Derek Wong
English 306
Death Penalty
3/30/2001
City of Justice
At 9:32 am on April 19,1995, the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, someone parked a Ryder truck carrying a 4,000-pound fertilizer-and-fuel-oil bomb, lit the fuse and walked away. The blast shredded the front of the nine-story building, hurling tons of concrete, steel and glass into a 20-foot crater. Shock waves were felt 50 miles away, and a huge fireball exploded into the sky. Hundreds of people were trapped in the wreckage, and 168 were killed, including 19 children.
Investigation showed that Timothy lit the fuse and walked away. McVeigh "converted the Ryder truck from a cargo vehicle into a gigantic deadly bomb," prosecutor Joseph Hartzler told the jury and "the truck was there to impose the will of Timothy McVeigh on the rest of America, and to do so by premeditated violence and terror." On August 14th, 2000, McVeigh was sentenced to the death penalty by use of lethal injection. Should he be executed for his crime? This paper will focus on how the legal system should always be enforcing justice and how McVeigh should be executed.
Before moving on, justice must be defined. What action is just may be subjective, however it should be made clear that an action is either just or unjust. It can also be said that a system is either just or unjust. The purpose of the justice system is to ensure that justice is served, and that criminal actions against society will not be repeated.
The concept of justice demands that if a system is not working, then it must be fixed. Therefore, if the current justice system is flawed, then the death penalty should still be kept an option. Justice calls for making what is wrong, right again. We, the people, trust our leaders to ensure our safety and expect them to take the necessary steps.
Many laws have a "mandatory" sentencing period. However, criminals who commit repeated offenses are often released before they have finished their sentenced incarceration period, and/or before they have been properly rehabilitated. Rehabilitation includes, but not limited to, being mentally and socially capable of being reintegrated back into society. This may be due to "good-behavior," appeals, or even pardons. The "revolving door" concept, in which criminals who commit cruel and heinous crimes may spend only a fraction of their actual sentencing imprisoned and then allowed back into society, is an unjust concept. When criminals are released, whether it is because of parole or good-behavior, they return to their life of committing crimes. This is one reason why having the possibility of parole defeats the purpose of an incarceration system. Our leaders must take measures to separate criminals from society.
In Hawaii, the highest degree of punishment is life without the possibly of parole. However, the safety of the public is still at risk. Across the nation there is a 16% prisoner escape rate. When these prisoners escape, majority has resorted to stealing, killing, and repeating their violent crimes (www.prodeathpenalty.com). For example, the "Texas Seven "who have escaped from a maximum prison went on a rampage and killed one Irving police officer and robbed a K-mart of $70,000. Had they been executed the first time around, this tragedy will not have happened, and a life would have been saved.
The purpose of having an incarceration system is to keep convicts and delinquents separate from the rest of society in order to ensure the peace and safety of everyone. It would be ideal if the incarceration system did achieve its purpose of isolating and rehabilitating threats from society. If the prisoners were released before they were completely rehabilitated or after they have a proven track record of repetitious criminal acts, then it is highly possible they will strike again. It would be ideal if incarceration units, such as prisons, could be a secured place where the criminal would only have a miniscule chance of escaping. However, this has ideal prison security does not exist, therefore other options must be kept opened. Unlike the current prison system, the death penalty will ensure that they will not be allowed to strike again, ever. Justice dictates that the well being of society must take precedence. The innocent shall not be harmed, and the guilty party shall be punished. However many people have said that the death penalty is flawed. There are many ways that people feel why the death penalty is unsuitable as a punishment, however I will address only one issue, irrevocability.
Irrevocability is a very powerful argument in that there is a chance of an injustice happening. Although the execution of an innocent inmate has occurred (only two since 1949), it must be emphasized that there is no system that is perfect. For example, there are hundreds of car fatalities everyday, but yet we drive to our school, our work, and our homes everyday regardless. We can not allow a few mistakes to deter us from using the death penalty. People must realize that the death penalty is the ultimate punishment and as such is not considered lightly and given to just anyone. There are strict criteria and an immeasurable amount of investigation and energy to ensure that only the guilty party shall be punished. The following are the criterion given to determine the death penalty (www.prodeathpenality.com):
These safeguards will insure that justice will be served without having the innocent suffer. An interesting fact is that every year approximately 250 new offenders are added to death row, however no more than thirty-eight people have been executed a year since 1976. It is typical to take seven or eight years for a convict on death row to actually receive the death penalty. The state and federal courts review the death row inmates’ cases. With this many opportunities for the case to be turned over or the sentence to be changed (or even pardoned) it is almost impossible for an innocent person to be executed. The chances of an innocent party being executed are almost non-existent.
If it is clear that a person is guilty of murder, then that person should be sentenced to death. Justice must be served. Placing murderers in prison is no longer a viable option because of the high rates of escapes and turn arounds (need to cite evidence). In jail they would have a possible chance for parole or even release. If they happen to make it back out to the world, who is to say he or she will not kill again. Of the 2,575 prisoners sentenced to death in 1992, 1 out of 11 had a prior conviction of homicide. This means additional people had to die before these murderers were sentenced to death (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2698/cp.html).
I would just like to emphasize that every person’s life is of value. It is safe to say that we would not want to die, and that we would not want to take a person’s life if we did not have to. Regardless of what have criminals done, their life is still a life. However, it comes down to what is best for the overall benefit of society. If the existence of the convict can substantially threaten the security of society then measurements must be taken to prevent any harm.
If the convicts that committed numerous, unforgivable crimes were imprisoned securely the first time, then they would not have escaped to commit their crimes again. If the murderers were sentenced to death the first time they were convicted, innocent lives would not have had to perish. If Timothy McVeigh is allowed to commit his crime again, then there will be countless others killed. It doesn’t matter if he wishes to die, it doesn’t matter if he will be a martyr, what matters most is that he can not harm anyone else anymore. He, as well as many others, should be handed the death penalty and be permanently removed from society. By executing the murderers the first time around, justice will be served correctly the first time. The punishment would fit the crime and the victims’ families and society would be helped knowing one less murderer is out in the streets. Thus, we can say we live in a true city of justice.