The Inhumanity of Capital Punishment

The establishment of justice indicates that delinquents will receive the punishment they deserve for their immoral actions; yet, in some cases the law itself uses this immorality to sentence these delinquents to death. Such a hypocritical dynamic may lead one to wonder whether there is any situation where man should have the right to take the life of another and call it justice. In the history of American law, this debate has been a constant uphill battle among citizens and state governments, so author Truman Capote took it upon himself to address this in an abstract manner through his novel In Cold Blood. The narrative follows the journey of two murderers who have committed homicide on a family of four in Holcomb, Kansas in 1959. Years after, the duo were caught and imprisoned in Kansas State Penitentiary where they would await their inevitable death in prison. Although some may argue that enforcing the death penalty is the safer approach, it is undeniably an immoral part of the law and does not promote justice; therefore, I am in agreement with Capote’s position on abolishing capital punishment.

There is little morality in deciding when to end someone’s life regardless of the crime that placed them in confinement. The perspective of onlookers at the arrival of convicts Dick Hickock and Perry Smith helps portray this sentiment. Capote explains, “Although none of the journalists anticipated violence, several had predicted shouted abuse. But when the crowd caught sight of the murderers… it fell silent, as though amazed to find them humanly shaped” (248). The journalists at the scene assumed there would be violent and disorderly behavior when the duo presented themselves, but they were surprised to visually see them. After such pent up emotions boiled in the population while the manhunt was underway, seeing two humans without any outstanding features was likely a shock to most. Upon hearing of two convicts who would be sentenced the death penalty for their crime, it was surely difficult to not perceive the duo as anything but monsters; however, this highlights the lack of morality that the existence of the death penalty causes the public to experience. There is no situation in which a convicted murderer is deserving of sympathy, but wishing death upon delinquents does not reverse the crime or provide any substance to the community. Its existence allows the public to satisfy their inner demons’ plea for revenge by rioting for the death of another man, rather than praying that he is able to find a sense of morality. The reaction provides visual conformation that support of the death penalty will only foster a culture of hatred and vengeance. In further cooperation with my stance, the novel records the plea of defense attorney Harrison Smith, providing further reason to not enforce such capital punishment on Richard Hickock and Perry Smith. He contends, “[Capital punishment] is a relic of human barbarism. The law tells us that the taking of human life is wrong, then goes ahead and sets the example. Which is almost as wicked as the crime it punished” (303). Harrison identifies the stark hypocrisy in the law, which professes against homicide, and then punishes those who commit it by doing exactly that to the perpetrators. His position addresses the morality, or lack thereof, in the death penalty, as it simply encourages further barbaric actions similar to the one orchestrated by Hickock and Smith. When the horrific murder of the Clutters occurred in 1959, the death penalty was a much more accepted practice than it finds itself today, but even then it maintained its reputation as a highly debated issue. Regardless of opinion on the matter, one cannot disagree that deciding whether someone should cease to live or not is an inhumane action. For an empathetic perspective, one must consider the situation in their own life. Although it can never be justified, if a loved one were to commit sinful crimes, one would still find it difficult to wish for their organized death by hanging or lethal injection. Instead, they would hope that such a person would be able to recognize their actions and become moral once more, which is precisely what the prison system should aim to accomplish and what the public should desire from it. With individuals who recognize this and consider the circumstances in their own life, society would adopt a sense of morality that it needs to maintain families and those struggling.

Although support for capital punishment generally stems from the principal idea of safety for civilians and their community, it ultimately becomes a form of injustice. An individual in agreement with sentencing a murderer the death penalty, such as court attorney Duane West, might say: “I felt that due to the violence of the crime and the apparent utter lack of mercy shown the victims, the only way that the public can be absolutely protected is to have the death penalty set against those defendants” (257). West believes that the violence brought by Hickock and Smith displays a threat to the public that can only be terminated through their death. The narrative he presents is most definitely a common argument among supporters that is sensible to some degree; however, the idea is a contradiction in itself for promoting the slaughter of a person for the sake of protection. There is no reason why these individuals should be ousted from the protection provided to everyone else, because American justice is defined as fair treatment for everyone. They have just as much a right to life as every other American in the nation. To further elucidate this viewpoint, Hickok’s statements prior to his hanging portray the justice system’s failure. He coolly asserts, “Well, what’s there to say about capital punishment? I’m not against it. Revenge is all it is, but what’s wrong with revenge… [People are] mad ‘cause they’re not getting what they want—revenge” (335). Hickock addresses his understanding of the anger people have towards himself and Smith, who wish them death through use of the law. Of course, he is the last person whose words would hold any gravity, but that is precisely why his words show the growing abuse of the justice system. Dick Hickock, the man that most would consider evil, shares the same opinion that the supporters of capital punishment have. These individuals have a distorted perception of what justice really means; they seek to get revenge for the murder victims by committing murder, but perceive it as just because it is done legally through the law. Justice is not and never has been based on principles of hatred and revenge, but on morality and fairness. If this were not true, then every trial would conclude in execution because they “deserve it.”

The justice system and Americans across the nation must consider the repercussions on their society for supporting capital punishment. The glaring amount of immorality in taking someone’s life is not in any case justifiable, and if the public cannot realize that, then they should substitute their loved ones with those criminals before agreeing with the execution. The justice system itself is instilled based on morals, so to view such an inhumane action as justice simply highlights the hypocrisy and corruption of the law, one that refuses to even address the mental condition of the delinquents. Ultimately, the argument over the death penalty comes down to the simple idea of maintaining a society that holds a reasonable level of fairness for everyone within; the possibility of an individual being executed by the law completely invalidates any fairness, as that individual has just had their life taken away from them. No matter how advanced society becomes, life will always hold the highest value among everything, and it is not the choice of the government, the public, or the justice system to take that away. Building a culture with revenge in mind only encourages society to devalue life, rather than improve it and aid those in need. There is never a reason to kill when one can heal, and that is a principle which must be held closely in a population’s moral compass in order to be successful at fighting mental illness and immorality in societal systems.

Mandatory Community Service

The idea of mandatory community service is a contradiction in itself. When the term is broken down into “mandatory” and “community service,” the definitions supporting these words could spark controversy since “mandatory” essentially means that something is required to be done, and “community service” on the other hand, is described as voluntary work—it’s inevitable for people to be butting heads over such matters. Although some may argue that requirements of community service are driven by pure obligation in the eyes of high school students, this would instead foster responsibility and may even create community building, so it should be mandatory for high school students because it would actually have a positive effect.

To begin with, community service should be a mandatory requirement at the high school level because participating in such activities will definitely stimulate a sense of responsibility in the students. For example, Volunteering Open’s Teen’s Eyes to Nursing by the Detroit News, depicts the story of a regular student-volunteer, John Prueter, at a nursing home and how community service has changed his life. The author explains that, “He also helps with mail delivery, assists nurses and helps residents get ready for special trips or concerts'' (para. 5). Recognizing his involvement in civic activities a little more in depth, it is evident that Prueter has taken on very important duties and tasks by doing things on his own account without having to be asked or told. To add on, the Community Service Mission Statement by the Dalton School, demonstrates the significance of participating in the community and the great benefits that can be received by both the community and the individual. Their mission statement asserts that “We must engage in community service because it needs to be done and because we need our communities to survive” (para. 2). The Dalton School implies that everyone needs to partake in communal efforts for the particular well-being of the community, and this poses as a motivation for members at all ages to get involved because they are held accountable for whether their community thrives or diminishes—they have a duty as a group that is greater than any individual alone. Consequently, making community service a requirement for highschoolers will allow them to get a better grip on the concept of responsibility—rightfully benefiting the community that has served them for practically their whole life; after all, what goes around, comes around, so choose kindness as the favor is surely to be returned.

Although some may argue that requirements of community service are driven by pure obligation in the eyes of high school students, what they fail to recognize is that community service wasn’t intended as a chore, but much rather an opportunity for self-growth. For instance, Study: “Resume Padding” Prevalent in College-Bound Students Who Volunteer by Dennis Chaptman, centrally exhibits the effects mandatory community service can bestow on those required to participate in it; more so discussing “resume-padding” and how that has played a key component in students’ involvement in civic engagement. Chaptman argues, “Many young people said that their motive for becoming involved was to make a stronger case to please college admission officers” (para. 6). As the younger generation might avoid growth opportunities that stem from doing community service, they instead direct their attention towards the future and the possibilities offered there, and so the youth has become fixated on what might come, opposed to seizing the moment currently available. However, Community Service Mission Statement by the Dalton School emphasizes the importance of civic growth as they explain how vital communal participation is to the health of the community because “We must each play a role in contributing to our communities so that these communities can continue to survive and prosper” (para. 2). By stressing the significance of individual participation, the Dalton School suggests that maintaining the status and success of the community can only be achieved through efforts of civic engagement, so we must actively help the community that nurtured us. Conclusively, despite the impure motive of taking part in community service due to obligation, there are opportunities that can be missed with such a close-minded mentality.

In addition to responsibilities, community building is yet another advantage to having community service become a necessity for students to partake in during their high school careers because it brings people closer together. First off, Dalton School’s Community Service Mission Statement discusses the practical aspects of community that can be promoted and acquired through means of civic activities “because it is about empowerment and making the world a better place” (para. 5). The Dalton School acknowledges that community service enables the students to improve their environment by working together, and in doing so, a greater service is being done to the world. Furthermore, Volunteering Opens Teen’s Eyes to Nursing by the Detroit News, focuses on John Prueter, a consistent volunteer at his grandmother’s nursing home, and how he made a difference in the lives of the residents in that home because “He speaks to the residents on a level that makes them feel good” (para. 4). The Detroit News highlights Prueter’s efforts to improve the quality of life of the occupants within the nursing home; when we take a look at the bigger picture, a connection between the youth and the older generations has been constructed through this narrative, for they evidently shared a mutual benefit—Prueter aided the elderly in their everyday routine, and the elderly helped Prueter find a passion for what he was doing. Hence, engaging in community service, especially for younger generations, promotes the sustenance of the community through what a true community means: the relationships and connections formed for the betterment of the society and world.

Though some may argue against the concept of mandatory community service because high school students may feel obligated and that the weight of the world is on their shoulders, participating in such civic activities could inspire a sense of responsibility and community building, so it should be required as it imposes positive lasting effects. Without communal involvement, students wouldn’t learn about what it means to be a community or what one is even supposed to look like—not to mention, the development of character received from civic engagement. All things considered, a world without community promotes the disintegration of people and divides everyone more than we already have—taking a few steps back for humankind; we were made to evolve and progress, not regress. People need each other in order to advance society and to become the best versions of themselves. Moving forward is only possible through unity, and a great place to start would be through community service.

The Hip-Hop Debate

Frank Enbeen reflects on the increasing use of hip-hop literature being used in English classes for discussion. He accepts that although “it is a worthy subject of study in its own right,” it still depicts an overshadowing negative message including violence and misogyny. The position that Enbeen holds is ignorant because getting rid of hip-literature would be limiting the voices of minorities and would not fix misogyny in literature.

Hip-hop literature is not just acceptable to teach in an educational setting, but also necessary. Hip-hop literature was invented as a way for the black community that was alienated and discriminated against to be able to share their stories with their peers. They did this by making a new form of storytelling that did not fit in with white authors. There is already a lack of representation in our education system with primary focusing on a certain demographic. When this is the case, we should be trying to amplify the voices of minorities rather than targeting one of their main sources of representation. We should be trying to celebrate all forms of literature instead of arguing what is deemed as “acceptable.”

Enbeen makes it a point to mention misogynist stereotypes that can harm women, but this not a hip-hop literature issue. The Crucible is a play students read every year and the villain is a teenage girl by the name of Abigail Williams. She is seen as the antagonist from the perspective of John Proctor, an older married man with whom she had an affair. Instead of the author and readers shifting the blame on the middle-aged man they decided to shift the blame to the teenage girl who had little control over the situation. Misogyny is not something that was created by a form of literature. It was, however, created by a society that often inspires literature. Getting rid of literature that has misogynist undertones is more harmful because it would be avoiding the issue of misogyny and be counterintuitive.

Although hip-hop literature can be depicted as more violent, violence is a common theme different authors use to create a tone in their writing. Looking at one of the world’s most admired writers Shakphere’s Macbeth has vivid images of murder and blood which is violent. Knowing that violence does not just occur in hip-hop literature, this argument holds no significance. The difference between most violence depicted in hip-hop literature and Shakesphere’s Macbeth is that one often focuses on cultural trauma and the other is trying to show what happens when you crave power. Both being important stories to tell, therefore, both needed and responsible to show in an educational study.