Capital Punishment Just 1

The Wrath of Justice

Introduction: Emily Ding

“How come life in prison doesn't mean life? Until it does, we're not ready to do away with the

death penalty. Stop thinking in terms of "punishment" for a minute and think in terms of safeguarding

innocent people from incorrigible murderers.”

- Jesse Ventura.

Our society must have a justice system that can ensure the safety and security of the innocent, and

a justice system without capital punishment will never suffice. Truman Capote reveals the post-murder

effects on society by recounting the murder of the Clutter family, in his 1963 novel, In Cold Blood. The

vicious acts committed by Dick and Perry are morally unacceptable and deserving of the worst punishment.

What these brutal murderers do, affect more than their victims; they rob the entire community of its safety

and rights to pursue the American Dream. Capital punishment can permanently remove the worst criminals

from our society. Dick and Perry are incorrigible and can blame nothing other than their selfish and cruel

ways for the death of the innocent Clutter family. The only way to end their spree of crimes is capital

punishment. The death penalty was not established for retribution, but rather to ensure the safety of

Americans. “The right to life is perhaps the foundational human right; but like all rights, it is not absolute”

(House 680). We cannot preserve everyone’s life, but we, as a society, have a duty to protect the lives of

the innocent.

Body Section 1: Taylor Leverett

The past of the criminals should not be an excuse for people to sympathize with their

inhumane manners. There are many criminals in our society whose actions are deemed

unpardonable. Dick and Perry both had decent lives when they were younger but it is these first

few years of one’s life that are critical for molding a person’s character. However, we cannot

blame their past for the premeditated murder of the Clutter family because we would not be doing

justice to the victims of the crime. Although, the past of Dick and Perry might have contributed in

shaping their personalities but it cannot be held accountable for their urge to commit crimes.
 Capital Punishment Just 2

Richard Eugene Hickock was the son of a Kansas native that grew up in a decent family

and working environment but it is this simply aspect in life that leads him to living a life crime and

indecency. As a child, Richard was a model athlete who wants to pursue and continue in college.

However, his family is incapable of affording college, which leads him to be “resentful” toward his

lifestyle (Capote 166). Dick began a life of petty crimes such as writing bad checks and stealing

from others. His malevolent attitude toward life seems evident in acts; he does not care for the

feelings of others or his victims. At the murder trial, he felt no remorse for killing the Clutter family,

he believed,” it’s easy to kill—a lot easier then passing a bad check” (291). This aspect in Dick’s

character may have been a product of his unfortunate past as a teenager but it does not rectify

his actions in murdering an innocent family. It goes to show that even the most civilized people

can bare a cold-blooded murderer as a son. Dana Ewells, of Fresno, California, shares

comparing differences with Dick. Ewells came from a wealthy family, knew many socialites in his

city, and had every door of opportunity open for him; however, his want for money and control led

his desire of greed, which ultimately leads him to slaughtering his family for it all. The fact that

both Ewells and Hickock were strongly led by their desire for control in life shows their

incompetence of survival in the real world but we must not judge their past as a means of

evidence in favor of their innocence. Ultimately, Dick’s life could have been worst than he thought

as an adult, such as Perry Smith who suffered an unfortunate up bringing.

Perry Smith started a life of trouble at an early age to compensate for the absence of his

father as a young boy. Although studies have shown that adults who are deprived of a childhood

are prone to erratic behavior in their fully developed years, a criminal’s adult years and their

adolescent years cannot be viewed on the same level (Beckman 3). Perry’s mother was not able

to take care of him and his other siblings but you cannot use that as an excuse to act out on your

feelings because you felt neglected as a young child in life. If we compared Perry to his sister, it

would be a complete opposite. The fact that Perry’s sister became a decent law-abiding citizen in

her adult life demonstrates that even with a troubled past you still can overcome. His father states

that “freedom means everything to him” (129) but in fact it did not because even though Perry has
 Capital Punishment Just 3

premonitions of being caught after murdering the Clutter family, he and Dick still commit the crime

despite of that fact.

Psychological mishaps in one’s childhood, can led them to a life of crime. However, the

aspect of their acquired character should not be considered in such a case as this. When it

comes down to the core, Dick and Perry premeditated this heinous crime to murder an innocent

family for the benefit of their self-righteousness and ill desire for control over their lives. When

these convicts are unable to obtain the sense of control, they retrieve to crime as a sense of

power over the helpless. Such controlling nature compares to Jim Warren, the founder of the

Peoples Temple, who killed more than nine hundred people by adding a powerful sedative in a

Kool-Aid drink. He professed that God has sent him as a messenger to warn the world of their

behaviors when in truth; Warren wanted to feel a sense of power and control over the lives of his

congregation. Dick and Perry have no remorse for their actions. When asked whether he feels

remorse, Perry states “Am I sorry? If that’s what you mean—I’m not. I don’t feel anything about it.

I wish I did…” (291). When viewing the trial, “guilt, depression, and remorse were strikingly

absent. …Such individuals can be considered to be murder- prone in the sense of either carrying

a surcharge of aggressive energy or having an unstable ego…” which further compels us to

disregard their past as a justification to commit murder (301).

Looking back into a murderer’s past helps to contribute to their conviction because many

are able to see the psychological disturbance that occurred in their younger life but it cannot be

evidence that supports their innocence. Referring back to their past as is almost an excuse for

committing the crime they did. We must remember the culpability of Dick and Perry to

premeditate murder. They knew what they were doing and did not care for the victims. They want

a sense of power and control over their life that they have never had. They’ve also never had to

feel remorse for their actions. Perry boasts to “have beaten a colored man to death…” just to

seem superior to Dick (55). Everyone has a time in his or her life where bad times are at a peak,

but ultimately it is up to the individual to decide whether they can withstand the tribulation to

reaching that ultimate goal in life and the future. On the other hand, Dick and Perry cannot handle
 Capital Punishment Just 4

life as it comes and prefer to gain superiority by taking advantage of others instead of working

hard to live a life of success.

Rebuttal:

The idea of capital punishment may strike some “cruel and unusual punishment” but

“what was cruel and unusual punishment when the Constitution was written is different from

today…we don’t put people in stockades now” (Harper). The government’s chief purpose is to

“protect the rights of the innocent” and guarantee “the pursuit of happiness” for all; however,

some people take that right away from others through committing gruesome acts, such as

murder. A murderer’s past cannot be brought into thought when discussing whether they deserve

capital punishment because it will always be an excuse utilized by the convicts to rectify their

actions in committing murder. Ultimately, the true victims in this crime are the ones without a

voice to be heard—The Clutters— they are a prime example of why the law of capital punishment

was created to begin with. However, if considered, would it be justice to keep naturally inclined

murderers free to roam in society?

Body Section 2: Ritu Joshi

America’s justice system has been utilizing the death penalty as a severe form of

punishment in order to recover the virtues of our society from the depths of inhumanity. In the

mid- 1900s, however, the legality of the punishment was challenged due to the fifth, eighth, and

fourteenth amendments. As a result, Florida, Georgia, and Texas stated new statues and

approved of additional procedural reforms; the decision is collectively known as the Gregg

decision, named after the Supreme Court case of Gregg v. Georgia. The first of these reforms

established the bifurcated trials (split trials), followed by the proportionality reviews. The new

guidelines created by the decision made capital punishment constitutional and helped determine

more clearly, who deserves the punishment. Dick and Perry are two prime examples of people

who deserve of the death penalty because both men have consciously committed a crime, which

not only attacks our right to pursue the American Dream, but one that goes against the morals of

our society.
 Capital Punishment Just 5

Morality as we define it, is “the principles of right and wrong,” and as human beings, we

deserve praise for our good deeds and punishment for our bad (Camrical). Dick and Perry

deserve capital punishment because they satisfied their urge to kill by victimizing the Clutter

family. One could have justified the killing if it was for self-defense, but one cannot do so if it was

an “unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another” (Camrical).

Dick and Perry have consciously committed the vicious act of murder and were aware of the

severity of their punishment therefore, by still continuing to carry forth their plans to murder and

rob the Clutters; the two men willfully risked their own lives as well. Opponents of the death

penalty believe the death sentence follows the concept of lex talionis or the “eye for an eye”

principle, where the government takes the life of a criminal whose spitefulness led them to strip

Holcomb of their liberty. However, that is not the case, the government simply ends the life of the

convict, lawfully, in the least painful way possible, in order to protect many innocent citizens in

return.

Many methods of execution have been used in the past, some of the oldest being the

hanging of the offender and electrocution. Cyanide gas was first used in Nevada in 1924 because

the state sought a more humane way of execution. Almost half a century later, Oklahoma became

the first state to adopt the lethal injection that was first used on Charles Brooks in 1982. Lethal

injections are the most commonly used because after years of testing different techniques, the

injections have proven to be one of the most humane and least painful way to execute. However,

if we were to look at our system in terms of lex talionis, then the criminals would be put through

the same agonizing pain their victims went through, during the execution. Instead, we try our best

to make the execution as humane, painless, and as quick as possible for the convict, therefore

the “eye for and eye” principle does not apply to the death penalty.

Our justice system advocates the death sentence depending on the severity of the crime.

One should not receive capital punishment for killing someone for self-defense but rather for

murdering him or her. For instance, if a father kills an intruder in the house who could have

potentially harmed his family or if a police officer kills a man to protect the citizens of the town,

they do not deserve to be put to death since their reasons are justified and their actions were
 Capital Punishment Just 6

more for the protection of others. It is when the killing becomes a murder, that the offender

deserves the worst of punishment. Attorney General Troy King lived in Elba, Alabama, as a child,

a town similar to Holcomb, a place where crime was unheard of. Then, one morning, Troy and his

father witnessed a scene so gruesome, they can still recall every detail even after thirteen long

years. The father and son had witnessed the murder of a local sheriff, who was simply doing his

job. The murderer, Billy Joe Magwood, was caught and still sits in Alabama’s death row. The

sheriff’s family has waited for justice for thirteen long years, all this while Troy went from being a

student in elementary school to becoming an Attorney General for the state of Alabama. Troy

meets with families of many other victims, some which were murdered, and others were raped or

tortured. On November 25, 1976, Naomi Rowland was abducted, raped, brutally stabbed, hit with

a hatchet and later ran over by a car by two men who had escaped from North Carolina prison

camp. Naomi is just one of the many victims of criminals that have escaped from prison. People

must realize that by not executing such criminals the first time they were convicted, we are risking

the lives of many more innocent citizens. If the two men were put to death the first time around,

Naomi might have been amongst us today.

A vacant mind provokes the corruption in human nature. Dick and Perry have spent quite

a bit of time in jail and since the minds of the two men were free to wander it lead them to make

plans to commit another crime in order to obtain money and escape the harsh reality of their lives.

Dick and Perry came to believe that “it is easy to kill— a lot easier then passing a bad check”

(291). People, who can only survive by taking advantage of someone else’s hard work, really do

not deserve to be a part of our society. When Dick and Perry carry forward their plan to rob and

savagely murder the Clutter family, they had a clear understanding of what the consequences will

be once they were caught. Perry even worries and questions their plan many times before they

murdered the Clutter family. The premonitions Perry always speaks of seem to be of no

significance to Dick, without any remorse he simply boasts claiming, “it was perfect” (90).

However, the two ruthless individuals do not realize that the effects of their brutality did not just

terminate with the death of the Clutters, but it also tore apart the entire town of Holcomb. Dick and

Perry took away something precious to the citizens of Holcomb—their sense of security. It has
 Capital Punishment Just 7

become so that “many old neighbors viewed each other strangely, and as strangers” (5). A place

where people went fishing for fish with their families to have a good time became a desolate town

where, “men with nets and poles were fishing along the banks of the river, but not fishing for

fish…they were looking for the weapons. The knife. The gun” (94). What Dick and Perry have

done harmed much more than what was visible. They have robbed the people of their peace of

mind and safety, something that was not restored even after the men were arrested. It was only

after their execution that the townspeople were able to somewhat return to back to the normal

way of life; the only difference is that now, the people of Holcomb carried the horrid memories of

the 1959 murders of the Clutter family. The citizens of Holcomb will never be able to look at

another man the same way; they have lost their old lifestyles to two coldhearted men without

morals.

Rebuttal:

Adversaries of capital punishment believe it is wiser to sentence an offender to life in

prison without parole instead of the death sentence because it allows the offender to suffer and

think about what they have done for the rest of their natural lives. Nevertheless, we need to ask

ourselves, is living in an air-conditioned, cable-equipped prison cell where free meals are given

three times a day, as well as, personal recreational time and regular visits from friends and family,

really considered suffering? Does the loss of freedom really compare to the loss of life? If the

punishment for robbery is imprisonment, should the punishment for murder not be something

much more worse? Besides, the only person who benefits from the criminal’s life in prison

without parole is the criminal himself. Now, there is just more time for them to think of a way to

escape and make many more innocent people their victims, which is what occurred in Naomi

Rowland’s case. There are even occasions where the inmates generate violence among

themselves, yet these same inmates are later released if they continue to be on good behavior for

an extended period of time. However, how can we be certain that men who were not afraid to

cause chaos in a prison cell, where guards are constantly watching them, will go into the society

once again as reformed individuals?

Body Section 3: Emily Ding

 Capital Punishment Just 8

Capital punishment is established to prevent criminals from hurting the innocent. Heartless

murderers like Dick and Perry who do not have a reason to kill other than for their own selfish reasons

deserve to be sentenced to death. However, a crime as malicious as murder or manslaughter requires a more

severe punishment, such as the death penalty. Capital punishment was not created for retribution because

everyone understands that executing a criminal will not bring back the innocent. America’s justice system

requires punishment in order to maintain order in society. Dick and Perry are gruesome murderers, who

deserve capital punishment for their cruel and heartless crimes. They refuse to leave the road of crime and

inhumanity to walk on the pathway of great righteousness. They do not realize the ominous effects of their

crimes on the innocent town of Holcomb. Our justice system must be able to eradicate the callous

fragments of men; to allow the virtues of human kind to blossom.

In a life, many individuals are given opportunities to redeem and better themselves, to learn and

grow from past mistakes and to become better people in the future. Dick and Perry are given many chances

to leave their previous life of crime, to make amends and transform themselves into decent and respectable

people. However, they ignored these opportunities and continue to live a life pertaining to crime. Their

beliefs to live life through cheating and stealing can only hurt more innocent individuals. It is the duty of

the justice system to eliminate these crimes to create a safe and harmonious place for the innocent to reside

in. Dick and Perry’s extensive records of petty crimes such as robbery and signing bad checks lead them to

petty punishments such as jail time. While the two men are in jail, they are both given opportunities to

change themselves and to start a new life once they depart. However, Dick and Perry do not take advantage

of the valuable opportunity; therefore, the men resume to be repeat offenders. Perry could have started a

new life with Willie-Jay, but instead he left with Dick and continued his spree of crimes. Dick could have

taken Floyd Well’s positive mindset to start a new life and to become a better man, but instead, Dick

becomes jealous and murders the Clutter family out of greed. Spiteful criminals such as Dick and Perry do

not learn from their mistakes. If they were never sentenced to death, chances are they would only resume

their sinful deeds. The serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, was often charged for petty crimes such as indecent

exposure, he was finally placed in jail when he was caught fondling a young teenage boy (Dahmer 135).

Dahmer was sentenced to prison for one year, but on good behavior he was released in only ten months.
 Capital Punishment Just 9

Dahmer’s killing spree began not too long after he was released from prison (144). Similar to Dick and

Perry, Dahmer’s criminal history started with many petty crimes that eventually led him to become a serial

killer. Many individuals will take an opportunity if it is presented to them, but Dick and Perry ignore these

chances to continue their lives of crime. If Holcomb forgives them, they would only continue to take

advantage of more hardworking and innocent individuals.

Killers who do not feel remorse deserve capital punishment more than any other criminal, because

they will never understand consequences without a severe punishment. For instance, in 1924 Nathan

Leopold and Richard Loeb murdered a fourteen-year old boy just to see if they can outsmart the cops

(Notorious). It is criminals like these who deserve the death penalty to remind them of the severity of their

crimes. Loeb and Leopold, like Dick and Perry felt a sense of pride in their crime. Dick and Perry feel

proud of what they do and feel especially prideful when they influence the wicked actions of other

criminals. When Perry sees a newspaper article on a gruesome murder, he says, “Amazing!” and “Know

what I wouldn’t be surprised? If this wasn’t done by a lunatic. Some nut that read about what happened in

Kansas” (200). Once a criminal is proud of taking the lives of innocent people, he deserves capital

punishment, because mankind should never take pride in such a lowly act. However, once Perry is

sentenced to death, he starts to feel remorse, he says, “It would be meaningless to apologize for what I did.

Even inappropriate. But I do. I apologize” (340). Even though Perry finally understands what he did wrong,

it still does not change the fact that he has taken four innocent lives. Dick, unlike Perry thoroughly

understands why he is sentenced to death, and he even believes that he deserves capital punishment, he

says, “I hold no hard feelings. You people are sending me to a better world than this ever was” (339). Dick

not only fails to feel remorse, but in a way he is thanking Holcomb for sending him to “a better world”

(339). If Dick and Perry were never executed, Holcomb would probably still be in shambles. “The right to

life is perhaps the foundational human right; but like all rights, it is not absolute” (House 680). We cannot

preserve everyone’s life, but we, as a society have a duty to protect the lives of the innocent, “the rights of

the innocent trump the rights of the guilty” (683) The most important goal for our justice system is to

protect the innocent. It would be ideal if our society could protect the innocent without confining the
 Capital Punishment Just 10

criminals, however, this is very unlikely. If our justice system does not implement capital punishment, so

many diligent and deserving men will be taken advantage of, and only the criminal will benefit.

It means nothing to believe if one does not act upon it, actions speak much louder than words. Any

criminal can say that he feels sorry for what he did, but it will not change the past, he still committed the

crime, and that should never be forgotten. Dick may not have felt any guilt for what he has done to the

Clutters, but Perry does. Perry knew that going with Dick to rob the Clutters is going to end badly, yet he

never stopped himself. Perry says to the policemen, “I thought, why don’t I walk off? Walk to the highway,

hitch a ride. I sure Jesus didn’t want to go back in that house… And I had to know what was going to

happen” (240). Perry knows exactly what was happening in the Clutters’ house. He knew it was wrong and

he could have left but he was compelled to stay to satisfy his curiosity. Out of the two, Perry seems to be

the more considerate. He does not allow Dick to hurt Nancy, and he often comforts the family, however,

the fact that he does nothing to help the Clutters still makes him a heartless killer.

Capital punishment is considered as unjust, cruel, and barbaric, but do these criminals deserve

anything less than death? Not only do murderers take lives of innocent people, they also take away the

security and safety that the community had once established on. Capital punishment was created for the

worst of crimes. Victims of brutal crimes, such as murder, never deserve to suffer the consequences of

malicious acts committed by inhumane criminals. Capital punishment may not be able to bring a life back

from the dead or justify the sinful deeds of a criminal, but it is our duty as members of our society, to

prevent these crimes from reoccurring again. Is it not the job of the justice system to bring righteousness

back into our society?

Rebuttal:

Capital punishment is morally justified because of its deterrent effects. According to recent

studies, capital punishment not only eliminates the chance of the criminal from murdering again, but it also

deters on an average of eighteen murders (Sunstein and Vermeule 6). However, whenever a criminal is

taken out of death row, there is an increase in crime rate (9). It would be even more immoral if our

government opposed capital punishment, because if they do not utilize the death punishment, we put the

innocent lives of the public into danger. Even though many people may believe taking the life of a criminal
 Capital Punishment Just 11

will not change anything, but it does, executions can eliminate the chance that criminal will murder again.

Capital punishment may not be able to bring the lives of the victims back to normal, but it can help restore

the safety of the innocent.

Different crimes deserve different punishment, murderers should not receive the same punishment

as shoplifters or those who vandalize. According to recent studies, the effect of deterrence is directly

proportional to the severity of the punishment. For example, shoplifters are usually repeat offenders

because the overall profit in shoplifting overrides the minimal punishment of a fine (House 683). If our

justice system treats cold-blooded murderers the way they treat petty criminals such as shoplifters, the

murder and crime rates will go up. A main reason why many people do not commit crimes such as murder,

rape, or torture is because they are aware of the severe consequences. If we were to allow murderers to sit

in jail we take the risk of letting them escape and then return to their lives of crime.

Conclusion: Ritu Joshi

Capital punishment has been established for the protection of the innocent members of our

society. Countless individuals have become victims of atrocious crimes, and it is our duty to bring

these helpless human beings and their families to justice. The death penalty is the most efficient

way of doing so because it not only guarantees that the murderer will never be able to kill again

but, reassures our society of their safety. However, we still continue to sentence these heartless

killers to a lifetime in prison, but does lifetime really mean that the offender will be in jail for the

rest of their lives? Despite the fact that the murderers will be in jail for an extensive period of time,

they are still going to be released once their sentence is over. It is certain that once free, these

pitiless criminals will continue their life of crime again. Dick and Perry, carried out their plans to

victimize the Clutter family the very moment they were released, so it is evident that all this time

they spent in prison has been of no use. Although, these callous members of our society, such

as Dick and Perry, have been given numerous chances to recover themselves, they fail to do so

every time. Such insensitive men have only learned to take advantage of the hardworking

individuals and do not deserve to be a part of society. Helpless individuals, such as the Clutters,

Naomi Rowland, and the numerous victims of Jeffery Dahmer have been victims of criminals who
 Capital Punishment Just 12

have either escaped or released from jail for previous crimes. Should more victims continue to die

before we agree that capital punishment is the most profound way to eliminate these vicious

delinquents? How many innocent victims are too many?