According to the recent statistics, capital punishment rates are declining in the United States. The number of death sentences is lowering due to many factors: changing ethical views, reforming laws, and a different view of human rights (Fleury-Steiner, Kaplan, & Longazel, 2015). Nonetheless, 30 states still have legislatures that allow capital punishment for crimes such as murder or treason, and many of these territories continue to put offenders on death row.
One of the main ethical concerns that are researched in the legal sphere is the connection between capital punishment and race. Here, the issue can be viewed from multiple points, although the ideology behind the situations is similar – racism serves as a force that has been impacting the statistics throughout the history of the country. Racial prejudice is especially visible in the number of white and nonwhite offenders receiving capital punishment as well as the race of their victim. Black offenders face a bias which is further aggravated if they commit a crime against a white person.
Topic Definition and Purpose
The discussion of the correlations between race and death penalty is essential in providing one with the most reliable data about patterns in which people act while deciding the fate of offenders. The existence of a racial bias changes the way people perceive the justice system since its altered representation of communities also affects other factors such as people’s economic and professional wellbeing. Black people who face racial prejudice have to fight against bias in workplace and court, facing unfair convictions and excessive punishments. Currently, the racial bias has been acknowledged and confirmed by many scholars, but its existence is still unmanaged in many states.
For example, Warden and Lennard (2017) find numerous examples of judges and jurors who disagree with accusations of being racist against offenders, although people and legal institutions criticize their behavior. Overall, the purpose of this research is to show that racism is a problem that affects all aspects of the legal system, creating disparages in outcomes based on the race of defenders, victims, and jurors.
History of Race and Capital Punishment in the United States
First of all, it is necessary to briefly discuss the history of race in the U.S. to provide a foundation for the bias and explain its causes. It is known that slavery and unequal rights are an inherent part of American history. During the era of slavery, black people did not have rights as citizens both in their everyday life and in court. Therefore, the legal system for white and nonwhite people was completely different. For instance, Tennessee, being one of the slave states, had varying punishments for slaves and white residents (Noe, 2015). Later, the state also instituted a different category of statutes for “free blacks” (Noe, 2015, p. 128).
After slavery was abolished, many states changed their laws to remove racist language from the documents. However, the implications remained unaltered, putting black people under different rules from white people. Beardsley, Kamin, Marceau, and Phillips (2014) find that it can be easy for prosecutors and jurors to continue employing racially prejudiced narratives while avoiding detection. Thus, the history of racism continues to impact the legal system in the U.S.
The opinion about death penalty has changed significantly over the years, although it is still viewed favorably by many individuals. For example, Hochkammer (1969) writes about the controversy of capital punishment in the 1960s, stating that the conflict between abolitionists and supporters cannot be mitigated easily. The author notes that the rate of death penalty convictions is lowering which is also true for contemporary statistics (Fleury-Steiner et al., 2017; Hochkammer, 1969).
Moreover, death penalty is no longer a public event but a measure to punish the most heinous crimes. Still, the use of it is debated to this day with many states abolishing, limiting, or simply not using death penalty as an option. For example, such states as New York have not utilized capital punishment for decades, although the laws of this state do not ban it explicitly. In other states, death penalty use is declining as well, but it has not disappeared altogether (Bazelon, 2016). Many judges, prosecutors, and ordinary people still view it as a necessary measure.
The Race of Victims, Offenders, and Prosecutors
After describing the history of race and capital punishment in the U.S., one may provide some statistical data to show how the two concepts are intertwined. The existence of different statutes for black and white people during the slavery era created a foundation for future racial biases putting white and nonwhite people on completely different paths for judgment. According to Levinson, Smith, and Young (2014), African-Americans still face harsher punishments than their white counterparts even if they committed similar crimes. The purpose of examining these data is to demonstrate racial bias in the legal system in regards to death penalty punishment.
The prejudice shows itself in all aspects – black offenders are more often put on death row than white criminals who receive life sentences without parole. For example, Warden and Lennard (2017) show that more than half of all offenders put on death row in the nineteenth century were black, while the African-American population did not exceed 15 percent of all residents (p. 218). This difference in numbers could not have appeared from simple crimes statistics as the prevalence of black offenders being subjected to capital punishment was substantially larger than their overall number.
Bazelon (2016) also provide statistics that reveal that in many states with existing laws about death penalty, a significant part of all defendants are black. Such territories as the Duval County, FL, had 81% of black defendants receive death penalty between 2010 and 2015, although the demographic makeup of the county suggests a white majority of around 60%. (Bazelon, 2016, para. 32). Thus, the inconsistency in punishments is clear to have racial implications rather than crime-based ones.
Furthermore, the race of the victim also affects the outcome of the crime, with white victims becoming a factor that contributes to capital punishment enforcement. This is also a bias that was formed during the period of slavery – black people were persecuted for the assault of white persons with the harshest forms of punishments (Steiker & Steiker, 2015). Similarly, the rates of convictions that end in capital punishment also feature black offenders of white victims more often than black offenders of black victims (Fleury-Steiner et al., 2017; Hans et al., 2015). Blume and Vann (2016) provide a similar calculation for South Carolina where out of 187 contemporary death sentences 81% were “imposed for the killing of a white victim” (p. 201).
Moreover, the scholars find that 34% of all death sentences featured a combination of “black defendant – white victim,” although they note that this is one of the rarest types of committed crimes (Blume & Vann, 2016, p. 202). These statistics suggest that persecutors ask for capital punishment for black defenders of white victims much more often than for white offenders and black offenders of black victims.
Finally, there exists a lack of balance between white and nonwhite jurors and judges which also leads to different conviction results. According to Hans et al. (2015), juries are influenced by the race of both the offender and the victim. The study reveals that white defendants were significantly more likely to receive a life sentence than black defenders who got capital punishment instead (to Hans et al., 2015).
On the other note, jury formation also leads to biased convictions since the majority of its members are usually white (Levinson et al., 2014). Bazelon (2016) highlights the fact that black jurors are almost absent in courts with death-penalty trials because they oppose capital punishment for all people. As a result, the jury, the prosecutor, and the judge are often predominantly white in cases of black defenders. While one may argue that the lack of diversity does not affect their decision, Steiker and Steiker (2015) state that presumably neutral laws are exercised differently for white and nonwhite offenders by white juries.
Conclusion
This research has proven that race continues to play a crucial role in the legal system of the U.S. Black people often suffer from injustices inflicted as an outcome of racial bias that overcomes the country’s overall declining rates of capital punishment.
The race of victims, jurors, and defenders matters in cases and black people encounter barriers on all levels of the legal process. The limitations put on jurors and prosecutors do not prevent them from exercising underlying prejudices and convicting black people to death penalty, even if a white offender would receive a life sentence in similar circumstances. The massive number of statistical examples suggests an apparent persistence of racial bias which requires the legal world to consider reforms and rethink the causes of choosing capital punishment.
References
Bazelon, E. (2016). There the death penalty still lives. The New York Times. Web.
Beardsley, M., Kamin, S., Marceau, J., & Phillips, S. (2014). Disquieting discretion: Race, geography & the Colorado death penalty in the first decade of the twenty-first century. University of Denver Law Review, 92(4), 431-452.
Blume, J. H., & Vann, L. S. (2016). Forty years of death: The past, present, and future of the death penalty in South Carolina (still arbitrary after all these years). Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 11, 183-254.
Fleury-Steiner, B., Kaplan, P., & Longazel, J. (2015). Racist localisms and the enduring cultural life of America’s death penalty: Lessons from Maricopa County, Arizona. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 66, 63-85.
Hans, V. P., Blume, J. H., Eisenberg, T., Hritz, A. C., Johnson, S. L., Royer, C. E., & Wells, M. T. (2015). The death penalty: Should the judge or the jury decide who dies? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 12(1), 70-99.
Hochkammer, W. O., Jr. (1969). The capital punishment controversy. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 60(3), 360-368.
Levinson, J. D., Smith, R. J., & Young, D. M. (2014). Devaluing death: An empirical study of implicit racial bias on jury-eligible citizens in six death penalty states. New York University Law Review, 89, 513-581.
Noe, R. T. (2015). Tennessee’s capital punishment history and today’s merited reprieve for its death penalty. Lincoln Memorial University Law Review, 2, 126-155.
Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2015). The American death penalty and the (in) visibility of race. University of Chicago Law Review, 82(1), 243-294.
Warden, R., & Lennard, D. (2017). Death in America under color of law: Our long, inglorious experience with capital punishment. Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy, 13(4), 194-306.
Capital punishment is commonly associated with death penalty. Capital punishment is for inmates on death row. The psychological aspect associated with capital punishment is a subject of interest. According to many, the execution of capital punishment and especially to inmates on death row is one horrible event. Some inmates are psychologically tortured by the thought of a death sentence. On the other hand, there are death row inmates who are insensitive to a death sentence.
The transition period between the life in incarceration and the day of execution, provides an insight into the psychological aspects associated with capital punishment. Several studies have tried to understand the transformation experienced by death row inmates while under incarceration. In fact, studies have shown that death row inmates exhibit behavioral patterns similar to those of violent criminals (Pallone & Hennessy, 1992).
However, such is deemed to change when they are sentenced to a death penalty. In this respect, capital punishment has become a contentious issue in the American justice system. Human rights activists perceive capital punishment and especially death penalty as a violation of human rights. On the other hand, psychologists allege that the behavioral patterns and transformation of behavior among death row inmates, can determine the insanity of an inmate.
Thesis Statement
Death row inmates exhibit behavioral patterns similar to those evidenced in violent criminals. Once these inmates are sentenced to a death sentence, the criminals undergo a psychological transformation. Such transformation is a result of new methods used to induce death sentence. These methods are cruel and cause death row syndrome among the death row inmates.
Death row history
History indicates that death penalty records are traceable back to the year 1930 (Bedau, 1998). In the history of American judicial system, laws and statutes have been designed to determine cases of first-degree murder and 18 aggravating circumstances. Once such laws determine that violation of such circumstances has occurred, the aggressor is sentenced to a death penalty.
An example of such circumstances is raping of a child, which constitutes to a death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center, 2013). In other countries like Afghanistan and China, an act of adultery results to a death sentence. The history of the death penalty in the United States and in other countries indicates that capital punishment is commonly used.
According to Gershman (2005), inmates on death row were executed by hanging. However, human rights activists complained that such a sentence was slow, painful and agonizing. By the late 19th and throughout the 20th century, the use of a firing squad became common. During the 290th century, inmates on death row were being electrocuted or subjected to a gas chamber. However, these developments have evolved to the use of a lethal injection in the recent years (Gershman, 2005).
Death row is the designated area where inmates sentenced to a death penalty are executed. Death row inmates spend several years before their execution. This is usually done to determine, whether their sentencing was legitimate. For a long time, death row inmates are not accorded rights to education, job and socialization with other inmates. Death row means total seclusion and isolation from other inmate and from the outside world.
Characteristics of violent criminals
According to Kocsis (2009), most of the violent criminals are usually incarcerated for the most heinous acts. Examples of such acts include robbery with violence, rape, murder and assault. Unlike other criminal offenders, violent criminals cannot be categorized as a homogenous group. Basically, violent criminals exhibit characters of depression, aggression and hostility (Kocsis, 2009).
In some instances, violent criminals exhibit psychopathic and tension behaviors. An in-depth analysis on violent criminals would reveal that the individuals suffer from a personality disorder or a suicidal history (Kocsis, 2009). Violent criminals have a tendency to abuse drugs and have employment-related problems. The mental ability of violent criminals is something to focus on, since they normally exhibit cognitive distortion (Kocsis, 2009).
Death row inmates
Death row inmates have the same character as those of violent criminals. Death row inmates are regarded as mentally unstable. According to Cunningham and Vigen (2002), most of the death row inmates have deficiency in both intellect and academics. In this respect, it is pretty easy to conclude that the death row inmates have unemployment related problems. In this case, the inmates could have tried to engage in alternative economic means such as robbery and crime (Cunningham & Vigen, 2002).
An important observation in most of the death row inmates is their mental characteristics. The inmates’ mental ability exhibits psychotic elements. For example, death row inmates have innate or delusional beliefs that show they are mentally retarded. According to research done by Freedman and Hemenway (2000) on a group of death row inmates, it was established that almost a two-thirds of the death row inmates are retarded. Moreover, the study found that death row inmates exhibit elements of borderline intellectual functioning.
As indicated earlier, death row inmates have psychotic problems. Death row inmates awaiting trial or execution have higher rates of schizophrenic symptoms or paranoia. The reasons as to why such psychological behaviors become proficient are not clear. For example, there is an assumption that the reality of facing the execution contributes to these behaviors.
Death row inmates always have a history of abuse, either drug abuse or sexual abuse. In some inmates, signs of sexual abuse at tender age are exhibited. In most cases, this is as a result of dysfunctional families. Some death row inmates grow up in families that tolerate violence and sexual abuse. Lack of better family relationship becomes a critical factor in the growth and development of an individual. Individuals who lack good family relationship develop an anti-social perception toward members of the society.
Inmates’ insanity
According to laws that constitute death row, it is important that criminals be subjected to death sentence once they are criminally insane. In this respect, the justice system recommends that an inmate should only be executed either after agreeing to take medication. Some death row inmates are required to take psychotropic medications to ensure that they minimize their psychotic situations.
A Supreme Court ruling in the year 1986 ruled out that executing insane inmates is inhuman. In this regard, the inmates’ level of competency is determined before execution. This justifies the reason for the delayed death execution. This provides the inmates with a chance to be competent enough to determine their sanity during the crime and the trial period. However, it is important to acknowledge the fact that a delay on execution results to a death row syndrome.
Death row syndrome
The death row syndrome is a phenomenon associated with the psychological torture that a death row inmate suffers before execution (Garrison, 2008). The delayed period before a death execution prompts distress to an inmate.
The inmate becomes remorseful and the psychological aspects behind the cause of the crime become evident. The inmate at times shows signs of delusions and may time exhibit suicidal behaviors. It is alleged that death row syndrome is also caused by the conditions at the death row section. As indicated earlier, there is isolation at death row and inmates rarely socialize.
When inmates socialize, tendencies of physical and sexual abuse are evidenced. Such occurrences may prompt the inmate to become more distressed when living in such conditions. If a convicted murderer is abused physically, then the murderer is triggered to develop murder instincts. The same can happen to a rapist who is sexually abused at the death row confinements. Such an offender can become abusive of others or may defend himself by killing another inmate.
Another tendency observed among inmates with death row syndrome is their tendency in trying to live a normal life. Some death row inmates try to come into terms with their fates by living normal. Some inmates change and transform to well-behaved individuals. Some individuals write books and memoirs about their lives. Some inmates transform and become teachers and counselors in prisons.
Examples of death row inmates
Richard Ramirez is a popular death row inmate, who has become a sensation among death row inmates in the United States. Ramirez who was sentenced to death in the year 1989 is yet to be executed. For some many years, the court proceedings on appeals made by Ramirez are still ongoing.
According to Valdez (2006), it is alleged that Ramirez experienced childhood trauma when he evidenced cold-blood murder. Family and friends allege that Ramirez had a normal childhood until his cousin killed his wife in front of young Ramirez.
It is alleged that Ramirez developed a fascination on death and later became obsessed with sex, burglary and drugs. While in California, Ramirez would perform his rituals on his murder victims before killing them. The psychotic behaviors became evidenced, when Ramirez commanded his victim to give allegiance to Satan by shouting “Hail Satan” (Valdez, 2006).
Indeed, Ramirez was violent and he tortured his victims, especially women. Interestingly, Ramirez had already made a following after he was arrested. He had made friends and followers who believed in his satanic ideologies. As indicated earlier, the death row syndrome also is evidenced in the case of Ramirez. For along time now, Ramirez has deliberated to live a normal life by marrying while in prison.
Although, death row inmates are not permitted to have conjugal rights, Ramirez has been able to marry one Dorren Lioy. Lioy who is a magazine editor is also alleged to have had a child with Ramirez, who now assumes the life of a normal inmate. Ramirez marriage is evidence that some death row inmates try to cope with life after long duration of time without their execution.
Michael Perry is another good example of a death row inmate, who exhibited death row inmate syndrome. Before the execution of the inmate in the year 2010, a documentary was done on the life of the inmate. From the documentary, it was confirmed that Perry’s childhood upbringing was clouded by a dysfunctional family. An exploration on Perry’s behavior suggests that he was mentally unstable and at one point was put under a mental institution.
Perry was subjected to mental scrutiny because he was suspected to have a bipolar disorder. Nonetheless, Perry was tested negative amid his consistency in unusual behavior. In this regard, he was still taken to a school for the troubled teenagers in Mexico. It is in the Mexican school that Perry continued to suffer from abuses and he had to run away back to the United States. From the confessions of the inmate before his execution, he shows psychosis symptoms. These symptoms include unusual beliefs and delusions.
Basically, Perry had been using drugs while in the United States and his psychotic problems may have been prompted by the use of drugs. It is alleged that Perry was forced to take medications. This worsened the psychological condition of the inmate while under incarceration. In his own words, Perry alleged that he was frustrated by the system for putting him under clinical depression (Miller, 1993). Perry’s case is just but an example on how the psychological aspects of the capital punishment can be detrimental to an inmate.
The case of Aileen Wuornos is another exemplary case of a death row inmate. She was tagged the name a serial killer, after she killed several men alleged to be her husbands (Scmid, 2006). Wuornos grew in a dysfunctional family. She was abandoned by her mother, while she was an infant. Moreover, she was raped by her grandfather and her grandfather’s friends. Wuornos sexual abuse continued when she got married and while working as a prostitute.
According to the conclusion of the judges, Wuornos was suffering from borderline personality disorder. Moreover, she also had developed an anti-social personality disorder. The inmate exhibited symptoms of illiteracy, mental retardation and emotional disturbance. This shows her incompetence during crime, trial and her execution. It alleged that she was manipulated to take medications before her execution. During her appeals, she narrated how she was being forced to take medications to commit suicide.
This is an example of how a death row inmate goes under psychological torture, when facing a capital punishment. This was later evidenced when a book author and detectives used Wuornos case to make money. While disguising as friends to Wuornos, they made money and tried to manipulate her to commit suicide. This shows the level of vulnerability that death row inmates go through. Wuornos experienced emotional emptiness brought by loneliness and a sense of helplessness.
Isolation versus general population
Death row inmates undergo psychological distress when under isolation compared to inmates who enjoy a general population environment. Isolation makes death row inmates to become vulnerable to manipulation and they can easily become suicidal.
At the same time, isolation offers a sense of diffuse danger considering the excluded environment. Death row inmates become mentally and physically weak, as they face long-term uncertainties. On the other hand, inmates in a general population face a lot of sexual and physical abuses. However, they also engage in mental and physical development activities like education and counseling programs. The general population inmates are offered conjugal rights.
Conclusion
The psychological aspect of capital punishment remains a painful issue for death row inmates. While capital punishment is still dubbed as cruel and inhumanly, the phenomenon is still remains in most of the states in the United States. The judicial policy to not execute death row inmates until proven beyond reasonable doubts is an important aspect in observation of human rights.
References
Bedau, H., A. (1998). The earth penalty in America: Current controversies. Oxford, OX: Oxford University Press.
Cunningham, M. D., & Vigen, M. P. (2002). Death row inmate characteristics, adjustment, and confinement: A critical review of the literature. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20 (1-2), 191-210. Web.
Death Penalty Information Center. (2013). Death Penalty for Offenses Other Than Murder. Web.
Freedman D, Hemenway D. (2000). Precursors of lethal violence: a death row sample. Social Science and Medicine, 50(12), 1757–1770. Web.
Garrison, T., M. (2008). Death on the brain: The psychological effects of the death penalty based on the views of those condemned to die. Michigan, MI: ProQuest.
Gershman, G., P. (2005). Death penalty on trial: A handbook with cases, laws and documents. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Kocsis, R., N. (2009). Applied criminal psychology: A guide to forensic behavioral sciences. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher.
Miller, K., S. (1993). Executing the mentally ill: The criminal justice system and the case of Alvin Ford. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Pallone, N., J. & Hennessy, J., J. (1992). Criminal behavior: A process psychology analysis: Personal constructs, stimulus determinants, behavioral repertoires. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Scmid, D. (2006). Natural born celebrities: Serial killers in American culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Valdez, D., W. (2006). The killing fields: Harvest of women: The truth about Mexico’s bloody boarder legacy. Charles City, VA: Peace.
Capital punishment has otherwise been referred to as death sentence or death penalty. It can also be used to refer to legal execution of a convicted individual or through a judicial process.
The capital punishment has always been used in situations where an individual or criminal is judicially convicted of a capital offence or capital crime (Milhorn 401). It is important to examine the origin of capital punishment. The capital is a term that was coined from the Latin word “capitalis” which actually, in its literal sense means “gaze at the head.”
So it means that initially, capital punishment was a situation where a convicted criminal had his or her head judicially severed. Nonetheless, it is important to note that capital punishment, in the past, has virtually been utilized every society (Milhorn 401). However, available literature indicates that only 58 countries of the world still practice capital punishment; this represents only approximately 5% of all countries in the world.
The meaning of this is that about 95% of all countries in the world have turned away from using capital punishment to contain crimes. In many countries, capital punishment is still a subject of hot debate in many countries, including the United States of America, and standpoints can vary within a given singular cultural religion amongst a group of individuals or political ideology (Clarke and Whitt, pp29-46).
Amongst the nations that do not recognize capital punishment as a form of deterring or terminating the commission of capital offences are those that are found within the European Union. This is well spelt in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Even though the Transparency International consider most countries as abolitionists against capital punishment, research findings indicate that more than 60% of the worlds population reside in countries where capital punishment is still an option for punishing or deterring capital offenders. Example of such countries where capital punishment is still an option are the United States of America, the People’s Republic of China and Indonesia (Clarke and Whitt, pp.46-57).
However, looking at the contemporary society, the global distribution of death penalty has been varying greatly with some countries and states abolishing and reinstating capital punishments.
Since the end of the Second World War, the global tendency toward abolishing the death penalty has been on the rise. According to available information, there are countries that have abolished death sentencing completely; some have only allowed it under special or specific circumstances while others are yet to make their decisions and take a stand on abolishing it.
Even though death penalty is still being practiced in a significant number of developed nations, it was widely practiced in developing countries most of which were under the control of repressive, dictatorial or totalitarian governments. With regard to this, it will be accurate to argue that that capital punishment has some times been used for political reasons to contain political dissidents.
The death punishment in America is varied depending with jurisdictions. Practically, death punishment in the United States of America is only applicable in cases of motivated murder and more remotely for felony assassination or what is otherwise referred to as indenture murder. The (capital) punishment is believed to have been there even at the time of the earlier colonies of the United States; it as well continued to be in force within the states that came to form afterwards.
In the process of judicial execution, the methods are different and depended on the type of criminal activity committed. The first to be sentenced to capital punishment in America was executed in 1608; the person was judicially executed after being convicted of spying on behalf of the government of Spain.
Afterwards, the capital punishment in the United States have been abolished and reinstated for a significant number of times. Nonetheless, several states within the United States apply capital punishment for differently in relation to crime committed (Clarke and Whitt, pp.03-68).
This positional paper will argue in favor of death penalties. To this effect, the paper will examine the various reason death penalty is still appropriate and important towards containing certain types of criminal activities. Moreover, the paper will utilize the ideas such as DNA evidences and other forms of evidences as they relate to death as a penalty. The various impact of banning death as a penalty will also form part of the themes in this paper.
Abolitionists’ Views
In order to get the basis on which to understand the significance of capital punishment, it is important to start by looking at arguments against the judicial execution.
It is important to note that even though death penalty has gained support from various individuals, private organizations and state institutions, the subject is still hotly detested; there are a significant number of people or group of individuals who cannot see the positive side of capital punishment. The opposition to capital punishment began as early as 1767 when abolitionist movements were taking roots.
The current abolitionist movement has its roots in the works of Montesquieu, a European theorist. Other theorists included English known as Quakers John Bellers, Bentham and John Howard. Meanwhile, it was Cesare strongly campaigned against capital punishment the world over. Beccaria hypothesized that the state does not encompass any validation to take away life either for a group of individuals or an individual.
The work of Beccaria offered staunch abolitionists with a renewed energy to argue champion against capital punishment with an authoritative voice. In fact, the influence of this theory achieved some grounds worldwide where some countries actually abolished death penalty as a way of judicial killing.
The ideas of Beccaria on death penalty had great influence on the American intellectuals who fought for its abolishment except in extreme cases like treason and crimes of murder. The abolitionist movement has argued, borrowing from Beccaria’s arguments, that capital punishment does not serve as a deterrent to crimes for which it is meted.
During the early part of the 19th century, abolitionist movement gained momentum in the United States of America and consequently some states revised their statutes in relation to capital punishment. Even so, more states maintained their capital punishment statutes. By the time the United States was facing the First World War, capital punishment was reinstated; this could be interpreted as a blow to the anti-capital punishment crusaders.
As much as death penalty is necessary, those arguing against it advance a significant number of incontrovertible arguments that are worth acknowledging. They have argued that there exist nothing like humane method of judicial execution irrespective of what crime the convict might have committed to warrant death sentence. These people state that execution is torturous to a convicted criminal and that it must be realized that the criminals are also human beings with human feelings and fear of losing their families.
Moreover, an argument has been advanced that the mental conditions of the convicted as at the time of commission of capital offense is not usually given the attention it requires; besides, it is noted that from the time capital punishment is pronounced on a convict upto the time when execution takes place, the convict undergoes a lot of psychological torture and mental disturbance. This causes more suffering to the convict than the commission of offence may warrant.
The most important point raised by those arguing against capital punishment is the virtual conviction that there may be a miscarriage of righteousness where an innocent individual may be judicially executed and there is no possible compensation in case this takes place. Due to this uncertainty, many individuals have petitioned and pressurized states to consider abolishing death penalties in their judicial systems.
Another argument advanced by anti-capital punishment crusaders is that the families of the convicts should not be overlooked. They say that the families also feel pain when they realize there loved ones are to be judicially executed; the families of the convicts are said to go through hell during the time starting from the pronouncement of death sentence to the actual execution of the convicted criminal.
Racism has been linked to unjustified death sentences where members of a given race are more likely to be handed death penalty than others. For instance, it is estimated that black capital criminals are highly likely to get death penalty where the victims are mostly whites; in cases involving black victims, white capital offenders are most likely to escape death penalties.
Meanwhile, there are so many reasons the anti-capital punishment crusaders have advanced against death penalty. However, maintenance of death penalty in the penal code is still very important in terms of certain crime prevention.
The Need for Capital Punishment
As much as there have been oppositions to death penalty by human rights and activists and other abolitionists, death penalty still has a significant role to play in terms of ensuring deterrence to keep away capital criminals from committing capital offences.
In the history of death penalty, there are sufficient evidences indicating that even countries in which capital punishment had been removed from the statutes have reinstated the form of punishment. This implies that the role played by the legality of capital punishment remains invaluable in terms of crime control and prevention (Council of Europe, pp.3-13).
The argument between those for the death penalties has been going on for sometimes now in the United States of America. There are many people who have tried by all means available to them to push the state to abolish death penalty.
However, the fact is that death penalty is necessary in cases of certain crimes like serial killing, abduction and rape of underage children and other forms of felony. Those opposed to death penalty base their arguments on the possibilities of convicting and subsequently executing an innocent person (Council of Europe, pp. 15-25).
The death penalty provision exists after the law makers realized that it is the only solution to certain crimes, otherwise what government will want to execute the very innocent citizens it is mandated to protect.
One striking fact is that before someone is convicted of a felony and sentenced to death, through investigation must be conducted; the process of conducting such investigations includes the use of scientific techniques like DNA tests even though this has been faulted to have possible errors of proof just like any other means of determining the guilt of a criminal offender.
Most important to note is the fact that the conviction process does not only utilize one means of determining whether one is guilty or innocent, a combination of methodological techniques is used so that one technique is highly likely to examine what is beyond the scope of another.
It is important to note that those arguing against the death penalty have advanced some arguments that are both logical and realistic. However, they seem to be oblivious of the fact that the process of conviction is so elaborate and effective that the chances of convicting an innocent individual is actually close to unlikely (Council of Europe, pp. 15-30).
Moreover, it is still wrong to argue that death punishment may condemn an otherwise innocent person to death. There is absolutely no proof for this claim; before anybody faces execution, especially within the United States of America, a carefully selected jury is selected to examine and make decisions on such cases as relate to capital punishment; and they have always worked towards proofs beyond any reasonable doubt that a defendant is actually guilty of the capital crime committed.
Therefore, the likelihood of any innocent individual being executed by mistake is actually limited. Given the perpetually improving forensic science, the chances of judicial execution of an innocent individual is nearing zero. It therefore implies that the fear of executing an innocent person judicially should not now be amongst the reasons anti-capital punishment crusaders use against the death penalty (Gershman, pp. 107-117).
The inappropriateness of capital punishment has also been widely propagated through the various media. The fact is that the media has always confused the true distinction between the terms “acquittal” and “innocence” as they are used in the justice system.
It is this confusion in the media’s judicial reporting that present the public with the belief that those who escape convictions are actually innocent individuals who would otherwise be executed for a given crime. The clear characteristic is that innocence suggests that the individual did not indulge in the offense although being exonerated does not imply innocence.
The fact is that the court is likely to acquit a suspect in cases where the defendants are not able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused actually committed the offense. It is in such cases where the court has acquitted an individual, irrespective of whether he or she committed the crime or not, due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the media has taken it as if the court has found the individual innocent.
In summary, a jury is obliged to acquit an individual who is most likely guilty but whose guilt cannot be proven before the court or the jury beyond any reasonable doubt. This is also a proving ground on which capital punishment should not be abolished (Gershman, pp. 131-140).
The possible conviction and subsequent execution of an innocent individual is unfortunate by all standards of justice available. But, it is noteworthy that the unfortunate scenario can not only be avoided through abolition of death penalty. Instead, the immense role played by death penalty in terms of criminal deterrence should appear in the bigger picture. Even if innocent people can mistakenly be executed for crimes they have not committed or abated, their number may not match those offenders who qualify for death penalty.
This implies that the probability of executing an innocent person is immensely insignificant and hence should not be a reason for which death penalty should be abolished. Besides, in the recent past, there has never been heard of a situation where and individual has mistakenly been convicted and sentenced to death. This reinforces the argument that the chances of executing an innocent person are very limited and almost unlikely (Gershman, pp. 202-213).
Looking at the bigger picture, it is important to acknowledge that there are some career criminals whose existence means perpetual threat to social tranquility besides creating social disorder. For example, a career criminal whose presence in any setting is always defined by violence and even death might have been in and out of jail. This implies that such as criminal cannot be rehabilitated through jailing and hence the need to eliminate him or her from the society.
In this case, death penalty may not be considered as a punishment to the offender, but should be seen as a way of ensuring that a single individual or few people do not threaten the overall social peace within a given society. In relation to this, it will be noted that judicial execution is an effective way of stopping capital offenses. There may be many criminals who carry out capital offenses, but the judicially executed ones will never commit such crimes again.
The victims of criminals vary in terms of gender and age. In many cases, there are vulnerable groups which suffer in the hands of certain offenders. For example, children and women are the most likely victims of sex offenders. Sex offenders are normally handed more severe punishment than other offenders.
This is acknowledgeable, but the fact is that punishment should not be seen in terms of what kind of offence is committed; it should be viewed in the light of what effects or impacts it is likely to have on the general public, especially with respect to right to life and other fundamental freedoms.
In this case, it will be defeating to logic to let an individual whose behavior has proved heinous to the general public to continue living amongst the members of the society; this will simply offer such an individual more opportunities to continue with is heinous act. If left unchecked through death, such individuals are likely to remain threats to the neighborhood of their residence. So, the only way to ensure they do not continue with their socially threatening undertakings is sentence them to death (Gershman, pp. 231-137).
Generally, punishment is used as deterrence to criminal activities. In view of this, it is worth mentioning that death sentence is a unique its own capacity as a deterrence to reoccurrences of particular crimes. Unlike other penalties, death is not meant to teach the convicted a lesson. It performs two levels of functions; one, it simply puts an end to heinous criminal activities by a specific individual.
This implies that there may be other criminals committing similar crimes but the actions by the executed individual are completely terminated. Two, it is a fact that many people fear dying; and the constitutional provide for death as a penalty to deter an individual from committing certain crimes. Therefore, in situations where a convicted individual is executed, the message is not to the executed but to those who are yet to commit a similar act. This is what is referred to as general deterrence or indirect deterrence to crime.
According to research findings, death penalty has been found to reduce homicide where it is being meted. For instance, the research study conducted by Emory group during the period between 1977 and 1999 indicated that death sentence had been effective in terms of lowering homicide rate in about 3, 054 counties.
The study findings further indicate that each death sentence pronounced resulted into 4.5 reductions in murder crimes while each execution led to reductions in murders by three. Research studies have also been conducted within the United States of America and the findings shows that the rate of homicide increased by 91% in the states where death penalty was abolished. Meanwhile, 70% of the states are reported to have experienced a decline in homicide after the states had re-introduced death penalty (Espejo, pp1-15).
Data collected from the general public are in agreement with the sentiment that capital punishment should not be abolished. Many of the surveyed public members of various countries have expressed their sentiments that retribution for the criminal activities committed against them, their relatives and friends is more significant to them than deterrence. An important point to take into consideration is that many criminals have been executed since death penalty was introduced several decades ago.
This means that the justice system has actually not been sufficiently equipped to handle the criminals and hence failed to reform their behaviors. For instance, different sex offenders have been caught severally in different cases. The fact therefore is that the threat of death has not deterred them, so the focus shifts from rehabilitating the criminals to protecting the safety of the general members of the society; and this is through legally eliminating them by execution.
The argument here may be that death penalty has not succeeded to deter such heinous criminal activities; nonetheless, it is better to have new people committing the crime dealt with rather than let individuals to live and repeatedly commit there heinous acts. This makes sure one does not perpetually commit the offence (Espejo, pp.34-38).
Death penalty has been limited to certain age. In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United State of America made a ruling that adolescent individuals are not subject to capital punishment. The ruling was premised on the research done by the American Psychological Association.
The research findings claimed that adolescents are less mature than the adults and hence are subject such factors as peer pressures, difficulties in restraining their impulses and the general underdeveloped sense or responsibility. This research made the Supreme Court to rule that people under the age of 18 years old cannot be handed death sentence.
The Supreme Court ruling on this matter is not sustainable in terms of ensuring justice for all citizens, especially the victims whose only hope is retribution for criminal acts committed against them. It implies that victims of heinous activities committed by the less than 18 years old criminals can never get justice yet the state is mandated to ensure justice and safety for all.
The fact is that, in terms of development, there is a thin line between an 18 year old and 17 years old individuals and thus adult age may not imply. The 17 year old averagely thinks just like an 18 year old individual. In this case, age should not be a factor in determining who gets death sentence and does not. Every behavioral activity should be considered with respect to its danger to the members of the society (Espejo, pp.132-146).
Death sentence should apply to all irrespective of age since the consequences or impacts of such heinous activities are always relatively the similar. For instance, the victim of rape by a less than 18 year old teenager will have the same horrible experience as the victim of rape by some who is 18 years and above.
The death penalty should therefore be applied for the safety of all members of the society. The rationale here is that the magnitude of pain inflicted through heinous act is totally independent on the age of the offender and that is what should actually inform the justice process.
It has also been argued that death punishment is cruel an unusual to both the convict and the convict’s family members and friends. Those who pose this argument are oblivious of the fact that the victim and his or her families and friends also have the same experience.
To argue on the cruelty about the cruelty of capital punishment meted to a convict and remain silent on the side of the victim actually defeats the logic of justice. One thing that is important to be borne in mind that the convicted criminal must have been aware of the consequences of committing capital offenses. This is reinforced by the fact that the consequences of crimes are well spelt in the statutory books and have been in existence for very many years.
Again, it is worth recalling that every judicial execution taking place now, especially in the 21st century, is not the first ones; the executions have been going on since over a thousand years ago. It is therefore a common knowledge that every criminal should know the most probable consequence of every criminal act. In addition, the law is very clear on the kind of people who can be tried and convicted before the court (Espejo, pp.156-162).
There are those who are exempted from judicial proceedings; such are those who are mentally ill or have mental disorder, the minor children who are statutorily underage amongst others. In view of all these, it is important to realize that a convicted criminal is always aware of the consequences but went on to commit the crime anyway.
Again, the convict must have been aware of the potential harm and pain to the victim, the victim’s family and friends but went on to commit the crime anyway and also, the convict must have been aware of those who have committed similar offenses and actually convicted and judicially executed.
So, it is justified to say or assume that a convicted individual sentenced to capital punishment had sufficient information at his or her disposal to enable him make a rational choice, though this may not always be the case. It therefore implies that in the presence of all these overwhelming information, that is also common in the public domain, the convicted individual still chose to go a head commit a capital offense; this may be referred to as crime by impunity.
For this reason, it justified to judicially execute the convict irrespective of whether he or she feels the pain or his or her friends and family do. The idea here is that in case of pain felt by family members and friends of the convict, the convict failed to think of that before committing capital offense.
In support of the forgoing argument, it is suitable that the mode of an eye for an eye is utilized. Many people who support capital punishment are highly likely to see this as cruel, but this will be very effective in terms of deterring capital offenses and protecting the general innocent public members. The issue is that the victims of capital offenders are, in most cases, innocent; and in cases where they die from heinous acts of offenders, it cannot be argued that they will ever get justice.
So, judicially executing somebody who has killed does not necessarily afford the dead victim justice, but it is ensuring that as many capital offenders as possible are eliminated from the society. In terms of moral grounds, anti-capital punishment crusaders have argued that death penalty does not have moral standing; but it is important to state that if that may be true, then the activities of capital criminal offenders are also not morally acceptable in the society.
Nonetheless, the question that may be asked is that of how the perpetually or dangerously immoral behavior can be eliminated from the entire society if not by judicial execution. If this question were to be answered, then the response will be none, hence leaving capital punishment as the only means (Mandery, pp.1-9).
One other thing that has not been given much of attention in the debate about the appropriateness of death penalty is that every prisoner or inmate would like to escape from prison should an opportunity arises. In fact, there have been several reports indicating that many prisoners have escaped from prison premises. In particular, those on long-term jail terms are most likely to escape from prison given that there lives are at stake due to the jury’s approval.
In this case, if capital offenders were to be given long jail terms, they are likely to escape and find their ways back into the society where they are likely to continue committing the very capital offenses they had been convicted of. In order to avoid such incidences, it is important that those found guilty of capital offenses be handed death penalty and thereafter be executed within the shortest time possible (Espejo, pp. 260-167).
Again it is important to recognize that laws are very dynamic and subject to change with time. In situations where a capital offender were to be jailed for life without a parole, the change of law may grant such an offender some minimum level of parole which may beat the logic of justice for the victim or close relations of justice.
For instance, a capital offender may be sentenced to life in prison but after some times, the law may possible change in such a way that those who are on life imprisonment jail term may be eligible to release if they meet certain requirements like changed behavior or showing remorsefulness. The consequence of this is that this kind of statutory change may be misused by the inmates through pretending to have behavior change but once released may again go back into committing similar capital offenses for which he or she was jailed.
This imprisonment may be considered to be the most appropriate alternative to capital punishment, but laws change and people also tend to forget about the past. In this scenario, life imprisonment may be abolished and capital offenders may be allowed back into the society after a given period of imprisonment. For this reason, it serves no good the society to abolish capital punishment and this may even lead to upsurge in the number of capital offenders (Yorke 283).
The cost of judicial execution has been fronted as one of the reason capital punishment should be abolished; it is explained that the process of running a case of capital punishment demands a lot of money from the state and also the family members of convicts who may be engaged in several court appeals.
It is true that going through the process of issuing capital punishment is complex and requires time and financial input. However, the cost is justified; first to ensure that the due process is thorough to avoid convicting an innocent person and also to ensure that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the suspect is actually guilty.
The processing of executing a convict requires exhaustive evidences which should be ensured are as accurate as possible since everything at that time revolves about lives; first, it revolves around the life of the suspect who may unjustifiably be executed for a crime that might attract lesser sentence and second, in case of murder, the life of the members of the society who may continue to be victims if the accused is released on account of insufficient proof. It is clear that the cost of the whole process is to ensure justice for both the suspect and the victim and potential victims (Yorke 283).
Conclusion
Death penalty is a capital penalty used in punishing criminals who engage in serious criminal activities that may even go far as causing real or perceived threat of life. The death penalty has been a serious debate topic in the United States of America.
The existence of execution as a form of meting punishment to serious offenders and criminals has over the past drawn mixed perceptions. It is important to note that the differences in opinions are significant reasons for which some states within the United States have abolished death penalties while some still maintain it in their statutes (Milhorn 401).
As much as capital punishment is still relevant, there has been heated debate about it with a significant number of people arguing against it. The opposition to capital punishment began as early as 1767 when abolitionist movements were taking roots.
The current abolitionist movement has its roots in the works of Montesquieu, a European theorist. Other theorists included English known as Quakers John Bellers, Bentham and John Howard. However, it was the work of Beccaria offered staunch abolitionists with a renewed energy to argue champion against capital punishment with an authoritative voice.
As much as death penalty is necessary, those arguing against it advance a significant number of undeniable facts that are worth acknowledging. They argue that capital punishment is cruelty against humanity, offenders might have not been sound mind at the time of commission of a capital offense and that execution puts the family of the convicted into pain and agony (Clarke and Whitt, pp29-46).
The most central point raised by those arguing against death punishment is the virtual certainty that there may be a miscarriage of fair dealing or honesty within the court system where an innocent individual may be judicially executed and there is no possible compensation in case this happens. Because of this, several human rights group have petitioned various governments in the world to drop capital punishment from their statutes.
Despite the opposition to it, death penalty still has a significant role to play in terms of ensuring deterrence to keep away capital criminals from committing capital offences. In the history of death penalty, there are sufficient evidences indicating that even countries in which capital punishment had been removed from the statutes have reinstated the form of punishment.
This implies that the role played by the legality of capital punishment remains invaluable in terms of crime control and prevention. The death penalty provision exists after the law makers realized that it is the only solution to certain crimes, otherwise what government will want to execute the very innocent citizens it is mandated to protect.
In order to avoid executing an innocent individual, anybody who faces execution, especially within the United States of America, a carefully selected jury is selected to examine and make decisions on such cases as relate to capital punishment; and they have always worked towards proofs beyond any reasonable doubt that a defendant is actually guilty of the capital crime committed. However, a jury is obliged to acquit an individual who is most likely guilty but whose guilt cannot be proven before the court or the jury beyond any reasonable doubt.
Death punishment is used as deterrence to criminal activities. According to research findings, death penalty has been found to reduce homicide where it is being meted. For instance, the research study conducted by Emory group during the period between 1977 and 1999 indicated that death sentence had been effective in terms of lowering homicide rate in about 3, 054 counties.
Capital punishment should be applied to all irrespective of age since the consequences or impacts of such heinous activities are always relatively the similar. Moreover, capital offenders seem to be always aware of the consequences of their criminal act before they commit it yet choose to go ahead (Clarke and Whitt, pp.46-57).
Again, in case capital punishment is commuted to life imprisonment, there is high possibility that if the long-term serving inmates escape out of prison, they will still continue to commit the very crime they were convicted of and hence place a mockery on the justice system for the victims and potential victims. Besides, the laws may change in such a manner that the capital offenders get an opportunity to go back into the society and may possibly not be cowed by the lesser consequences (Espejo, pp.156-162).
Works Cited
Clarke, Williams & Whitt, Lauelyn. The bitter fruit of American justice: international and domestic resistance to the death penalty. New York: UPNE, 2007.
Council of Europe. The death penalty: beyond abolition, Parts 42-43. New York: Council of Europe, 2004.
Espejo, Roman. Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? New York: Greenhaven Press, 2002.
Gershman, Gary. Death penalty on trial: a handbook with cases, laws, and documents. New York: ABC-CLIO, 2005.
Mandery, Evan. Capital punishment: a balanced examination. New York: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2005.
Milhorn, Thomas. Crime: Computer Viruses to Twin Towers. New York: Universal-Publishers, 2004.
Yorke, Jon. Against the death penalty: international initiatives and implications. New York: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2008
Does the death sentence offer justice to the criminal or the people who were wronged? The whole world may disagree with these sentiments, if confidently declared that justice would have fully prevailed. Has someone ever lost his/ her kith or kin to a killer and if so, how was the reaction? This is what forms the basis for this argument. Death sentence is not the only way through which justice can be achieved.
Corporal punishment is perceived as dreadful. For instance, many people think that working as a hangman is bad. The Society needs to change its belief about abolishing corporal punishment as a means through which equity and justice can be achieved.
When speaking about children, there is a need to point out that “And corporal punishment is incompatible with human rights standards prohibiting cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment and protecting children from physical violence and mental abuse” (“American Civil Liberties Union” 1).
There is unnecessary cry for revenge especially for people seeking justice which comes as a result of the death of the criminal. If a murderer is allowed to live whether as a free man or serving a life sentence, justice would have failed. Feelings of hatred to the law will forever be engraved in the hearts of those whose loved one was murdered.
They may not be noble feelings but they are suffered by almost every human being. It can be argued that two wrongs do not make one right deed but should it be at the expense of frustration, injury and injustice to others?
Abolitionists seem to have more force but they tread on dangerous ground. It is widely believed that the core and the only aim of punishment, in this case electrocuting or hanging criminals, is to deter other potential criminals from doing the same crime.
This assumption is believed to be part of the fundamental lies that urgently need to be reviewed. Deterrence of course is one of the aims of punishment but it is not the sole reason why criminals should receive a sentence. The victims of the crime feel at solace with the feeling that the law has avenged for them.
Furthermore, facing a consequence is one of the most cruel form of invention whose archaeology is least known to mankind except for the religious people who saw them from the beginning of the world. Each action done in both conscious and subconscious state of mind shall ultimately have the repercussions of the same gravity when discovered.
Although most murders occur at flashpoint, there is no justification for such crimes to go unpunished. There is no excuse for doing actions prohibited by the law. Abolishing the death sentence can be equated to removing one sharp edge of the sword thereby leaving out the consequences for the blood-thirsty and the trigger-happy fellows.
This cause revenge seeking persons for murders committed against their loved ones look for alternative methods of expressing their dissatisfaction. Multiple deaths will be the result of this legal negligence.
Life imprisonment is an option facing murder criminals. However, lifelong suffering cannot be a replacement for an untimely death. It is not enough to be locked in prison for ending the life of a fellow human being.
Amnesty could be an option instead of letting a person defiantly serve life imprisonment knowing that his/her precious life is safe notwithstanding the life he terminated. Most people convicted with minor crimes end up serving life long imprisonment. Individuals in charged with major crimes should face the consequences equal to the crime committed and that is when justice will prevail in the society.
One may be accused of championing the fact that death sentence is inhumane or rather indecorous. This provides a chance to find out whether protecting an individual’s life who could not hesitate to fire several bullets to destroy a fellow man is wrong or right. The innocent man may be long dead, well, but the law should not hesitate to do the same to the perpetrator.
Given that the felony committed is gravely, the perpetrator has to definitely pay for his actions. In any case, those who commit minor crimes serve their sentences fully without being defended by the legal systems in place. These loopholes ought to be filled to give reason for society to claim that it offers any form of justice to any one that deserves it.
Criminal responsibility should be fully paid for without discrimination of the gravity committed by the criminals. Criminals who commit minor crimes should not be punished at the expense of those committing major crimes. This is an outright injustice. The rule of law should completely prevail or else have it replaced with jungle law without the society’s knowledge. It takes withdrawal from self interest in favour of self respect to agree that murder should be paid with death.
The safest method to avoid electrocution is to avoid murder. It is inhumane to terminate the life of a murderer; never-the-less no thought is paid to the implications of allowing a murderer to live. If one acts in a manner that seems to be bad according to the society he ought to expect the same from the same society.
The same way anyone performing a felony when the law is barring him to do so is supposed to face the penalty. Capital punishment aims at stopping criminals from continuing in criminal acts. “The evidence for capital punishment as an uniquely effective deterrent to murder is especially important, since deterrence is the only major pragmatic argument on the pro-death penalty side” (White 1-18).
More so, the punishment is aimed at stopping school going persons from cheeky characters. There are many more ways of ensuring order without necessarily terminating capital punishment. Revenge is one of the ways that can be used.
In conclusion the society needs to reconsider its moral grounds and practices before deciding to abolish corporal punishment. Societal decadence should be dealt with legally. Will law protect the brains behind the crimes or the victims?
Works Cited:
“American Civil Liberties Union.” A Violent Education, Corporal Punishment of Children in U.S. Public Schools, 2009. Print.
White, Lawrence. “An Overview of the Death Penalty and Capital Trials: History, Current Status, Legal Procedures, and Cost”, Journal of Social Issues 50, no. 2 (1994). Print.
Capital punishment refers to death sentences that are accorded to individual offenders by judicial institutions. The sentence has raised controversies especially due to the fact that innocent individuals may be victims of such sentences in inefficient judicial processes. Political influence has also been raising controversies over the sentence.
This paper seeks to discuss the political view of capital punishment. The paper will look into political parties’ views over the punishment, its related policies in different countries and related forces towards its abolition.
Trend in abolition of the Death Penalty
Death penalty can be viewed as a traditional exercise in many territorial jurisdictions as it was widely practiced in many countries. The move for its abolition however started in the nineteenth century with Venezuela in the year 1863. The abolition trend was then spread to other countries across the globe even though it started slowly with a gradual growth.
Costa Rica and San Marino joined Venezuela in the nineteenth century to the abolition with only a few more countries in the first half of the twentieth century. By the end of the first half of the twentieth century, only about ten countries had abolished the penalty. The trend however picked up in the second half of the century (Neumayer, 2007).
Political Perspective of Capital Punishment
Though a number of factors may be attributed to the abolition of Capital punishment by a number of countries, political factors have played a significant role in the trend. This is because quiet a number of the abolitions have been associated with democratic developments in political systems of the countries that have abolished the penalties.
This argument is consistent with the fact that all countries that still practices the penalties, in high numbers, apart from the United States are still under dictatorships. Most of the countries that realized transitions into the abolition also did so following political transformations into democracies.
Such political impacts have also been associated with alignments in political views. Conservatives and liberals are for example associated with varying views regarding the abolition of the considered harsh penalty along political lines. These views are for instance significant in both politician and even the electorate (Neumayer, 2007).
The conservatives are for example identified with the opinion that capital penalty establishes responsibility of the offenders over their crimes. They hold the opinion that the practice is moral as it has a biblical basis. They also believe that by having the penalty, a significant accountability for crimes by individuals will be held and others will be deterred from committing such crimes.
The liberals on the other hand are opposed to the capital penalty which they identify to be harsh to human life. They hold the opinion that the approach is not effective in curbing crimes besides putting innocent lives at risk (American, 2004).
Conservatives have in the United States been strongly opposed to the abolition of capital penalty (DPIC, 2010). These divisions have also been realized among countries following their alignment along liberals and conservatives views. China for instance provides an example of imposition of death penalty according to transparency international (Hong, 2008).
Conclusion
Capital punishment has been enlisting different opinions along political lines as countries move to its abolition with time. Though undertaken at national legislative levels by political leaders, the change is being driven by varied factors such as international pressure and democratic movements into movements for human rights preservation.
References
American. (2004). Issues and allegations: capital punishment. Web.
DPIC. (2010). New voices – conservative voices. Web.
Hong, L. (2008). China’s death penalty: reforms on capital punishment. Web.
Neumayer, E. (2007). Death penalty: the political foundations of the global trend towards abolition. Web.
December 5, 2005 was the date, when a black man, Wesley Eugene Baker, was executed by means of lethal injection. It was the last time, when the case of death penalty took place in Maryland. This man was scheduled to death in a week after he committed the crime, and it happened in far 1991 (Clines para. 6).
He was waiting for own death more than 10 years. On the one hand, his actions cannot be understood, and his blame is obvious; on the other hand, living in prison and being aware of own death is one of the most terrible punishments for any person.
The issue of capital punishment always causes numerous doubts and contradictions, because it becomes harder and harder to certainly support or oppose this very form of punishment.
The U.S. state of Maryland is one of the American states that still use this judicial punishment; and in spite of the fact that this type of execution is currently suspended, the history of capital punishment in Maryland is interesting for many reasons. Wesley Eugene Baker was the last man, who was scheduled for death penalty; and it will be better if this case will be the last in Maryland history.
Death penalty is the most serious punishment that can be used by the government against people; and even if it costs less then keeping a person in jail till the end of his/her life and shows how serious the outcomes of murders can be, it should not be the reason to support capital punishment at all because nowadays, in most cases, money rules the world and even helps to convict innocent people in order to escape this penalty.
In fact, it is not that difficult to convict a person and sentence him/her to death. However, capital punishment usually touches upon numerous issues, which are crucially important in our current live.
The state of Maryland is probably one of the first ones in the list, where the cases of capital punishment deserve attention and evaluation. The investigations over this state prove that racial bias is still present even in justice: “blacks who kill whites are 2.5 times more likely to be sentenced to death than are whites who kill whites, and are 3.5 times more likely to be sentences to death than blacks who kill blacks” (Gerber and Johnson 53).
This is why it becomes clear that minorities are in more danger than white of being treated unfairly in capital cases. Someone may believe that modern world is not that prejudiced about the questions of race and ethnicity, unfortunately it is only another myth that people want to believe in.
Taking into consideration the point of racial inequality, another important reason of why capital punishment has to be prohibited in Maryland appears. Blacks constitute more than 1/3 of the total population of Maryland (Nagengast 307-314). This is why if racial identity plays a significant role in making sentences, it would be very difficult to trust justice and to be sure that real offenders are punished.
Innocent people as well as minorities are under a threat of being murdered by the government. It may happen that evidences prove the blame of one person, but actually, the crime is committed by absolutely other person. One of the most wonderful and true examples may be the movie of Frank Darabont The Green Mile, when a black man was sentenced to death just because he was found with the body of a dead white child.
John Coffey wanted “just to help” (Darabont, 1999), using his gift, but no one could understand him. People cannot be sure that the same situation will never happen with them. When they talk about capital punishment, it is always necessary to remember that some facts can make people blind, and innocent people may suffer because of prejudice, because of pain, because of stupid blindness.
People commit crimes for many reasons, and sometimes, and these crimes are so terrible and unforgettable that it is very hard to forgive a person and provide him/her with a second chance. The desire to avenge, the idea that someone can be unpunished, and the feel of loss and pain seize people, whose close people have been killed.
This is why the only way out to struggle for justice is to fight at courts and ask for death penalty. However, when people make a decision to kill a person even legally, they become murders as well. This thought will never leave them and can make the rest of their lives more horrible. Maybe, it is better to deprive a person of own freedom or to torture somehow in order to teach, in order to revenge, in order to make hurt.
With time, people, who are imprisoned till the end of their lives, may become helpful to society and work for free in order to continue their existence and to feed. Such kind of punishment may be more terrible and more just in comparison to death penalty. It provides the criminal with a chance to be helpful for society, and it prevents ordinary people from becoming a murder even on legal conditions.
It is possible to agree to the idea of capital punishment touching the problem of financial support that is necessary for people, imprisoned for life. Government cannot find enough costs to keep criminals under even poor for living conditions, feed them, change their clothes, and bath them. This is why the only good decision is to kill criminals and save state money. On my opinion, such justification of capital punishment is not strong enough.
Maryland is a rich state indeed, and it is possible to develop a program that maintains the life in prisons on an appropriate level. This fact shows once again how considerable the power of money can be. People should not be under the rein of money; people should not kill each other because of money. For some moment, I want money to be sentenced to death so that people can live free and independent.
“Since 1978, five people have been executed in Maryland, and five inmates are on death row” (Urbina para. 11). These numbers should not be changed for good future. First of all, with time, people should realize how powerful money can be and how weak people are in comparison to money.
It happens that money makes decision whether a person should die or continue living. Is it the future, people want to live in? Hardly! Maryland is a powerful state, and capital punishment should not be a problem for its citizens. To sentence to death is easy, but to continue living with the idea of being connected to someone’s death is hard indeed.
This is why before judging people and using capital punishment in order to struggle for justice, it is necessary to wonder whether all people are really innocent as they may think. Justice is a deep concept, and the question of capital punishment is not the only one that has to be answered. People should evaluate the concept of life and death as it is in order to improve own future and own right to exist.
Capital punishment or death sentence has been used as a method of enforcing law in many countries around the world for many years. It is used to punish crimes such as violence and murder. Capital punishment has been criticized by its opponents. This has pushed some countries to find alternative methods of punishment such as life imprisonment.
Proponents argue that it should be allowed because it the best form of punishment for certain crimes, and because it discourages individuals from committing crime. However, capital punishment should not be allowed because it violates human rights, it is unfair in case wrong judgment is made, and it does not stop criminals from committing crimes.
Capital punishment is inhuman because it violates the human right to life. Killing an individual for committing a crime is ironical because the punishment teaches the society that killing is bad through killing.
Despite the magnitude of a crime, every person has a right to life. This has elicited heated debates in many countries because most societies define what is humane through their beliefs and religion. Instead of capital punishment, less inhuman punishments such as life imprisonment could be awarded to ensure that the value and integrity of life is preserved.
Capital punishment does not aid in reduction of crime in any way. Research studies conducted in the human behavior field have revealed that crime is motivated by passion.
Criminals do not think about the punishment they would get in case they were apprehended. Therefore, the presence of capital punishment does not reduce crime in any way. Proponents argue that capital punishment reduces crime because of its severity as a form of punishment. It is better to help criminals change their lives by imprisoning them in correctional facilities rather than killing them.
Capital punishment should be abolished because it may lead to the sentencing of an innocent person. In many instances, some criminals were later proven innocent. However, the exoneration came too late. This makes capital punishment unfair, wrong, and unjustified. In addition, some criminals request for a chance to reform and compensate for their crimes in other ways. However, since capital punishment is irreversible, they are denied a chance. They do not get time to ask for forgiveness and make amends with those they wronged.
Capital punishment causes more harm than good because its effects permeate the family of the deceased. In addition, the pain of death could be unbearable to the criminal. The degree of pain depends on the method of execution applied. Either way, it affects the family of the criminal. It may lead to psychological problems if children are involved. Two wrongs do not make a right. Therefore, killing a criminal does not offer a solution to the problems that face the society.
In conclusion, capital punishment is a highly controversial issue in many countries. Proponents argue that it is the best form of punishment for certain crimes such as murder. However, it is wrong and unjustified because it is inhuman, unfair, violates the human right to life, and it does not aid in reduction of crime.
Less severe forms of punishment such as life imprisonment could be awarded instead of capital punishment. It should not be allowed because it violates the human right to life, wrong judgment may lead to death of an innocent individual, and it may affect the family of the criminal in a negative way.
Capital punishment can be defined as the deliberate and premeditated termination of human life as a punishment for the victim who is convicted under the provisions of the law. In the United States, capital punishment remains a highly debated and controversial topic as substantial portions of the U.S. population are proponents or opponents of executions.
This has been, partly, contributed by the different legislations that different countries hold concerning executions. For instance, a good number of Latin American democracies and other democratic countries in Europe have gotten rid off of executions although a number of Asian democracies, the United States and totalitarian countries still carry out executions (Cassel 1).
Death penalty in the U.S
Although the death penalty is, arguably, most debated in the United States, it has not always been there. The greatest number of executions in the United States was carried out during the Depression era that took place during the first half of the twentieth century. This was, however, followed by a significant decline in the number of executions in the fifties and the sixties.
The United States subsequently saw no executions during the period from 1967 to 1976. In the year 1972, the death penalty was nullified by the Supreme Court and death row inmates were consequently given life imprisonment. However, in the year 1976, another Supreme Court determined that the death penalty was constitutional and thus it was reinstated. Since then, and up to 3rd June, 2009, a total of 1167 people have faced the death penalty (Robinson 1).
Most death penalties in the United States have been given due to convictions for murder. In addition to this, other serious crimes have also attracted the death penalty. Some of these crimes include rape, robbery with violence/ armed violence, treason, kidnapping and the like.
Thus after the aforementioned 1972 Supreme Court decision, executions were limited to crimes that were a threat to human life and appropriate legislations were passed to regulate the imposition of the death penalty. In addition to the state laws discussed in this paragraph, the executions can also be carried out by the federal government and the military using the laws of these bodies (Robinson 1).
The pros of death penalty
The faction supporting the death penalty has substantial membership and thus there is need to evaluate their reasons for supporting the death penalty. Some of the reasons they cite for supporting the death penalty are the fact that the death penalty makes criminals restrain from committing murder and other serious crimes like terrorist acts.
Second is the argument that the death penalty is the most suitable punishments for certain crimes like murder. The proponents of the death penalty also argue that executions serve a very important role in making people obtain payback in place of the victims. It is estimated that almost a third of the countries in the world are legally proponents of the death penalty (Lowe 121).
The cons of death penalty
Substantial opposition to the death penalty has, over time, developed even in countries that have retained the death penalty. The main reasons that opponents of the death penalty give for their position are, the fact that the death penalty is inhumane and cruel. The same is also forbidden by the 8th amendment that was made to the constitution of the United States.
It is also true that the methods that are used to carry out executions are inhumane and cruel and thus the legal structure and the actual pragmatic procedures employed during the exercise of executions are inappropriate and seriously unusual (Lowe 122).
Death penalty has been given disproportionately to the impoverished that are unable to finance legal counsel. It has also been used against ethnic, religious and ethnic minorities. This sometimes leads to unfair executions carried out when the substance of the law is followed to the latter.
Apart from the unfair executions that have been imposed on the poor, racial, religious and ethnic minorities, it is true that the death penalty has been inconsistently applied. This has left loopholes for manipulation of the legislations that govern imposing of the death penalty leading to innocent executions (White 1).
Among the most important reasons for annulling the death penalty is the fact that a worrying number of wrongly convicted people have been killed by the state due to the existence of the law accepting executions. Of more concern is the fact that people who are rightfully executed can be punished otherwise as the state waits for information that could prove their innocence.
The only difference between executing a murderer and jailing him/her for life is that the state punishes him/her inhumanely in the former. Furthermore, if jailed for life, the murderer may die in prison as a reformed person (Cassell 1).
Conclusion
From the discussion above, it is clear that the death penalty should be annulled. The government should come up with effective legislation giving effective and humane alternatives for punishing capital offenses. This way, a score of innocent lives will be saved and criminals will be given a chance to die as reformed people.
Works Cited
Cassell, P. Debating the death penalty: should America have capital punishment. New York. Bell & Bain, 2005. Print.
Isolation and capital punishments are both social evils. Isolating people deprives them the right to stay with their families, and limits their freedom of movement (Samaha 418).
Besides, isolated persons seem to acquire brain disorders in the end and they become obliterated socially. On the other hand, capital punishments such as deaths deprives of people the freedom of life and goes against God’s command which disallows intentional killings of persons, or murder.
Human beings need interaction with other people due to their social nature. Harlow used monkeys to study impacts of social isolation by raising these monkeys in a nursery. He concluded that neglected and orphaned children experience psychological damage, similar to monkeys.
Therefore, he showed that children need nurturing for proper functioning of their brains (Gawande par. 9). Experiments on human adults also show similar results. Long distance sailors, who only communicate through videos report high levels of loneliness that destroy their souls. Anderson, a chief Middle East correspondent, missed people terribly during his confinement.
He dozed off and yearned for any form of activity during the day. Later, he began trembling and he feared to lose his mind. Eventually, Anderson lost his mind and he began beating his forehead against the wall. Proponents of long-term isolation in prisons argue that it prevents violence and offers discipline (Gawande par. 13).
When prisoners disobey rules by engaging in drugs and attacking correction staff, wardens have no choice but to offer penalty in efforts to contain the behavior (Gawande par. 13). Therefore, proponents label isolation as unavoidable and term all those that fail to support this idea as naïve.
In America, the number of prisoners in isolation is quite high. America believes that confining prisoners together increases violence due to overcrowding. Besides, some criminals are just too dangerous for common housing. Britain tried solitary confinement of prisoners, but it failed as violence in the cells increased.
Alternatively, Britain adopted a system of preventing violence in prison instead of offering more punishments. They presented violent prisoners with more control by offering them opportunities for work, education as well as special programming (Gawande par. 72).
Britain found out that prisoners who were extremely violent in one area behaved perfectly well in other areas. In the same way, Felton, a psychosis who faced confinement at some point, argues against solitary confinement.
Capital punishment, similar to isolation, is also evil. Death penalty is certainly wrong, since every human being has a right to life. Besides, governments attain moral authority from God and thus, should not break His command against murder and avenge (Scalia par. 13). No person has power to avenge by death, as this is a divine responsibility.
Besides, most crimes that lead to capital punishments are less likely to come from the same offender for a second time. For instance, domestic murder that results from passion is unlikely to come from the same person for a second time. Nevertheless, involved persons undergo life imprisonment just as a form of punishment, or justice.
Clearly, this is vengeance, which is against the will of God. Besides, such persons are not likely to gain from any form of rehabilitation offered in prisons. Rather, imprisonment will just make them to lose their minds due to loneliness experienced in isolation.
The main reason behind punishment inflicted by the society is to rectify disorder that results from the offense. However, it is obvious that capital punishment hardly defends the society, or corrects disorder. The structure of the word’s penal system has seen much upgrading to include cells that are very clean, meals planned by nutritionists, rooms for exercise and even allows visits by partners.
This arrangement of just retribution does not prohibit evil acts, as people are not afraid to face reprimand with these conditions. The penalty of death is wrong, as no government or person has moral authority over life. The main force behind modern hatred to the death penalty is comparing government morality with personal morality. This is plain due to contemporary democratic governments.
The catholic religion, for instance, allows death penalty if it makes prudential considerations However, it becomes difficult to know when such considerations are prudent. The Catholic Church disallows maters such as abortion and birth control totally, yet considers death penalty as just and right in some occasions.
In conclusion, both isolation and capital punishments are social evils. Isolating prisoners causes psychological damage and does not stop violence, or discipline them as expected. While proponents of isolation label it as unavoidable, a country like Britain has adopted a system of preventing violence in prison, and not practicing isolation. Violent prisoners get more control through opportunities such as work and education.
Similarly, capital punishment in the form of death penalty is wrong, as life is divine. Besides, death penalty does not prevent crime, as same offenders never commit most crimes that lead to capital punishments. In addition, death penalty for vengeance is unjustifiable according to biblical doctrine. Therefore, societies should ban capital punishments and try other ways of handling persons who commit serious offenses.
Works Cited
Gawande, Atul. Hellhole: The United States holds tens of thousands of inmates in long-term solitary confinement. Is this torture? The New Yorker. 30 Mar. 2009. Web.
Capital punishment refers to the act of killing an individual who has been found guilty of committing a certain crime (Gottfried, 2003, p.35). Capital punishment is a severe form of punishment because a victim cannot repeal a death sentence. A less severe alternative to death sentence is life imprisonment. Despite its existence, some countries still practice capital punishment.
The debate on whether capital punishment is ethical and moral has elicited different opinions in different societies. Proponents of capital punishment argue that it guarantees permanent security and safety to communities, it deters crime, it is appropriate for some crimes such as murder, and it is less costly (Gottfried, 2003, p.37).
On the other hand, opponents argue that it is inhuman, it is unfair if someone is wrongly convicted, it is a violation of human rights, it affects the emotional and psychological well-being of a victim’s family members, and it is against God’s will (Gottfried, 2003, p.41). Capital punishment should be reaffirmed because it is an effective method that could be used to deter crime and improve security.
In the United States, 35 states have the death penalty in their legal system. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there have been 1226 death sentences in the United States since the year 1976 (McCafferty, 2011, p.53).
In 2010, there were 38 executions. This number decreased from 106 executions in 2009 (McCafferty, 2011, p.53). Some methods used to kill criminals include hanging, shooting by a firing squad, intoxication in a gas chamber, electrocution, and lethal injection.
Arguments for capital punishment
Capital punishment has several advantages that render it valid as a form of punishment for crime. First, it guarantees the safety and security of prison staff and the people in the external community (McCafferty, 2011, p.58). Individuals who receive a death penalty are usually dangerous and highly violent people.
Executed criminals cannot commit crimes either after their release from prison or in prison. Their execution guarantees the safety of prison staff and the public. Their death is an assurance of security because they cannot continue their unlawful acts and this improves security.
Secondly, capital punishment deters crime by discouraging criminals from engaging in crime (Gottfried, 2003, p.42). In countries such as Singapore that have death penalty, lower rates of crime have been reported. Capital punishment deters crime because of its severe consequences.
Between the years 1993 and 1997, the death penalty was widely used in the United States due to a rise in crime. As a result, the rate of murder dropped from 24,562 people to 18, 209 people (McCafferty, 2011, p.54). This drop was as a result of the avoidance of the severe consequences of capital punishment by criminals.
Thirdly, it is the right form of punishment for certain crimes because it is equal to the crime committed (Gottfried, 2003, p.45). For example, capital punishment is the best punishment for murder because it is equal to the crime.
Any other form of punishment would be unfair because it would be less serious than the crime itself. Proponents argue that victims of crime receive justice when criminals are killed because the penalty is equal to the crime committed. The individual is made to pay by death in proportion to the crime committed.
Fourthly, capital punishment is less costly that other forms of punishment such as life imprisonment (Gottfried, 2003, p.46). The cost of imprisoning an individual for life is more than the cost of killing the individual. It is logic to award a death penalty to an individual instead of life imprisonment because it prevents use of government resources, which are instead used for other more viable projects.
Arguments against capital punishment
Opponents of capital punishment present several arguments to support the abolishment of capital punishment. First, they argue that it is unethical and cruel (McCafferty, 2011, p.61). Killing a person is inhuman even though the person may have acted in an inhuman manner. They claim that each person has a right to life and should not be killed under any circumstance.
Capital punishment is inhuman because the methods used for execution inflict intense pain and suffering to the individual. As such, the individual’s right to life is violated. Even though a criminal practices inhumanity by committing a crime, killing the individual does not solve the problem entirely.
Capital punishment is ironical because its main teaching is that killing someone who has killed is moral and justifiable (McCafferty, 2011, p.62). However, this argument is ambiguous because different cultures interpret the concept of humanity differently.
Secondly, it is an unfair form of punishment for individuals who are convicted wrongly. For example, since 1976, 130 people have been released from death row after they were proved innocent (McCafferty, 2011, p.64). In severe cases, some people are killed after being wrongly convicted.
It is unfair for a person to be executed even though he/she is innocent. Some people have been proven innocent but the proof of their innocence came too late that they were executed before they were released. In addition, some criminals ask for a chance to amend their ways and become better citizens. However, with a death sentence, that is impossible.
In a case where an innocent individual is executed, the execution is irreversible, and the government lives with the guilt of executing an innocent citizen. The fact that an innocent individual could be wrongly convicted is not a good enough reason to abolish capital punishment. This is because in the same way, guilty individuals could be wrongly released for lack of enough evidence (McCafferty, 2011, p.68).
Thirdly, capital punishment is a violation of the human right to life (Gottfried, 2003, p.73). Despite the degree of a crime committed by an individual, killing him/her violates his/her right to life. This argument varies from society to society because human rights are determined by factors such as religion, cultural beliefs and religion, which vary among societies.
Opponents argue that sentences such as life imprisonment could be awarded instead of capital punishment because they do not violate an individual’s right to life (Gottfried, 2003, p.74). In some societies, the interpretation of human rights allows capital punishment for individuals who violate the human rights of others.
Fourthly, capital punishment is not fair and may cause emotional and psychological trauma to a victim’s family members (McCafferty, 2011, p.71). In countries where it is practiced, capital punishment is a form of compensation for a crime committed using the life of the criminal. This is immoral because two wrongs cannot make a right. An individual deserves a chance to reform for a better life.
In addition, the pain experienced in executions could be unbearable. The degree of pain depends on the method of execution used. Despite the method used, the pain affects both the individual and his/her family.
Family members may be traumatized and as such suffer emotionally and psychologically, which may affect their lives negatively (Gottfried, 2003, p.72). For example, if the individual has young children, they may be unable to live normal lives owing to the effects of the knowledge of their father’s execution.
Fifthly, capital punishment denies the victims a chance to reform and practice spiritual redemption (Gottfried, 2003, p.75). Even though an individual may be sorry and remorseful for committing a crime, reformation is impossible with a death penalty. In most societies, spiritual redemption is considered a priority mainly at the time of death. Spiritual redemption means making peace with fellow human beings and God before death.
However, capital punishment victims do not get this opportunity. Opponents consider capital punishment unethical because they argue that death should be natural and not induced in any way.
Conclusion
Capital punishment is the killing of an individual who has been convicted of committing a certain crime. The issue of whether capital punishment is moral and ethical is a controversial one. Some countries have abolished it while others still practice it. For example, in the United States, 35 stares practice capital punishment.
Proponents argue that it deters crime, guarantees permanent security, it is appropriate for crimes such as murder and rape, and it is less costly than alternative punishments such as life imprisonment.
Opponents argue that it is inhuman, may be unfair if someone is wrongly convicted, it is a violation of human rights, it affects the emotional and psychological well-being of family members and it s unfair. Capital punishment should be reaffirmed because it is the best method of stopping crime and hence improving the security and safety of all people.
References
Gottfried, T2003, Capital Punishment: the Death Penalty Debate, Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania.
McCafferty, J 2011, Capital Punishment, Aldine Transaction, New York.