The debate over the merits of capital punishment has endured for years and continues to be an extremely indecisive and complicated issue.
Adversaries of capital punishment point to the Marshalls and the Millgards, while proponents point to the Dahmers and Gacys. Society must be kept safe from the monstrous barbaric acts of these individuals and other killers by taking away their lives. This ensures that they cannot function and perform in our society. At the same time, we must ensure that innocent people, such as Marshall and Millgard, are never convicted or sentenced to death for a crime they did not commit. Many contend that the use of capital punishment as a form of deterrence does not work. This is because there are no fewer murders on a per-capita basis in countries or states that have it than those that do not. Certain events must be present in the criminal’s mind prior to committing the offense for capital punishment to work as a deterrent.
The criminal must be aware that others have been punished in the past for the offense that he or she is planning, and that what happened to another individual who committed this offense can also happen to me. However, individuals who commit any type of crime, ranging from auto theft to first-degree murder, never take into account the consequences of their actions. Deterrence to crime is rooted in the individuals themselves. Every human has a personal set of conduct.
How much they will and will not tolerate, and how far they will and will not go, is determined by their personal set of conduct. This set of conduct can be influenced by friends, family, home, life, and other factors. An individual who is not taught restraint as a child will likely not understand limits until they learn them themselves.
Therefore, capital punishment will never truly work as a deterrent because of human nature to ignore practiced advice and to self-learn. There are those who claim that capital punishment is, in itself, a form of vengeance on the killer. But isn’t locking up a human being behind steel bars for many years vengeance itself? And is it humane” that an individual who took the life of another should receive heating, clothing, indoor plumbing, and three meals a day, while a homeless person who has harmed no one receives nothing? Adversaries of capital punishment claim that it is far more humane than having the state take away the life of the individual. In February 1963, Gary McCorkell, a 19-year-old sex offender, was scheduled to hang. But just days before his execution, the then-Liberal cabinet of Lester Person commuted McCorkell to life in prison. Less than 20 years later, McCorkell was arrested, tried, and convicted for the kidnapping and rape of a 10-year-old Tennessee boy.
He was sentenced to 63 years in prison. Prior to leaving Canada, he was sought by Metro Police for the attempted murder of an 11-year-old boy. What has been gained by this? McCorkell’s execution in 1963 would have prevented two boys from experiencing the horror of sexual abuse. Unfortunately, many sex offenders were themselves sexually abused as children and may continue the cycle. While McCorkell may have been a victim of sexual assault in the past, it does not justify his actions.
He did not do this once. He killed two boys and assaulted two others, leaving one for dead. He knew exactly what he was doing. What right does this man have to live? He has ruined the lives of four children. What will he do in life that will compensate for that? What kind of life would the state have been taking away in this case? A life that was beyond the realm of reform and did not care to be. We must be careful. We must be very careful to never, even when suspicion may cause considerable doubt, send an innocent person to be executed.
It could have happened to David Milgaard or Donald Marshall. It has probably occurred numerous times throughout the history of the earth. However, with proper police investigations and evidence showing that the individual is a threat to society as long as they are alive, capital punishment must be used.
