark society. Thus, we fight for self happiness, and sometimes it infringes upon our altruistic focuses. A general sense of compassion towards individuals who make terrible, terrible mistakes would lead the public to recognize the definition of humanity, and that those who deserve another chance (not without disciplinary action) would ultimately spark collective healing, and treatment for those who need it. With this transition, our globe would shift towards a community of unified individuals working together to promote societal growth.

So where does this leave us?

Currently, activists are striving to end the death penalty through various social media projects and legal actions. Rena Silverman of the New York Times intends to offer insights on the controversy through a new movement called the Final Word. This project, created by Marc Asnin, utilizes the iconic “selfie” to depict the opinions of various photographers describing their opposition to capital punishment. Asnin’s purpose is to illuminate a call for social justice, and support the humanization of criminals who are often considered worthless in the justice system.

With this in mind, it is imperative that we opt to bless every individual, criminal or not, with the same opportunity for growth and health in order to change the world for the better. The death penalty is a major obstruction to this overarching goal, and will continuously undermine morality and constitutionality if it is not combatted. However, statistical evidence proves that the trending shift towards anti-capital punishment is blossoming, and eventually, humanity will be restored to its full potential of successful compassionate individuals.