Essay for you

The Death Penalty Definition Essay On Friendship

Rating: 4.1/5.0 (19 Votes)

Category: Essay

Description

Death penalty - definition of death penalty by The Free Dictionary

death penalty

References in classic literature ?

And now, Fellow Citizens and Creatures of the Jury, I assert that so awful a crime deserves death, and in the case of the ferocious criminal before you--who is now washing her face--the death penalty should be inflicted nine times.

We arrived at nothing very definite in the matter of Snider's punishment, since Taylor was for shooting him, Delcarte insisting that he should be hanged, while I, although fully conscious of the gravity of his offense, could not bring myself to give the death penalty .

He even knew that an accomplice might suffer the death penalty with the principal.

made which prescribed the death penalty for "Kyllynge, wowndynge, or

In the first there is a vivid picture of the terrible evils which England was suffering through war, lawlessness, the wholesale and foolish application of the death penalty. the misery of the peasants, the absorption of the land by the rich, and the other distressing corruptions in Church and State.

The unfortunate Gluck received life imprisonment in San Quentin, while the newspapers and the public held that it was a miscarriage of justice--that the death penalty should have been visited upon him.

About six in 10 Americans favor the use of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder, similar to 2014.

A nationwide NBC poll found 47 percent of respondents in favor of giving Tsarnaev the death penalty and 42 percent who would prefer that he be imprisoned for life.

Oregonians voted to reinstate capital punishment in 1984, but Kitzhaber, who oversaw two executions during his first term, imposed a moratorium on the death penalty after returning to the governor's office in 2011.

In 1948, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, only eight countries in the world abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

At the day-long seminar in Islamabad on October 10, World Day against the Death Penalty. entitled ' death penalty in Pakistan: the way forward', speakers from Pakistan and abroad discussed the various aspects of capital punishment.

Those people who campaign to abolish the death penalty just because they believe a non-existent broadsheet 'thou shall not kill'.

Other articles

Реферат - Death To The Death Penalty Essay Research - Иностранный язык

Death To The Death Penalty Essay, Research Paper

Death to the Death Penalty

Murder by definition is the destruction of another human being. When polled, ninety percent of adults, aging from twenty to forty, responded that murder was wrong. In 1994, Polly Klaas, a twelve-year-old girl was abducted from her own home. Her body was later found, and her killer, Richard Alan Davis, pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping and first degree murder. When polled, seventy-five percent of the same adults felt that sentencing Richard Alan Davis to death was not wrong. The death penalty can often be approached in this matter. The definition seems somehow inadequate when it is compared to the crime. It is a paragon of situational ethics, and solid moral arguments are slim. As with many debates of human rights, the moral implications tend to be individual. But, the facts against the death penalty are less vague. Concrete examples of false convictions, unnecessary pain, and barbaric practices can be found within this practice. Due to the imperfect nature of human behavior, no one human entity possesses the arbitrary ability to end the life of another human being.

Richard Alan Davis did indeed commit what the government considers to be the most heinous of crimes. By lawful standards, if anyone deserves to be executed, it would be him. To some, it would appear that executing Davis would be the fit punishment for the crime committed. In such cases, any other form of punishment can simply seem inadequate. Jailing these people for life just doesn’t seem punishment enough. However, there is a sincere irony found within the death penalty. It brings to mind the parental saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.” The government, in essence, has granted itself rights that the individual has not. Furthermore, these individuals are murdered just the same. If it were indeed moral to take the life of one who has killed, there would be nothing. A massive domino effect would be unleashed wherein retribution would be the accepted norm. Eventually, we would all fall victims to capital punishment.

Despite opinion, the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. Whether it is by gas chamber, electric chair, or lethal injection, the process is entirely savage. There have been tales of faulty electric chairs or ineffective cyanide tablets. In a satiric comic dating from 1994, Newsweek portrayed a man awaiting death in the gas chamber. He is thinking to himself, that had he known execution to be so painless, he would have killed from an earlier date. “Execution can never be made humane through science.”-New York Times. The eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution strictly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. In recent years, science has provided what is thought to be a less cruel form of execution. Sitting upon death row, waiting to die is cruel. Every time we execute someone, we as a society sink to the same level as the killer. How can we hope to end barbaric practices, if we still stand in acceptance of them?

In theory, the death penalty serves as a deterrent for further murders. Many politicians argue that executions prevent heinous crime, while virtually no criminologists agree. Some studies indicate that the crime rate actually increases following an execution. In Louisiana, for example, during the summer of 1987, eight people were executed. In that same period, the murder rate in New Orleans rose 16.9%, the highest the area had seen in years. Statistics also indicate that those states with the death penalty do not have a lower rate of crime than those that do not.

In the endless arguments over capital punishment, questions of the agony suffered by the victims and their families’ are raised. The end result always produces one more dead body, one more set of grieving parents, and one more cemetery slot. Those whom support the death penalty feel that the only vindication the victims’ family can receive is to execute the criminal. But, the criminal has a family too. When a person is executed, not one, but two families must grieve. When a person is dead, the punishment is over. Only those left behind are punished. Like the families of terminally ill patients, families of condemned killers experience grief and loss of anticipation of eventual death. “They feel as helpless bystanders in a slow dying process they know can be stopped…their relatives’ death is highly desired since homicide is nearly universally condemned”-Masour. As the great philosopher H.L. hart once wrote, “to take any life is to impose suffering not only on the criminal, but also on many others. That is an evil to be justified only if some good end is achieved thereby that could not be achieved by any other means.”

Today, executions and the process leading up to them cost more than two million dollars, versus the eight-hundred thousand dollars it costs to house an inmate for life. (Litardo, p.3) Ironically, most people tend to assume that execution would be the less expensive of two routes. This money could be used on rehabilitation programs, outreach programs, and preventive programs. In California, the average death row inmate spends close to a decade on death row. (Litardo p.4) Inmates in normal detention cells actually have a higher death ratio than do those on death row. This is most probably do to the fact that death row inmates are segregated from the majority of the prison community.

Perhaps the sad story of Jimmy Wingo, a black man executed in Louisiana can best express the injustices of the death penalty. He was arrested under questionable circumstances and prosecuted by a small district attorney only hoping to secure convictions. Because of his meager financial standings, he received a poor defense. The majority of the witnesses were subpoenaed under the same procedures as the arrest, and some were intimidated before even reaching the stand. His conviction was based upon what could be considered circumstantial and inferential considerations. He, in fact, had never even set foot inside the home of the victim. Regardless, he was sentenced to death and executed. The case of Jimmy Wingo presents the universally most argumentative factor of the death penalty: the execution of the innocent. It was recently reported that at least 350 people had been wrongly sentenced to death, 23 of which were found to be innocent after they had been executed. A pardon cannot be granted to inmate who is no longer alive.

Every time we execute someone, we are sending the most profound message about the value of human life. Despite the nature of one’s actions or flaws, we are all still human. We all bleed, cry, and hurt. Where we cannot crawl inside the head of another, the agony of awaiting death must be torture. Would we be so quick to judge if the convicted killer was a loved one or friend? So many moral questions are raised; one cannot even define the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps if we did not attempt to fight hatred and anger with hatred and anger, there would be less of it to fight. We all possess a certain amount of fallacy within us, as we are all imperfect beings. In exacting the truths about right and wrong, we can never be sure. Rather, within our own imperfections, we must attempt to define it.

There are no universally accepted parameters for judging the value of human life. Opinions and beliefs vary from individual to individual, and we all possess free will. One cannot hope to change the past. When a person is murdered, it is one of the most heinous thoughts imaginable. But, to advocate execution will only leave us as hypocrites, rather than avengers of justice.

The validity of the death penalty is negligible, as is the human ability to weigh the value of life. Conceivably it is possible to decrease the levels of heinous crime today. But, when heinous crime is punished with the same, we are no better than the criminals are. Rationalization of the death penalty only equates to judicial murder. The same judges inflict unnecessary pain on the loved ones of the executed. If what we are all striving for is less pain, than we should not be advocating more. There are no easy answers, nor is there a clear line of right and wrong. Individual free will leads to differences within us all. Nevertheless, we are all still human. That has to count for something.

Death Penalty 5 Essay Research Paper Death

Death Penalty 5 Essay Research Paper Death

Death Penalty 5 Essay, Research Paper

Death PenaltyYou are running down the street with your best friend not too farbehind. You manage to round the corner, but you hear your friend trip. Suddenly a shot rings out. Your friend screams. You continue to run, butlook back and see the man who was following you pull out a large knife. Shocked in terror you can only blankly stare as the man proceed to cut yourfriend to pieces. The blade falls once. There is an explosion of red. The blade falls twice. Entrails spill onto the floor. The blade fallsthree times, four times, five, six. He then reaches down and dips is handinto the blaring pool of crimson that soaks the ground. Lifting his handhe begins to write on the wall in front of him with the freshly spilledblood of your now dead friend. Would a situation like this horrify you? Well you should know thatseven murders just like this occurred in two nights. The man responsibleis Charles Manson. Manson is the leader of a large cult following, and even after beingarrested for his truly horrific deeds still influences the cult today. In1975 one of Manson’s followers, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, made anassassination attempt on then president Gerald Ford, in Manson’s name. Even now if you go to New York City you can find shirts with his picture onthem, glorifying him. Songs have been written praising him. But together these have not yet touched the scariest thing aboutCharles Manson. The thing that you should be most frightened of is thatCharles Manson, and many like him are alive, with chance of parole. Yesthis murderous madman could yet again r

un rampant in the world. It is for

this reason that the death penalty is necessary. Capital punishment is the system by which the people who havecommitted the most heinous crimes are executed either by electric chair,gas chamber, or lethal injection. Despite the evil and malice presented by such people there are somewho would deem this practice inhumane. It seems strange to me that thewelfare of the community should not come before that of a convictedmurderer. If there is any chance that this person could possibly committhis crime again it should be impossible to come to a decision ,such asputting them in jail with chance of parole, that could conceivable placethe lives of law abiding citizens in danger. Furthermore do they trulyexpect us to believe that placing them in cells like caged animals is trulyhumane. Opponents of the death penalty also point out that the threat ofcapital punishment will not decrease the murder rate. They are failing torealize an important role filled by capital punishment. Very few corpsesare murderers. Anyway, with the ease the current capital punishment systemcan be avoided how can anyone truly say that the threat of the deathpenalty never enters into the mind of a murderer? Maybe they just realizethat they can appeal so many times that they probably will die of naturalcauses before being executed. Obviously a reformed system of capital punishment which allow forfewer appeals would be beneficial to our orderly, organized society. Itwould serve an exceedingly beneficial purpose, to put murderers in theirgraves and keep innocent, would be victims, out.

Rodac International bv, YOUR POWERFUL FRIEND

Rodac International has been supplying a complete range of pneumatic tools, accessories and workshop equipment for more than fifty years through its extensive dealer network across Europe, which is growing every year. Rodac has become the market leader in the Benelux thanks to its wide and innovative product range and excellent price-quality relationship. By maintaining a high level of service, offering an in-house repair service, innovative sales materials and excellent customer support, Rodac lives up to its slogan ‘Your Powerful Friend’ and offers its dealers true value. Rodac is a ‘Powerful Friend’ for its end-users, because it offers them the best and most powerful tool at an affordable price, including a 2-year guarantee.

Click on the image

The products of Rodac are especially in demand in the automotive industry. Garages and body shops, for instance, are among the main users of Rodac products. The plastics, wood and metallurgical industries, however, have now also discovered Rodac as a major supplier of powerful tools at an affordable price.

This website not only offers a dealer locator to find your nearest dealer, but also extensive information on all our products and more. It also offers you the opportunity to view and download many handy pages on tools and materials, such as parts diagrams.


Erkend leerbedrijf 2015

Rodac International - Nijverheidsstraat 1 - 6135 KJ Sittard - The Netherlands - T: 0031(0)464582299 - F: 0031(0)464580590 - info@sam-rodac.com

© Rodac International B.V.

Essay on death penalty the Colonial

Essay on death penalty

Part II Once you complete the matrix, use the space below to essay on death penalty a 75- to 100-word response describing the role civil disobedience played in the Civil Rights. Try to say as much as you can say in the fewest number of words. Short Answer Questions Answer each question below.

To be on the safe side, if youre short on words count them as one and if youre running over count them as two. essay writing help uk In respect, we touch the feet of all elders, holy men and women in recognition of their great humility and attainment. A student touches the feet of his teacher.

It was no big deal. The word count is not an empirical thing, but more words correlates with more content correlates with a better essay. And the inverse is also true, perhaps more so. They wud read it absolutely.

He introduced the English system of education to produce Brown Sahibs who were to be English in taste and temperament. This expectation was more than fulfilled even by 1900 and after our independence thanks to our Anglo-Saxon Prime Minister Nehru this process has been completed with consummate ruthlessness. After the outward display and establishment of the forces of Colonialism, came an intellectual form that was less overt but more dangerous and explosively insidious. buy writing paper online It was given the glorious title of White Mans Burden.

The definition of a friend, and friendship, is based upon oneself. Alice lived across the field from Harriets burrow. Write my history paper spent hours nibbling on clover and wiggling their whiskers. Most of all, they loved playing with Harriets Wii.

2014 essay on death penalty Good

CrosswordPlay these words in a crossword puzzle. pay for written essay You have to know what youre going to write.

Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, giving the military. Stereotyping is a remnant of a past time when a persons college essay help determined their perceived inferiority or superiority. Looked into moral and social issues that arise during the course of the film. Matt Bai gives three reasons for New Jerseys current financial woes.

Learn from them and avoid making admissions directors laugh or, worse, want to hurl when they read your essays. write a essay on corruption Another important characteristic in a friend is someone who I can talk to, and makes me laugh.

We wish you all the Best Subscribe to our newsletter and join our 150,000 subscribers, who get fresh Educational news from Myedu. Yes the information is true this time the 2014 WAEC result has been released but not yet online though, the board announced that results will�Company Profile Zenith Bank Plc, a leader in financial services writing essays for college headquarters in Nigeria and subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Paid essay service, and Essay on death penalty Africa (Representative Office),�We wish to inform you all that the National Writing essay scholarships Entrance Examination 2014 National registration is currently going on now, The National Common Entrance Examination is ment for admission into Junior� Essay on death penalty 2015 CBT App is Ready This app is unique because it is filled with targeted 2015 JAMB questions and their full solutions.

Admission without JAMB Gain Admission without JAMB into 200L to your preferred university with ease via IJMB programme. Click to find out.

Flattery along with manipulation was used as a way of persuasion to soothe any feelings of doubt or weariness. Everything is shared, loyalty to the friendship is equal, and the basis of the camaraderie is wholly altruistic. need help with essay writing Book review Did this article include an abstract.

Essay on death penalty

Rating 5 points View: 2668

Recent Post

Реферат на тему Death Penalty 5 Essay Research Paper Death

Death Penalty 5 Essay, Research Paper

Death PenaltyYou are running down the street with your best friend not too farbehind. You manage to round the corner, but you hear your friend trip. Suddenly a shot rings out. Your friend screams. You continue to run, butlook back and see the man who was following you pull out a large knife. Shocked in terror you can only blankly stare as the man proceed to cut yourfriend to pieces. The blade falls once. There is an explosion of red. The blade falls twice. Entrails spill onto the floor. The blade fallsthree times, four times, five, six. He then reaches down and dips is handinto the blaring pool of crimson that soaks the ground. Lifting his handhe begins to write on the wall in front of him with the freshly spilledblood of your now dead friend. Would a situation like this horrify you? Well you should know thatseven murders just like this occurred in two nights. The man responsibleis Charles Manson. Manson is the leader of a large cult following, and even after beingarrested for his truly horrific deeds still influences the cult today. In1975 one of Manson’s followers, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, made anassassination attempt on then president Gerald Ford, in Manson’s name. Even now if you go to New York City you can find shirts with his picture onthem, glorifying him. Songs have been written praising him. But together these have not yet touched the scariest thing aboutCharles Manson. The thing that you should be most frightened of is thatCharles Manson, and many like him are alive, with chance of parole. Yesthis murderous madman could yet again run rampant in the world. It is for

this reason that the death penalty is necessary. Capital punishment is the system by which the people who havecommitted the most heinous crimes are executed either by electric chair,gas chamber, or lethal injection. Despite the evil and malice presented by such people there are somewho would deem this practice inhumane. It seems strange to me that thewelfare of the community should not come before that of a convictedmurderer. If there is any chance that this person could possibly committhis crime again it should be impossible to come to a decision ,such asputting them in jail with chance of parole, that could conceivable placethe lives of law abiding citizens in danger. Furthermore do they trulyexpect us to believe that placing them in cells like caged animals is trulyhumane. Opponents of the death penalty also point out that the threat ofcapital punishment will not decrease the murder rate. They are failing torealize an important role filled by capital punishment. Very few corpsesare murderers. Anyway, with the ease the current capital punishment systemcan be avoided how can anyone truly say that the threat of the deathpenalty never enters into the mind of a murderer? Maybe they just realizethat they can appeal so many times that they probably will die of naturalcauses before being executed. Obviously a reformed system of capital punishment which allow forfewer appeals would be beneficial to our orderly, organized society. Itwould serve an exceedingly beneficial purpose, to put murderers in theirgraves and keep innocent, would be victims, out.

Death To The Death Penalty Essay Research

Death To The Death Penalty Essay, Research Paper

Death to the Death Penalty

Murder by definition is the destruction of another human being. When polled, ninety percent of adults, aging from twenty to forty, responded that murder was wrong. In 1994, Polly Klaas, a twelve-year-old girl was abducted from her own home. Her body was later found, and her killer, Richard Alan Davis, pleaded guilty to charges of kidnapping and first degree murder. When polled, seventy-five percent of the same adults felt that sentencing Richard Alan Davis to death was not wrong. The death penalty can often be approached in this matter. The definition seems somehow inadequate when it is compared to the crime. It is a paragon of situational ethics, and solid moral arguments are slim. As with many debates of human rights, the moral implications tend to be individual. But, the facts against the death penalty are less vague. Concrete examples of false convictions, unnecessary pain, and barbaric practices can be found within this practice. Due to the imperfect nature of human behavior, no one human entity possesses the arbitrary ability to end the life of another human being.

Richard Alan Davis did indeed commit what the government considers to be the most heinous of crimes. By lawful standards, if anyone deserves to be executed, it would be him. To some, it would appear that executing Davis would be the fit punishment for the crime committed. In such cases, any other form of punishment can simply seem inadequate. Jailing these people for life just doesn’t seem punishment enough. However, there is a sincere irony found within the death penalty. It brings to mind the parental saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.” The government, in essence, has granted itself rights that the individual has not. Furthermore, these individuals are murdered just the same. If it were indeed moral to take the life of one who has killed, there would be nothing. A massive domino effect would be unleashed wherein retribution would be the accepted norm. Eventually, we would all fall victims to capital punishment.

Despite opinion, the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. Whether it is by gas chamber, electric chair, or lethal injection, the process is entirely savage. There have been tales of faulty electric chairs or ineffective cyanide tablets. In a satiric comic dating from 1994, Newsweek portrayed a man awaiting death in the gas chamber. He is thinking to himself, that had he known execution to be so painless, he would have killed from an earlier date. “Execution can never be made humane through science.”-New York Times. The eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution strictly prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. In recent years, science has provided what is thought to be a less cruel form of execution. Sitting upon death row, waiting to die is cruel. Every time we execute someone, we as a society sink to the same level as the killer. How can we hope to end barbaric practices, if we still stand in acceptance of them?

In theory, the death penalty serves as a deterrent for further murders. Many politicians argue that executions prevent heinous crime, while virtually no criminologists agree. Some studies indicate that the crime rate actually increases following an execution. In Louisiana, for example, during the summer of 1987, eight people were executed. In that same period, the murder rate in New Orleans rose 16.9%, the highest the area had seen in years. Statistics also indicate that those states with the death penalty do not have a lower rate of crime than those that do not.

In the endless arguments over capital punishment, questions of the agony suffered by the victims and their families’ are raised. The end result always produces one more dead body, one more set of grieving parents, and one more cemetery slot. Those whom support the death penalty feel that the only vindication the victims’ family can receive is to execute the criminal. But, the criminal has a family too. When a person is executed, not one, but two families must grieve. When a person is dead, the punishment is over. Only those left behind are punished. Like the families of terminally ill patients, families of condemned killers experience grief and loss of anticipation of eventual death. “They feel as helpless bystanders in a slow dying process they know can be stopped…their relatives’ death is highly desired since homicide is nearly universally condemned”-Masour. As the great philosopher H.L. hart once wrote, “to take any life is to impose suffering not only on the criminal, but also on many others. That is an evil to be justified only if some good end is achieved thereby that could not be achieved by any other means.”

Today, executions and the process leading up to them cost more than two million dollars, versus the eight-hundred thousand dollars it costs to house an inmate for life. (Litardo, p.3) Ironically, most people tend to assume that execution would be the less expensive of two routes. This money could be used on rehabilitation programs, outreach programs, and preventive programs. In California, the average death row inmate spends close to a decade on death row. (Litardo p.4) Inmates in normal detention cells actually have a higher death ratio than do those on death row. This is most probably do to the fact that death row inmates are segregated from the majority of the prison community.

Perhaps the sad story of Jimmy Wingo, a black man executed in Louisiana can best express the injustices of the death penalty. He was arrested under questionable circumstances and prosecuted by a small district attorney only hoping to secure convictions. Because of his meager financial standings, he received a poor defense. The majority of the witnesses were subpoenaed under the same procedures as the arrest, and some were intimidated before even reaching the stand. His conviction was based upon what could be considered circumstantial and inferential considerations. He, in fact, had never even set foot inside the home of the victim. Regardless, he was sentenced to death and executed. The case of Jimmy Wingo presents the universally most argumentative factor of the death penalty: the execution of the innocent. It was recently reported that at least 350 people had been wrongly sentenced to death, 23 of which were found to be innocent after they had been executed. A pardon cannot be granted to inmate who is no longer alive.

Every time we execute someone, we are sending the most profound message about the value of human life. Despite the nature of one’s actions or flaws, we are all still human. We all bleed, cry, and hurt. Where we cannot crawl inside the head of another, the agony of awaiting death must be torture. Would we be so quick to judge if the convicted killer was a loved one or friend? So many moral questions are raised; one cannot even define the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps if we did not attempt to fight hatred and anger with hatred and anger, there would be less of it to fight. We all possess a certain amount of fallacy within us, as we are all imperfect beings. In exacting the truths about right and wrong, we can never be sure. Rather, within our own imperfections, we must attempt to define it.

There are no universally accepted parameters for judging the value of human life. Opinions and beliefs vary from individual to individual, and we all possess free will. One cannot hope to change the past. When a person is murdered, it is one of the most heinous thoughts imaginable. But, to advocate execution will only leave us as hypocrites, rather than avengers of justice.

The validity of the death penalty is negligible, as is the human ability to weigh the value of life. Conceivably it is possible to decrease the levels of heinous crime today. But, when heinous crime is punished with the same, we are no better than the criminals are. Rationalization of the death penalty only equates to judicial murder. The same judges inflict unnecessary pain on the loved ones of the executed. If what we are all striving for is less pain, than we should not be advocating more. There are no easy answers, nor is there a clear line of right and wrong. Individual free will leads to differences within us all. Nevertheless, we are all still human. That has to count for something.

The Death Penalty, an essay

"Down with the gallows!" is a cry not unfamiliar in America. There is always a movement afoot to make odious the just principle; of "a life for a life"—to represent it as "a relic of barbarism," "a usurpation of the divine authority," and the rest of it. The law making murder punishable by death is as purely a measure of self-defense as is the display of a pistol to one diligently endeavoring to kill without provocation. It is in precisely the same sense an admonition, a warning to abstain from crime. Society says by that law: "If you kill one of us you die," just as by display of the pistol the individual whose life is attacked says: "Desist or be shot." To be effective the warning in either case must be more than an idle threat. Even the most unearthly reasoner among the anti-hanging unfortunates would hardly expect to frighten away an assassin who knew the pistol to be unloaded. Of course these queer illogicians can not be made to understand that their position commits them to absolute non-resistance to any kind of aggression; and that is fortunate for the rest of us, for if as Christians they frankly and consistently took that ground we should be under the miserable necessity of respecting them.

We have good reason to hold that the horrible prevalence of murder in this country is due to the fact that we do not execute our laws—that the death penalty is threatened but not inflicted—that the pistol is not loaded. In civilized countries where there is enough respect for the laws to administer them, there is enough to obey them. While man still has as much of the ancestral brute as his skin can hold without cracking we shall have thieves and demagogues and anarchists and assassins and persons with a private system of lexicography who define murder as disease and hanging as murder, but in all this welter of crime and stupidity are areas where human life is comparatively secure against the human hand. It is at least a significant coincidence that in these the death penalty for murder is fairly well enforced by judges who do not derive any part of their authority from those for whose restraint and punishment they hold it. Against the life of one guiltless person the lives of ten thousand murderers count for nothing; their hanging is a public good, without reference to the crimes that disclose their deserts. If we could discover them by other signs than their bloody deeds they should be hanged anyhow. Unfortunately we must have a death as evidence. The scientist who will tell us how to recognize the potential assassin, and persuade us to kill him, will be the greatest benefactor of his century.

What would these enemies of the gibbet have—these lineal descendants of the drunken mobs that hooted the hangman at Tyburn Tree; this progeny of criminals, which has so defiled with the mud of its animosity the noble office of public, executioner that even "in this enlightened age" he shirks his high duty, entrusting it to a hidden or unnamed subordinate? If murder is unjust of what importance is it whether its punishment by death be just or not?—nobody needs to incur it. Men are not drafted for the death penalty; they volunteer. "Then it is not deterrent," mutters the gentleman whose rude forefather hooted the hangman. Well, as to that, the law which is to accomplish more than a part of its purpose must be awaited with great patience. Every murder proves that hanging is not altogether deterrent; every hanging, that it is somewhat deterrent—it deters the person hanged. A man's first murder is his crime, his second is ours.

The socialists, it seems, believe with Alphonse Karr, in the expediency of abolishing the death penalty; but apparently they do not hold, with him, that the assassins should begin. They want the state to begin, believing that the magnanimous example will effect a change of heart in those about to murder. This, I take it, is the meaning of their assertion that death penalties have not the deterring influence that imprisonment for life carries. In this they obviously err: death deters at least the person who suffers it—he commits no more murder; whereas the assassin who is imprisoned for life and immune from further punishment may with impunity kill his keeper or whomsoever he may be able to get at. Even as matters now are, incessant vigilance is required to prevent convicts in prison from murdering their attendants and one another. How would it be if the "life-termer" were assured against any additional inconvenience for braining a guard occasionally, or strangling a chaplain now and then? A penitentiary may be described as a place of punishment and reward; and under the system proposed, the difference in desirableness between a sentence and an appointment would be virtually effaced. To overcome this objection a life sentence would have to mean solitary confinement, and that means insanity. Is that what these gentlemen propose to substitute for death?

The death penalty, say these amiables and futilitarians, creates blood-thirstiness in the unthinking masses and defeats its own ends—is itself a cause of murder, not a check. These gentlemen are themselves of "the unthinking masses"—they do not know how to think. Let them try to trace and lucidly expound the chain of motives lying between the knowledge that a murderer has been hanged and the wish to commit a murder. How, precisely, does the one beget the other? By what unearthly process of reasoning does a man turning away from the gallows persuade himself that it is expedient to incur the danger of hanging? Let us have pointed out to us the several steps in that remarkable mental progress. Obviously, the thing is absurd; one might as reasonably say that contemplation of a pitted face will make a man wish to go and catch smallpox, or the spectacle of an amputated limb on the scrap-heap of a hospital tempt him to cut off his arm or renounce his leg.

"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," say the opponents of the death penalty, "is not justice; it is revenge and unworthy of a Christian civilization." It is exact justice: nobody can think of anything more accurately just than such punishments would be, whatever the motive in awarding them. Unfortunately such a system is not practicable, but he who denies its justice must deny also the justice of a bushel of corn for a bushel of corn, a dollar for a dollar, service for service. We can not undertake by such clumsy means as laws and courts to do to the criminal exactly what he has done to his victim, but to demand a life for a life is simple, practicable, expedient and (therefore) right.

"Taking the life of a murderer does not restore the life he took, therefore it is a most illogical punishment. Two wrongs do not make a right."

Here's richness! Hanging an assassin is illogical because it does not restore the life of his victim; incarceration is logical; therefore, incarceration does—quod, erat demonstrandum.

Two wrongs certainly do not make a right, but the veritable thing in dispute is whether taking the life of a life-taker is a wrong. So naked and unashamed an example of petitio principii would disgrace a debater in a pinafore. And these wonder-mongers have the effrontery to babble of "logic"! Why, if one of them were to meet a syllogism in a lonely road he would run away in a hundred and fifty directions as hard as ever he could hoof it. One is almost ashamed to dispute with such intellectual cloutlings.

Whatever an individual may rightly do to protect himself society may rightly do to protect him, for he is a part of itself. If he may rightly take life in defending himself society may rightly take life in defending him. If society may rightly take life in defending him it may rightly threaten to take it. Having rightly and mercifully threatened to take it, it not only rightly may take it, but expediently must.

The law of a life for a life does not altogether prevent murder. No law can altogether prevent any form of crime, nor is it desirable that it should. Doubtless God could so have created us that our sense of right and justice could have existed without contemplation of injustice and wrong; as doubtless he could so have created us that we could have felt compassion without a knowledge of suffering; but he did not. Constituted as we are, we can know good only by contrast with evil. Our sense of sin is what our virtues feed upon; in the thin air of universal morality the altar-fires of honor and the beacons of conscience could not be kept alight. A community without crime would be a community without warm and elevated sentiments—without the sense of justice, without generosity, without courage, without mercy, without magnanimity—a community of small, smug souls, uninteresting to God and uncoveted by the Devil. We can have, and do have, too much crime, no doubt; what the wholesome proportion is none can tell. Just now we are running a good deal to murder, but he who can gravely attribute that phenomenon, or any part of it, to infliction of the death penalty, instead of to virtual immunity from any penalty at all, is justly entitled to the innocent satisfaction that comes of being a simpleton.

The New Woman is against the death penalty, naturally, for she is hot and hardy in the conviction that whatever is is wrong. She has visited this world in order to straighten things about a bit, and is in distress lest the number of things be insufficient to her need. The matter is important variously; not least so in its relation to the new heaven and the new earth that are to be the outcome of woman suffrage. There can be no doubt that the vast majority of women have sentimental objections to the death penalty that quite outweigh such practical considerations in its favor as they can be persuaded to comprehend. Aided by the minority of men afflicted by the same mental malady, they will indubitably effect its abolition in the first lustrum of their political "equality." The New Woman will scarcely feel the seat of power warm beneath her before giving to the assassin's "unhand me, villain!" the authority of law. So we shall make again the old experiment, discredited by a thousand failures, of preventing crime by tenderness to caught criminals. And the criminal uncaught will treat us to a quantity and quality of crime notably augmented by the Christian spirit of the new regime.

As to painless execution, the simple and practical way to make them both just and expedient is the adoption by murderers of a system of painless assassinations. Until this is done there seems to be no call to renounce the wholesome discomfort of the style of executions endeared to us by memories and associations of the tenderest character. There is, I fancy, a shaping notion in the observant mind that the penologists and their allies have gone about as far as they can safely be permitted to go in the direction of a softer suasion of the criminal nature toward good behavior. The modern prison has become a rather more comfortable habitation than the dangerous classes are accustomed to at home. Modern prison life has in their eyes something of the charm and glamor of an ideal existence, like that in the Happy Valley from which Rasselas had the folly to escape. Whatever advantages to the public may be secured by abating the rigors of imprisonment and inconveniences incident to execution, there is this objection: it makes them less deterrent. Let the penologers and philanthropers have their way and even hanging might be made so pleasant and withal so interesting a social distinction that it would deter nobody but the person hanged. Adopt the euthanasian method of electricity, asphyxia by smothering in rose-leaves, or slow poisoning with rich food, and the death penalty may come to be regarded as the object of a noble ambition to the bon vivant, and the rising young suicide may go and kill somebody else instead of himself, in order to receive from the public executioner a happier dispatch than his own 'prentice hand can assure him.

But the advocates of agreeable pains and penalties tell us that in the darker ages, when cruel and degrading punishment was the rule, and was freely inflicted for every light infraction of the law, crime was more common than it is now; and in this they appear to be right. But one and all, they overlook a fact equally obvious and vastly significant, that the intellectual, moral and social condition of the masses was very low. Crime was more common because ignorance was more common, poverty was more common, sins of authority, and therefore hatred of authority, were more common. The world of even a century ago was a different world from the world of today, and a vastly more uncomfortable one. The popular adage to the contrary notwithstanding, human nature was not by a long cut the same then that it is now. In the very ancient time of that early English king, George III, when women were burned at the stake in public for various offenses and men were hanged for "coining" and children for theft, and in the still remoter period (circa 1530), when prisoners were boiled in several waters, divers sorts of criminals were disemboweled and some are thought to have undergone the peine forte et dure of cold-pressing (an infliction which the pen of Hugo has since made popular—in literature)—in these wicked old days crime flourished, not because of the law's severity, but in spite of it. It is possible that our law-making ancestors understood the situation as it then was a trifle better than we can understand it on the hither side of this gulf of years, and that they were not the reasonless barbarians that we think them to have been. And if they were, what must have been the unreason and barbarity of the criminal element with which they had to deal?

I am far from thinking that severity of punishment can have the same restraining effect as probability of some punishment being inflicted; but if mildness of penalty is to be superadded to difficulty of conviction, and both are to be mounted upon laxity in detection, the pile will be complete indeed. There is a peculiar fitness, perhaps, in the fact that all these pleas for comfortable punishment should be urged at a time when there appears to be a general disposition to inflict no punishment at all. There are, however, still a few old-fashioned persons who hold it obvious that one who is ambitious to break the laws of his country will not with so light a heart and so airy an indifference incur the peril of a harsh penalty as he will the chance of one more nearly resembling that which he would himself select.

After lying for more than a century dead I was revived, dowered with a new body, and restored to society. The first thing of interest that I observed was an enormous building, covering a square mile of ground. It was surrounded on all sides by a high, strong wall of hewn stone upon which armed sentinels paced to and fro. In one face of the wall was a single gate of massive iron, strongly guarded. While admiring the Cyclopean architecture of the "reverend pile" I was accosted by a man in uniform, evidently the warden, with a cheerful salutation.

"Colonel," I said, "pray tell me what is this building."

"This," said he, "is the new state penitentiary. It is one of twelve, all alike."

"You surprise me," I replied. "Surely the criminal element must have increased enormously."

"Yes, indeed," he assented; "under the Reform régime, which began in your day, crime became so powerful, bold and fierce that arrests were no longer possible and the prisons then in existence were soon overcrowded. The state was compelled to erect others of greater capacity."

"But, Colonel," I protested, "if the criminals were too bold and powerful to be taken into custody, of what use are the prisons? And how are they crowded?"

He fixed upon me a look that I could not fail to interpret as expressing a doubt of my sanity. "What!" he said, "is it possible that the modern penology is unknown to you? Do you suppose we practice the antiquated and ineffective method of shutting up the rascals? Sir, the growth of the criminal element has, as I said, compelled the erection of more and larger prisons. We have enough to hold comfortably all the honest men and women of the state. Within these protecting walls they carry on all the necessary vocations of life excepting commerce. That is necessarily in the hands of the rogues, as before."

"Venerated representative of Reform," I exclaimed, wringing his hand with effusion, "you are Knowledge, you are History, you are the Higher Education! We must talk further. Come, let us enter this benign edifice; you shall show me your dominion and instruct me in the rules. You shall propose me as an inmate."

I walked rapidly to the gate. When challenged by the sentinel, I turned to summon my instructor. He was nowhere visible. I turned again to look at the prison. Nothing was there: desolate and forbidding, as about the broken statue of Ozymandias,

The lone and level sands stretched far away.

"The Death Penalty" is reprinted from A Cynic Looks at Life. Ambrose Bierce. New York: Albert and Charles Boni, 1912.