Brambila

1
Oscar Brambila
John Kubler
English 114B
25 February 2014
Cold Hearted? No: Convenient? Yes
Lets take it back to when we were toddlers, to the day where we learned that every
action brings about its share of reactions or consequences. A widespread lesson that pertains to
every living creature no matter the gender or ethnicity. To every decision made no matter how
big or small, so now lets apply this concept to a more controversial topic referred to as the
death penalty. For decades now, many states have enforced this action as a form of punishment
to those corrupt beings that have committed intolerable transgressions. These intolerable
transgressions can be otherwise defined as crimes in which the majority of cases involve the
perpetrator as purposely murdering, raping, torturing or kidnapping a victim or victims. With that
said, there are a variety of states that have decided to abolish this punishment and allow life in
prison to serve as their most dreaded form of discipline. Although pro-lifers view the death
penalty as being an inhumane sanction that discretely allows revenge to play a role in the
concluding factors of its judicial proceedings, the fact of the matter is our society needs the death
penalty. Plain and simple, it allows our justice system to do what its name states: provide justice.
Not only does it deter crime, but it also provides families with a better comfort of closure.
Knowing the offender will never be able to replicate his past conduct is more appeasing then
having that what if factor weighing on their minds. Sentencing someone to death is more
economically suitable than having our taxes support them and their cable bill till death decides to
Brambila

2
catch up to them. The icing on the cake, entitling the death penalty to everyone on death row
would immensely free up our overpopulated prisons.
Whats there to fear in life, but death itself? There is nothing more terrifying than the
thought of dying, which makes the death penalty a perfect form of discipline all in the efforts of
counteracting crime. Ted Bundy, an infamous serial killer, satisfies this theory as he himself was
waiting nine years for his execution; Bundy exhausted every single legal point he and his
lawyers could think of, all in an attempt to spare him his life. According to an article published
by the National Institute of Mental Health, a federal agency that conducts and supports research
to understand, treat, and prevent mental illness, 68% of people in the United States have
necrophobia, an extreme fear of death (Fear/Phobia Statistics). With these given facts we can
conclude that constraining the death penalty would ultimately deter crime more effectively than
the morally ethical life in prison sentencing. Where there is life there is hope therefore no form
of optimism should be bestowed upon these menacing minds. Why give these individuals even
the slightest opportunity to attempt and escape a prison. Of course the statistics dont favor that
outcome, but it has happened before and can happen again.
Even with all this at hand, people still believe the death penalty is harsh because they
claim that vengeance plays a role throughout the indictment process. Well its quite ironic
actually; the justice system works in a manner of distributing punishments equivalent to the
offense the person has committed. It has nothing to do with revenge and a whole lot to do with
retribution. In an interview conducted by Gregory Kane, a publisher for the newspaper Baltimore
Sun, he consults a family whose daughter/sister was beaten, tortured, mutilated and killed. The
mother asserts in the interview, Revenge would be going out and killing one of [the murderers]
family members. The death penalty isnt revenge. Its the law. illustrating that relatives of
Brambila

3
victims who have been exposed to brutal murders feel that the death penalty is suitable for most
capital cases. With the mother being able to identify the difference between revenge and
retribution, it is clear that the death penalty isnt allocated as a form of vengeance in any case,
but in fact as whats merited. Providing the wrongdoer with disciplinary actions identical to the
misdeed committed is whats ethically right, therefore if there is murder or irrevocable damage
enacted upon the victim, the only equivalent retribution would be to take away the live of the
individual who decided to take away the live of someone else. There is nothing more to it; it has
nothing to do with revenge.
A right that comes into fruition when dealing with the death penalty is the right of self-
defense. As its name states this is a right that allows a person to protect themselves from harm
under suitable circumstances, even when that behaviorunder normal circumstances would be
considered a crime. In a federal case that took place in Prentiss, Mississippi, involving Corey
Mayean African-American and Ron Jonesa white police officer Maye was convicted and
sentenced to death for the murder of Ron. Maye asserts that, the police broke into his duplex
unannounced and that he fired his gun in defense of himself and his 18-month-old daughter.
(Balko) Judge Michael Eubanks however ruled that Maye, was entitled to a new sentencing
hearing because his defense counsel provided inadequate representation. (Balko) Now place
yourself in a similar scenario, a random individual is in your house, youve never seen this
person around your neighborhood or personally know them hence you dont know what he/she is
capable of. Sure you can call the police, but chances are by the time police enforcement arrives
to your house this being has already departed. Another choice would be to confront the
individual and allow what occurs during the confrontation to act as the stepping-stone for further
action. If that person threatens you or you see he has a weapon of some choice then youby law
Brambila

4
have the right to protect yourself by using a weapon of your own. Maye in this situation I feel
had no other choice, but to protect himself and his daughter. As a father there is no limit to what
you must do to ensure the safety of your daughter. This is a rare case, yet I hope that Maye isnt
sentenced to death. He was holding his own ground and although he may have committed other
illegal actions prior to him shooting and killing the officer, the death penalty wouldnt be doing
him justice.
Arguing that condemning someone to death cost more than sustaining this same someone
till they die is pretty senseless. Donald McCartin, a former California jurist claims, "It's 10 times
more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive" (To execute or not: a question of cost?)
Which may be true until you take into consideration the fact that incarcerated criminals have
nothing better to do with their lifes than search for ways in which they can ultimately reverse
their sentencing. They are allowed to appeal their prison terms numerous amounts of times since
it is against the law to reject any of these pleas no matter how ignorant they may sound. The
reason why the death penalty costs as much as it does is because it consists of two different
phases, conviction and sentencing. However these studies dont include the extra appeals an
individual serving life prompts; hence when the amount of all these appeals is summed up there
is no doubt that sentencing someone to death is the most cost efficient method.
With great power comes great responsibility and as citizens of the United States we tend
to take our freedom for granted. We have the choice to play the role of a superhero or a villain,
despite that the consequences to that choice vary greatly. There is a huge distinction between the
two, as a superhero sometimes you have to defend yourself by killing as where a villain goes out
of the way seeking trouble. Just because we have multiple options in practically everything we
do doesnt mean that every one of those choices is commendable. I was taught to never take what
Brambila

5
you wouldnt give and the death penalty as a punishment is just that. Dont murder anyone if you
arent willing to suffer the same fate. Victims of these killers cant write a will or enjoy
television for another 15-20 years like these murderers will get the chance to if they serve a life
term. The death penalty has been around for decades and like everything else in our country, if it
isnt working properly we cease using it. Having it around since the year of 1607 exemplifies
that it is flourishing in ways we need it to. Once again, this sentencing isnt morally wrong, has
nothing to do with revenge and more importantly compels our justice system to stand as its own
and give whatever punishment is deserved.















Brambila

6
Works Cited

"Fear / Phobia Statistics." Statistic Brain RSS. N.p., 28 Aug. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.
<http://www.statisticbrain.com/fear-phobia-statistics/>.

Balko, Radley. "Mississippi Death Row Inmate Argues Killing Was In Self-Defense."
DPIC. Death Penalty Information Center, 26 Sept. 2006. Web. 4 May 2014.

Hastings, Deborah, and Donald McCartin. "To Execute or Not: A Question of Cost? -
USATODAY.com." To Execute or Not: A Question of Cost? N.p., 08 Mar. 2009.
Web. 01 Nov. 2013.

Kane, Gregory. "To Murder Victims' Families, Executing Killers Is Justice."
Baltimoresun.com. N.p., 5 Feb. 2003. Web. 01 Nov. 2013.