Capital Punishment and Unusual Punishment

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Brief History
The Future of the Issue
References

The issue of capital punishment has always been on the radar of the Supreme Court of the United States. Knowing that the United States inherited this penalty from Britain, we should be aware of how much this change brought to the country (Clancy & O’Brien, 2013). This legislation caused recurring controversy all over the country, and numerous people considered capital punishment to be an excessive measure which should be banned. Nonetheless, the history of capital punishment is rather extensive, and throughout the four different periods, the legislation has undergone critical transformations that should be carefully reviewed and assessed (Sphohn & Hemmens, 2012). The key question that should be answered is the future of capital punishment and unusual punishment in the United States. The author of this paper believes that this question should be seen as one of the most important constitutional questions of all time. Nonetheless, the efforts should be aimed at the minimization of prejudiced and severe verdicts because the history should not repeat itself.

Brief History

Warren’s Court

Throughout this period the regulation was rather strict but unclear as well. The practical legitimacy of capital punishment was not proven, and more than 40 criminals were executed every year since the beginning of the 1960s (Bessler, 2012). Moreover, capital punishment was not an original theory, and numerous cases of execution were spotted even in the 18th century (at that time, capital punishment had been considered a norm and was regularly used). Nonetheless, by the 1950s, the Supreme Court overturned their call on capital punishment and voted for the compliance with the Eighth Amendment (Williams, 2013). Even considering its strict nature and firm decisions, Warren’s Court made several important decisions aimed to “soften” the effects of this regulation.

Burger’s Court

Burger’s Court was not able to solve the problems that were present in the post-Warren era due to the failure to come up with new answers to the questions of capital punishment (Williams, 2013). This era was also signified by issues connected to racism. The problem consisted in the fact that Burger’s Court was not able to eliminate racism from the judicial practice of that time. Another issue was represented by the fact that racial fairness could not have been achieved when dealing with capital punishment cases (Clancy & O’Brien, 2013). Burger’s Court failed to realize the extents of the problem and did not do anything that would help the judicial system develop and eliminate the impartiality among the Justices.

Rehnquist’s Court

During the era of Rehnquist, the Court has been able to perform several important transformations that had a great impact on the way that capital punishment was perceived and dealt with. The Justices were able to identify constitutional defects of the legislation and proceeded immediately with the debates concerning the partiality of the system (Bessler, 2012). Throughout this period, the number of cases where capital punishment was applied has grown critically. Nonetheless, it was evident that Rehnquist cared about the system and its accomplishments in the field of capital punishment. The key transformation that happened during this period states that no federal courts were able to reach verdicts concerning capital punishment anymore (Clancy & O’Brien, 2013).

Roberts’ Court

Throughout this period, capital prosecutors gained more power, but the procedures for evaluating the competence of the latter became not so complex as usual. A number of statutory and unconstitutional issues were exposed (Williams, 2013). Nonetheless, the newly elected representatives and the public showed interest in the reassessment of capital punishment laws. The legacy of Roberts shows that no restrictions will be made to the current legislation. The use of capital punishment will most probably fade away in the next several years due to the influence of the public and democratic outlooks of the Supreme Court (Williams, 2013).

The Future of the Issue

Based on the current trends, I may assume that the issue of capital punishment should be solved as soon as possible. Gradually, the problem of capital punishment would fade away. I believe that the issue reviewed in this paper presents a rather interesting constitutional dilemma that cannot be addressed one-sidedly. Nonetheless, I would firmly side with those who believe that capital punishment is outdated and inhumane. Another option that might be a possible solution to the problem is lifetime imprisonment without parole. The key problem in the case of capital punishment and cruel or unusual punishments is the thin line between justice and human rights of the accused.

The Justices of the Supreme Court should display a strict compliance with the Constitution but, at the same time, show respect for the life of defendants. In this case, I suppose that the Justices would expose not their compassion but their ability to make flexible decisions regarding human lives. What is even more important, the decisions that are made by the Justices should acquire an empathetic tone regardless of the gravity of the crime. On a bigger scale, this liberal approach may leave prisons overcrowded and cause pressure on the state budget, but the issue should be resolved in a tolerant and peaceful way.

On the one hand, my supposition is that every human has the right to life and this right should not be violated under any circumstances. On the other hand, I truly understand the complexity of the issue. This means that not only the accused but the victims or their representatives should be treated fairly in the Court as well. This is why my point is to let the Justices make objective but flexible decisions. Still, regardless of the wishes of the sufferers, going on about the victims would mean a vivid representation of unconstitutional behavior in the face of criminals. Nothing can justify the offender to do something that would serve as the basis for the capital punishment, but, all at once, nothing can justify biased judicial decisions aimed to appease the victims of crimes that were committed.

To conclude, the future of capital punishment is rather uncertain. Nevertheless, the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have all chances to change the situation for the better and guarantee the observance of the constitutional rights of prisoners. Realizing the gravity of the crimes that typically lead to capital punishment, I advocate for the extinction of this obsolete legislation allowing the Court to decide the destiny of the accused based on the subjective principles and past experience or personal preferences of a certain Justice. Therefore, I expect that soon the Supreme Court of the United States will finally take into account the democratic and humanitarian postulates and reach verdicts that do not reflect the legacy of the capital punishment legislature.

References

Bessler, J. (2012). Cruel & unusual: The American death penalty and the Founders’ Eighth Amendment. New York, NY: UPNE.

Clancy, M., & O’Brien, T. (2013). Murder at the Supreme Court: Lethal crimes and landmark cases. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Sphohn, C., & Hemmens, C. (2012). Courts: A text/reader (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications, Inc.

Williams, K. (2013). Most deserving of death? An analysis of the Supreme Court’s death penalty jurisprudence. Philadelphia, PA: Ashgate Publishing.

Click Here To Order Now!