Group 1: N.C Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty
This group comprises of neutral individuals and organizations that work as a coalition to condemn al forms of death penalty and offer alternatives to capital punishment (N.C Coalition par. 1). The group aims to ensure that the capital punishment system of North Carolina is completely reformed. The network comprises of non-profit organizations, faith communities politicians and attorneys.
The coalition strongly believes that the death penalty system in North Carolina ought to be substituted with other alternatives. The group argues that capital punishment is does not save vital resources and therefore, it is not cost effective. Besides, capital punishment is not victim-centered and as such, restorative justice and the rights of victims can hardly be realized (N.C Coalition par. 3). In addition, the NC network is of the opinion that the death penalty system lacks the much-needed efficiency in the criminal justice system. In other words, death penalty is not an effective correctional measure for offenders. Once a convicted individual is sentenced to death, it only breeds hatred and a feeling of injustice on the side of the victim and relative s (N.C Coalition par. 4).
Hence, the N.C Coalition suggests a number of tough alternatives that the state government can embrace and adopt in place of death penalty. According to the group, the first and most effective alternative to death penalty should be first imprisonment. The latter option should not permit the likelihood of parole. Second, the criminal justice system should come up with programs that compel the sentenced individuals to be accountable for their offences. In other words, such programs should force the convicted criminals to be responsible for their actions. Hence, restitution should be paid to the offended by the inmates (N.C Coalition par. 4).
Group 2: World Congress against the death penalty
The World Congress is a non-profit making organization comprising of legal experts, politicians and the international civil society pr pressure groups. The organization is geared towards elaborating abolitionist strategies for capital punishment across the globe. The group asserts that for social justice and progress to prevail, universal and unconditional abolition of death penalty must be adopted across the board. Regular international summits are held regularly by the organization.
The 2013 congress aimed at outlining the effects of life imprisonment on humanity. The congress found that replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment only prolongs the death sentence and robs the convicts of their basic human rights and dignity. One would not wish to live for long if they knew they would live the rest of their lives in prison. Although international law does not forbid life sentencing, the European Court of Human rights revealed that jailing a person for life without the possibility of parole was illegal (Hubert par. 1).
The conference also had other speakers who seconded Constance de la Vegas proposition of a life sentence with the possibility of parole. Prisoners facing life imprisonment should be awarded the possibility of release in the future (Hubert par. 6). Capital punishment does not improve safety in society. The Congress firmly reiterates that abolishing the death penalty does not merely put a nation at par with others that uphold human rights and dignity. It saves the taxpayers a lot of money. The money could be diverted to assist the families of murder victims (Valeontis par. 1-7).
Works Cited
Hubert, Thomas. After Abolition: What Alternative to the Death Penalty? 2013. Web.
The author opposes the death penalty with very robust opinions. The authors views indicate that he does not support the form of punishment, which is accepted by about 60 percent of Americans. The author thinks that the death penalty does not play a role in the rehabilitation of offenders (Inciardi 24).
The author believes that the verdict for capital punishment to individuals does not affect the perception of other potential criminals. This is because people normally think irrationally when they commit murder crimes. The author believes that individuals irrationally during crimes makes the punishment unrealistic (Inciardi 60).
There are situations when the Supreme Court has handed down the punishment to innocent Americans. This is disturbing because in most cases suspects who are unable to secure substantial legal assistance may fail to prove their non culpability.
The author perceives the arguments that capital punishment deters other potential offenders as misplaced. This is because studies indicate that it does not necessarily stop other people from committing a criminal offence (Inciardi 80). The punishment also fails to reduce criminal activities in America.
The author questions the Supreme Courts motivation in delivering capital punishment to alleged criminal offenders. He wonders whether they are motivated by the need to revenge for the death of another American. It is notable that legal revenge helps the public to appreciate social cohesion against suspected offenders (Inciardi 363).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court seeks to prevent the possibilities of the people affected carrying out private revenge. It is notable that murder cases are common in the states that have approved death penalties (Inciardi 387). This is different when compared with the states that have abolished the form of punishment.
Argumentative Discussion about Death Penalty
The death penalty debate in America remains controversial because people have failed to reach a consensus. The states where death penalty is abolished have achieved massive gains. It is notable that some states have managed to expunge the capital punishment from their regulations. It is noteworthy that a greater number of Americans support the death penalty (Bedau and Paul 57). However, there is an escalated interest in the number of politicians supporting the death penalty.
This change of leadership coincides with similar thoughts in the presidency. This has caused issues noting that the court exonerated some suspected criminals. In America, it appears the problem of death penalty has been in its application (Bedau and Paul 57). First, only a few states still sanction death penalty.
It is notable that the application of death penalty to punishing criminal offenders does not automatically result into reduced cases of murders in the region (Stearman 38). Furthermore, many people have failed to enlist the services of great lawyers thus making it hard for them to defend themselves even when they are innocent.
The many explorations into whether the death penalty has a deterrent effect among potential criminals reveal a different result. The proponents of the capital punishment argue that the verdict normally deters other people from repeating the crime (Stearman 34). The proponents of the abolition of the punishment have also used their knowledge of the fact that states that still allow death penalty have higher murder cases.
The proponents of the abolition have made meaningful achievements through their focus on practicable concerns about death penalties rather than moral reasoning (Stearman 12).
They have argued that most families of suspected criminals normally use massive financial outlay during the proceedings; yet making a decision to lock the offenders for good without pardon would be cheaper than executing them (Stearman 40). The supporters of death penalties also present counter arguments that the costs of keeping the offenders in jail for so many years are detrimental to the country.
The proponents of the capital punishment also argue that death penalties minimize the cases of homicides. They argue that reasonable doubt should not be used in challenging the notion that death penalty has a deterrence value in the community (Stearman 36). Conversely, those against the capital punishment have argued that death penalty has not deterrence. They also provide the examples such as in the states implementing the execution policy and the escalating murder cases.
The proponents of the capital punishment also suggest that crime rates are escalating in the country due to the many offenders who normally go back on the streets after their charges. Therefore, they suggest that executing the murderers would help the Americans live in peace. However, the proponents of abolition also wonder whether declaring that every murderer must be murdered would not amount to revenge (Burkhead 10). In fact, they argue that some of the suspects may be innocent Americans who are framed in murder trials.
The proponents of the capital punishment have also argued that committing a crime is free will and no American is compelled to kill another people. Therefore, the free will must be used to charge them for those murders. The opponents argue that every average American can kill any minute because when people engage in the acts they normally do it when they are irrational (Burkhead 10). Indeed, this is the grounds for seeking the beyond reasonable doubt while prosecuting murder trials.
Personal Opinion
Personally, I oppose death penalties because it is inhumane. The execution of fellow human beings is just unbearable. It is always very painful to see someone being killed using chemicals while they are tied on strong beds. The pain of seeing someone struggle with the sting of the chemicals on their body is always unbearable (Bedau and Paul 57). Furthermore, there are cases where the procedure for executing the offenders are not followed strictly thus leading to longer hours of execution.
The notion that Americans who are suspected of murder and a death penalty handed upon them are not criminals persuades me that America could be killing innocent people. This has been the case when some high profile appeals are made and the suspects who were just waiting for their execution are released because they are innocent (Bedau and Paul 60). The appeals are sometimes able to prove that the people whose executions are pending may have been framed for the murder of other individuals.
There has been the case of legal services provision to capital offences suspects. The financial base required for legal services is always very high. Therefore, the average American who is accused of murder and the family cannot raise the resources may eventually lose their cases because poor legal representation or self-representation (Bedau and Paul 378).
In this case, the lawyers on the opposing sides normally frame their case in such a way that the innocent American fails to understand how to provide appropriate answers. This has been a bad precedence because it normally leads to the execution of innocent Americans because they did not have proper legal representation.
Works Cited
Bedau, Hugo A, and Paul G. Cassell. Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? : the Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case. Oxford: Oxford university press, 2004. Print.
Burkhead, Michael D. A Life for a Life: The American Debate Over the Death Penalty. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Co, 2009. Print.
Inciardi, James A. Criminal Justice. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 2009. Print.
Stearman, Kaye. The Death Penalty. New York: Rosen Pub. Groups Rosen Central, 2007. Print.
The survival of any civilization hinges on the establishment of laws and codes of conduct and the subsequent obeying of the same by the societys members. Due to the fact that not all members of the society are going to follow the law on their own accord, forms of punishment for wrongs done may be used both for retribution and deterrence purposes. In the United States, capital punishment has been used as the most harsh form of retribution for the societys most vicious offences.
However, not all people believe that the death sentence is justifiable notwithstanding the brutality of the crime that a person may have perpetrated. This paper argues that the death penalty is not only necessary but also the most efficient means for deterring future offenders. The paper will reinforce this proposition by delving into the merits of the death penalty.
A case for the Death Penalty
An article on Public Support for the Death Penalty indicates that the support for capital punishment has risen over the years with 77% of Americans supporting capital punishment. While this statistics do not in any way offer justification for the death penalty, they do show that many Americans are of the opinion that the death penalty is a just retribution for the evils perpetrated by the accused.
In most of the states, capital punishment is only issued when the accused party is convicted of crimes such as first degree murder or treason. Capital punishment therefore affords the federal state with a means of dispensing justice. The public and the parties affected by the accused actions can therefore find some solace in the fact justice has been served.
The most desirable function of punishments should be to act as a deterrence to would be criminals. In an ideal environment, punishments should never have to be executed but their mere presence should cause all to abide to the rules and regulations in place therefore peacefully coexist. Capital punishment presents the highest level of deterrence since death is indeed the ultimate punishment. This is especially so in cases where the criminal feels immune to the other forms of punishment such as restriction on freedom of movement or even hard labor.
Televised Executions indicates that executions, in this case televised ones, serviced an important social purpose of deterrence as the public is afforded a glimpse as to the fate that awaits those who engage in despicable acts thus making would be future offenders think twice about the results of their acts.
According to Update: Death Penalty , one of the most unique attributes of capital punishment is that it irrevocably protects the society from repeat offenders. This is an especially significant point since convicts have been known to reenter society either as a result of parole or more dramatic happenings such as jail breaks.
The death penalty ensures that some of the societys most vicious criminals; murderers, arsons, etc. are rid off the society for good. The society can therefore continue without fear of there undesirable elements every coming back and causing chaos.
From an economic point on view, the cost of maintaining prisoners in the correctional facilities is fairly expensive. Opponents of the death penalty propose that in its place, life imprisonment without parole should be implemented. What this boils down to is that the prisoner will have to be maintained in the penitentiary for his entire life. This is a very costly affair and the brunt of it is bore by the taxpayer.
Capital punishment as executed by methods such as the lethal injection is not only radically cheaper but it also spares the state of the resources it would have utilized to ensure that the prisoner is maintained for a lifetime. While most of the opponents of the death penalty point to its execution being inhumane and hence torturous to the victim, a report on lethal injection indicates that not only is the lethal injection method (which is greatly favored by most states) almost entirely painless but the method presents a great advancement from past methods such as hanging and the use of the gas chamber. As such, capital punishment provides a cheap and human and relatively human method of dealing with criminals.
Conclusion
This paper has argued that the death penalty possess numerous advantages that make it a necessary tool in the justice system. It has been articulated that through the death penalty, retribution is served and the society is purged off its most vicious criminals. In addition to this, capital punishment presents the strongest form of deterrence to would be offenders as an example is made of those who have already been convicted.
While some people do contend that the death penalty should never be imposed on anyone, regardless of their crimes, it can be authoritatively stated from the above discussions that capital punishment does serve a significant role in the society and as such, its use should be perpetuated albeit with a lot of caution so as to avoid subjecting innocent parties to this ultimate form of punishment.
Works Cited
Lethal Injection. Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 19 Oct. 2007. Web.
Public Support for the Death Penalty Remains Strong (sidebar). Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 29 Dec. 1995. Web.
Televised Executions. Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 11 May 2001. Web.
Update: Death Penalty. Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 1 Apr. 2004. Web.
Death penalty is one of the most controversial and debatable questions in criminal justice. The main problem is that death penalty is irrevocable so a wrong decision can lead to a terrible mistake and justice towards an innocent person. On the other hand, death penalty is the only possible measure to punish criminals and protect the society from cruelty and repeat crimes (Coyne and Entzeroth 72). Objectively speaking, plausible moral arguments can be made both for and against capital punishment. Long a key element of the debate, moral arguments also have tended to remain fairly static over the years, and often have been used in conjunction with religious arguments. Two moral arguments have remained particularly important throughout the death penalty debate: retribution and the sanctity of life.Death penalty is a crucial punishment which violates human and constitutional rights of people, thus it is the only possible measure to protect society from violence and repeat cries.
Main body
Those favoring the death penalty often argue that society must express moral outrage at and condemnation of heinous crimes such as murder. Proponents of death penalty typically consider deterrence to be one of its fundamental goals. The execution sermons of the early colonies were full of warnings against following in the footsteps of the condemned, and executions were public events designed to instill fear and reverence for the law in the people of the community (Colson, 67). Many early opponents of the death penalty believed that executions aggravated rather than deterred crime. As evidence, they pointed to the public disorder, rioting and even murder that sometimes accompanied public executions, and were significant factors in the decision to shift to private executions. These same issues have been the subject of even greater attention and controversy in the modern era, as scientific studies have attempted to determine whether capital punishment acts as a deterrent to murder and/or whether it has a brutalizing effect on society (Haines 43).
Indeed, prior to the development of an extensive prison system, execution may have been considered the only sure way to prevent offenders from repeating their crimes. However, when long-term incarceration became a plausible alternative to capital punishment in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, the incapacitation argument began to heat up. A life sentence does not always mean that a convicted murderer will remain in prison for the rest of his or her life, nor does it prevent convicted murderers from killing again inside the prison walls (Colson, 59). Those sentenced to death have challenged the constitutionality of their sentences with regard to the prescribed mode of execution, the sentencing procedures used by the court and jury, and the application of the penalty to their particular crime or personal situation. Important as these arguments are, perhaps the most significant arguments in recent years are those that challenge the constitutionality of the death penalty itself, rather than the constitutionality of individual sentences. Abolitionists claim that although the death penalty was considered an acceptable practice by the framers of the Constitution, in the modern era it constitutes the type of cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment (Coyne and Entzeroth 72).
Three years later, the Supreme Court dealt abolitionists a setback when it ruled on two key procedural issues:
That it was constitutional to give juries complete discretion over whether to sentence a defendant to life in prison or death;
That unitary trials in which issues of both guilt and punishment were decided were constitutional even though they often forced defendants to choose between self-incrimination and presentation of evidence about mitigating circumstances surrounding their actions.
Ironically, by the late 1960s, when abolitionist lawyers were beginning to claim victories against capital punishment in the courtroom, public support for the abolition of the death penalty actually was declining (Colson, 67). Much of the increase in crime reflected fundamental changes in the way people lived their lives. For example, increasing population density and urbanization provided more opportunities for potential victims to cross paths with potential offenders, and growing female participation in the work force increased opportunities for women (who a decade earlier had spent much more of their time in the home) to become victims (Haines 42).
There is also evidence of a compelling nature that the death penalty is more likely to be imposed upon one who is poor, regardless of his race, than upon one who has significant financial resources. A poor man, while given the right to counsel, has only that counsel which is volunteered, or which is either compelled or compensated by the state. While such publicly provided counsel is almost always dedicated, it is an avoidance of reality to believe that such counsel can give the kind, range, and detail of service which can come from those compensated at the usual rate paid the most competent lawyers of modern time (Coyne and Entzeroth 77). To ask today the question whether the imposition of the death penalty is cruel is to answer it. Anglo-American law, and indeed, much of human experience, has been devoted to postponement of death. So committed is the society to the maintenance of life that it does not permit the life of a hopeless invalid to be taken in order to end the greatest of pain. If societys respect for life denies men the right to take life in order to prevent or end pain, or because one is tired of life, surely the state should not be permitted to take a life so as to punish for past behavior (Colson, 81).
The first argument fixes upon the desirability of such a system over one of punishment in virtue of the fact that, because no offenders are responsible for their actions, no offenders are ever justifiably punished. The second argument is directed towards establishing that such a system is better than one of punishment even if some or all offenders are responsible for their actions (Colson, 81). A good deal of the confusion present in discussions of the virtues of a system of treatment results from a failure to get clear about these two arguments and to keep the two separate. The first is superficially the more attractive and ultimately the less plausible of the two. Each, though, requires its own explication and analysis (Haines 48).
Cruelty is neither a bodily sensation or bodily condition, even though it must rest for its attribution upon a persons having been caused to have some such sensation or to be in some such condition. Contrariwise, knowing how much harm something does is relevant to knowing how cruel it is; cruelty is more nearly (though not wholly) a direct function of the harm inflicted (Coyne and Entzeroth 71). These seem to me to be the fundamental considerations in evaluating the cruelty of a mode of punishment. Consider, by way of contrast, the relation of pain and treatment. Treatment cannot be judged as cruel if there is no known alternative and if it is reasonably believed to be effective; its painfulness is in no way diminished by its not being harmful, but its cruelty is. However, if a method of treatment is judged to be cruelly painful, then even it may be on the verge of a moral prohibitionunless, for example, the patient would otherwise die and he has knowingly and voluntarily consented to the painful treatment. Normally, however, this is precisely what is denied when cruelty is imputed to a practice. Saying that something is both cruel and permissible verges on the self-contradictory, as would saying that something is both cruel and harmless. Roughly, critics say this: whereas the painfulness of things varies with sensory experience, the cruelty of things varies mainly according to some standard of the permissible, which is to say, according to some principle of moral judgment (Colson, 65).
Death penalties have long been attacked on constitutional grounds, and often successfully. Many a man sentenced to death has owed his life to state or federal Constitutions as interpreted by the higher courts (Coyne and Entzeroth 72). When a death sentence has been voided, it is usually by setting aside the conviction on which the sentence restsfor example, by holding that the trial court failed to grant the defendant due process of law as required under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments. Rarely if at all has it been determined that even though no error undermined the conviction, some constitution any prohibited flaw attached to the imposition of the sentence itself. And in no case has any appellate court, state or federal, ever voided a death sentence on the ground that the penal law which prescribed this punishment was itself unconstitutional (Lifton and Mitchell 33). Capital punishment denies the fundamental remedy that is still available to those in prison: release and in some cases exoneration and indemnification. Very incomplete records indicate that there is, on the average, one case every other year in the United States involving someone who was convicted of a capital crime but not executed and who either vindicates his innocence and is freed or at least establishes the unfairness of his conviction. (Colson, 41). The availability of a remedy is the test of the presence of a right, then capital punishment as it is actually administered has been steadily in violation of offenders rights. One is that such capital penal statutes, modes of inflicting death, and attempted executions as have prevailed in this century in the United States are not unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment because however cruel and unusual they may now be, they are not more cruel and not more unusual than those that prevailed in England and the Colonies two or three hundred years ago (Connors, 23). An unbroken line of interpreters has held that it was the original understanding and intent of the framers of the Eighth Amendment (and of all those who incorporated like phrases into the early state constitutions) to proscribe as cruel and unusual only such modes of execution as compound the simple infliction of death with added cruelties or indignities (Haines 51).
Conclusion
In sum, death penalty is cruel and unconstitutional in spite of the fact that it is an effective tool against repeat crimes and violence in society. Thus, on this theory, one must suppose that a wholly painless death inflicted by a pill or an injection could never be a mode of cruel and unusual punishment, especially if it were introduced by a legislature (as were electrocution and lethal gas) in the name of humane reform. The constitutional standard of cruelty and unusualness, therefore, has not only been uniformly rooted in the past; it has been confined solely to measuring the way in which the punishment of death is inflicted. Hence the courts have said that burning at the stake, crucifixion, breaking on the wheel, punishments that are inhuman and barbarous, torture and the like, and punishments that involve unnecessary pain, the wanton infliction of pain, are all constitutionally prohibited.
Works Cited
Haines, H. H. Against Capital Punishment: The Anti-Death Penalty Movement in America, 1972-1994. Oxford University Press, 1996.
Colson, Charles W. The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. David Bender & Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1997.
Connors, P. G. Capital Punishment (Current Controversies). Greenhaven Press, 2007.
Coyne, R., Entzeroth, L. Capital Punishment and the Judicial Process, Third Edition, 2006.
Lifton, R. J., Mitchell, G. Who Owns Death? Capital Punishment, the American Conscience, and the End of Executions. Harper Perennial, 2002.
The death penalty is one of the most controversial topics related to criminal justice. Usually reserved for the gravest crimes of all, it is the harshest punishment recognized by the legal systems of many countries. An interesting thing about the death penalty is its geographic pervasiveness: it is present throughout the world, and neither national and cultural nor economic concerns may serve as a predictor. It is legal and used in some of the most totalitarian states, such as North Korea, and Western liberal democracies, such as the United States (Ziebertz & Zaccaria, 2019). It is present on every populated continent even in Europe, where the vast majority of countries have abolished it by now, Belarus still retains it (Ziebertz & Zaccaria, 2019). However, this geographic pervasiveness does not mean that there are no national variations in implementing the death penalty there a different issues with it depending on a given countrys legal system. Capital punishment emphasizes the shortcomings inherent in a given legal system, be that flawed jury selection or racial profiling, and promotes fatal mistakes, which is why it has to be abolished.
Main body
One of the central points in the argument surrounding the death penalty it contradicts the right to live directly. Perhaps the most important document considering human rights in the contemporary world is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. This document refers to the right to life in article 6 and guarantees that every person has it and should not be deprived of his or her life arbitrarily (Ziebertz & Zaccaria, 2019). Notably enough, the Covenant criticizes the death penalty explicitly but does not ban it outright. Instead, the document stresses that the penalty may only be a final measure that concludes the proceedings of a competent court in full accordance with domestic and international law (Ziebertz & Zaccaria, 2019). Hence, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stops just short of banning the death penalty but does not try to mitigate the controversy surrounding it. By putting a remark to the death penalty in Chapter 6, the document unequivocally emphasizes that this type of punishment contradicts a fundamental human right.
Another source of controversy in the case of the death penalty is its inherently irredeemable nature. Many of the legal punishments may be compensated for for instance, fines may be reimbursed, and confiscated property returned. Even the prison sentences are not fatal should the new evidence absolve a convict, no one can return the years already served, but a new verdict may prevent him or her from serving the rest. However, no such possibility exists in the case of the death penalty: once a convicted person is executed, there is nothing that can change the fact of his or her death. This impossibility to make amends is what makes capital punishment the harshest measure known to legal justice. It is also the obvious reason why the United Nations urges the countries of the world to limit the use of the death penalty to the bare minimum and only employ it for the most serious crimes (Ziebertz & Zaccaria, 2019). The grave nature of the punishment is the factor that amplifies any actual or potential downside with the death penalty and there is more than one.
No system of criminal justice is impervious to errors, and convicting an innocent person is always a possibility even if every element of the system strives to follow the proper procedure impeccably. In death penalty cases, there have been instances when a supposed victim turned out to be alive and well (Garrett, 2019). Technically speaking, capital punishment is not an exception in this regard there have been errors in criminal cases as long as there have been criminal cases. However, there are at least two reasons why errors in the cases potentially involving the death penalty deserve particular attention. First of all, as mentioned above, execution once carried out, cannot be reversed or compensated for. Secondly, there is also a possibility that death penalty cases may be more error-prone. Garrett (2017) points out that capital punishment cases account for as much as 75 percent of false convictions in known exoneration cases. Naturally, it can mean that death penalty cases are scrutinized more thoroughly, but the possibility of them being error-prone remains as well and such errors, if left unchecked long enough, are beyond fixing.
Apart from the honest mistakes brought by either overzealous prosecution, not-so-competent defense, or swaying jurors, death penalty cases also highlight the imperfections of a given criminal justice system. For instance, the conviction rate in death penalty cases may become a vehicle for racial profiling. Ulmer and Hanrath (2019) point out that the practice of sentencing in death penalty cases in the United States is not as unprejudiced as it should ideally be. According to them, there are notable racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing, meaning that race and ethnicity remain a factor in decision-making even when justice is supposed to be color-blind (Ulmer & Hanrath, 2019). As with the above-mentioned errors, this problem is not exclusive to capital punishment, as racial profiling is widely recognized as an issue in many domains of criminal justice. However, just as the death penalty is the most serious penalty of all, the consequences of racial profiling in capital punishment cases are the gravest. The death penalty is not responsible for the problem per se, but it provides a significant outlet for it to manifest.
Sentencing itself is only the last part of the criminal proceedings, and the cases involving capital punishment provide other opportunities for the exercise of individual or institutional racism. A notable example is the jury selection process in the United States. While there are legal norms intended to prevent racial discrimination in jury selection, the use of peremptory challenges is beyond the influence of racial motives. Any reason for removing a potential juror from the pool except for an explicitly racist statement as in I do not want this juror because of his or her race is treated as race-neutral (Price, 2015). While this works on paper, Price (2015) suggests that prosecution and defense may construct their technically race-neutral questions in a race-sensitive way, thus allowing them to exclude potential jurors of a selected race. Just like the racial profiling in sentencing discussed above, this problem is not exclusive to the death penalty cases. However, capital punishment cases imbue this exercise of racism with the gravest consequences, thus making the death penalty an enhancer of an already discriminatory practice.
While racial profiling and discriminative juror selection as problems exceed death penalty cases, there are also procedural issues directly related to the nature of the punishment. The controversy surrounding the death penalty makes choosing the jurors who are qualified to reach a decision of such a matter more complex than usual. In the United States, Supreme Court has long ruled that if a person has substantial doubts regarding capital punishment, he or she is not qualified to be a juror in the death penalty cases (Garrett, 2017). After Witherspoon v. Illinois, where an Illinois judge staffed the jury with the proponents of capital punishment, the Supreme Court also ruled out that the practice of such unlimited exclusion gave too much bias in favor of the prosecution (Garrett, 2017). Yet, for all the efforts to mitigate it, the bias in favor of the death penalty still persists in another form. Many jurors mistakenly think that they are obligated to impose capital punishment if the defendant is found guilty in a death penalty case (Garrett, 2017). Thus, the bias toward execution may be inherent in the very practice of capital punishment.
One of the arguments against the outright abolition of the death penalty is that it will inevitably provoke a strong backlash. The Supreme Court landmark decision in Furman v. Georgia rendered the death penalty unconstitutional across the entire United States due to the manner in which it was imposed. While many hailed it as the end of capital punishment in the country, many states reintroduced the death penalty anew, this time in a manner compliant with the Constitution (Sarat et al., 2020). Public opinion was also divided, with many people opposing the ruling. The perspective of backlash is a strong and valid argument against outright abolition and, as such, should not be ignored. However, one should not overestimate it, as people usually accept even the most controversial rulings on landmark cases over time. For example, only 53 percent of US citizens supported the decision in Brown v Board of Education in 1954, but this percentage rose to 87 by 1994 (Sarat et al., 2020). One may assume that, should the definitive abolition of capital punishment ever happen, the public and the policymakers will eventually come to terms with it.
Conclusion
As one can see, there are numerous reasons to abolish the death penalty. To begin with, the very existence of capital punishment stands is in sharp contradiction with the fundamental right to life, which makes it a dubious measure at best. Additionally, the death penalty, once imposed, cannot be undone or adequately compensated for. As the harshest punishment in existence, the death penalty emphasizes the flaws of the criminal justice system to the greatest extent. Judicial errors, racial profiling, and biased juror selection are not exclusive to the death penalty cases, but capital punishment makes all of these shortcomings fatal and irredeemable. Moreover, many potential jurors share the erroneous idea that they are required to impose a death sentence should the defendant be found guilty in a death penalty case, thus creating a prosecution bias. Admittedly, the abolition of the death penalty will likely provoke a strong backlash, as it already did in the 1970s after Furman v. Georgia. However, history shows that public opinion and policymakers eventually accept the landmark decisions on controversial issues, and the perspective of backlash should not overshadow the numerous shortcomings inherent in capital punishment.
References
Garrett, B. L. (2019). Innocence and the global death penalty. In C. S. Steiler & J. M. Steiler (Eds.), Comparative Capital Punishment (pp. 201-215). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Garrett, B. L. (2017). End of its rope: How killing the death penalty can revive criminal justice. Harvard UP.
Price, M. J. (2015). At the cross: Race, religion, and citizenship in the politics of the death penalty. Oxford UP.
Sarat, A., Blackman, C., Boyntion, E. S., Chen, K., & Perez, T. (2020). After abolition: Acquiescence, backlash, and the consequences of ending the death penalty. Hastings Journal of Crime and Punishment, 1(1), 33-78.
Ulmer, J, T., & Hanrath, L. (2019). Disparities in death penalty prosecution and punishment. In Spohn and P. Brennan (Eds.), Handbook on sentencing policies and practices in the 21st century. Routledge.
Ziebertz, H.-G., & Zaccaria, F. (2019). The right to life questioned. Introductory remarks. In H.-G. Ziebertz & F. Zaccaria (Eds.), Euthanasia, abortion, death penalty and religion the right to life and its limitations (pp. 1-12). Springer.
America has a tradition of communal justice that has always been influenced by the legal group Since the 1980s. Death penalty has a strong favour as a means of punishment despite efforts by the anti-death penalty group to oppose it (Zimring p.137). In as much as these oppositions claim to be in defence of morals, it is only fair that death penalties be administered to situations that warrant such because this also improves security, safety and prevents the possibility of recurrences in future.
Administration of the death penalty in the US
The process of conviction begins when the police suspect and arrest a person for the suspected crime. This is preceded by the trial for the confirmation whether a victim should be bailed. This is followed by further trials in case of appeal then conviction after which penalty is decided by the judge. This process proves that thorough procedures are followed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a suspect is undoubtedly guilty and that this penalty is applicable to them. Most of the American citizens support the death penalty as a mode of punishment because it does not discriminate and considers the degree of crime before justice is pronounced. This opinion is significantly supported by the horrifying incidences that have been reported over the past decades. For instance, the case of Timothy McVeigh who was penalized to death after killing 168 people through a bombing in 1997 is a serious one that deserves death sentence. Such situations create fear among the members that closely interact with these criminals. The presence of such people in the community even when they are done with other forms of a sentence is a threat to the safety. The fact that they tried to inflict pain once makes hard to convince that it would not happen again (Guernsey, p.16). However, death sentence can be waved for victims who murder less than five people as in the case of Capano who murdered Anne Marie Fahey. The sentence was changed from death to life imprisonment. In such cases, it might not be fair to penalize with death, but with mass killings of more than five people then death sentence is not too much to penalise (Guernsey, p.28).
Death sentence is fair for the extreme cases of murder when there is wrong conviction. This should be the first consideration before the death sentence is enforced on a suspect. This is because if it proves to be wrong in the future, then the damage is irreversible and an offence to human rights. Therefore, when all the necessary procedures are followed, and it is proved that the person is guilty as charged, and then punishing to get rid of these awful and brutal crimes for once and for all is advisable. This is because it not only works to punish the crime but also perfectly buries the possibility of that person causing a similar harm in the future.
Conclusion
Death penalty should be practised but only in certain situations like in the case of Timothy McVeigh who saw many people dying. A person who in his right mind commits such a crime may prove to be a threat to peace and safety, therefore, for the sake of this peace; death sentence should be the best form of punishment for them. However, the duration between the time of conviction and the time this penalty is imposed should be as short as possible to ensure that these perpetrators are not subjected to emotional torture by waiting for an unnecessary long duration. This form of punishment is effective because it ensures that such occurrences are minimal in the future and that the peace and safety of citizens is preserved.
Works Cited
Guernsey, Joann B. Death penalty: Fair solution or Moral failure? Minneapolis: Lerner Publishing Group, Inc.2010. Print.
Zimring, Franklin E. The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print.
Peoples behaviours are controlled by laws that ensure that they respect the rights of other people while enjoying the freedom granted to them by their constitutions. Those that cannot obey laws are punished according to the degree of their crimes. Criminal justice systems have established various ways of categorising crimes according to their severity and intentions.
Minor offenders face lenient criminal sentences while capital offenders face major ones like life imprisonment or the death penalty. This essay explores the suitability of the capital punishment as an effective way of deterring other criminals from committing heinous crimes. This punishment is an appropriate method of keeping capital crimes at bay due to the following advantages associated with it.
Capital punishment refers to all sentences that are granted to criminals to ensure they serve maximum time in prison. They include the death sentence or life sentences that are common in most developed nations. This is an effective way of punishing capital offenders and deterring other criminals from committing similar crimes due to the following reasons.
First, it is necessary to state that people fear death. In addition, they fear being denied the freedom to associate with their friends, family members and the public. Therefore, once they witness other criminals being sentenced to life imprisonment they will never wish to go through the same experience.
It is true that people learn from what their friends experience and thus criminals will not want to go through the same pain experienced by those who commit capital crimes. They will desist from committing these crimes and they may even stop their criminal activities. This punishment deters other criminals from committing capital crimes.
Secondly, this punishment ensures that criminals do not get in touch with the rest of the population. This means that other petty offenders and would be criminals will not be taught these crimes. It is necessary to state that bad company will not be entertained in the society since these criminals will be in prison or dead.
There will be no one to teach other people about these crimes. This will ensure that there will be no capital offenders or they will be less compared to if this sentence is not implemented. Socialisation is one way that young people learn different things from other members of the society. When a criminal is allowed lenient punishments, the person will go back to the society after serving their sentences and they will commit similar crimes again.
Lastly, this sentence is a punishment and not a rehabilitation project and once it is administered there is no way the criminal will come back to life. This means that the probability of a similar crime to be committed is zero. It is important to state that when a person dies the process cannot be reversed. Therefore, it has no equal and people will always tend to move away from people associated with murder and capital crimes. This punishment will ensure other criminals desist from committing capital crimes.
Conclusion
Capital punishments were designed to deter people from committing capital crimes like murder, robbery with violence, child molestation, and rape. The sentence discourages people from committing the above crimes since they fear death. It is a painful experience and criminals sentenced will never get opportunities to influence others to commit these crimes. Therefore, this is a good way of ensuring heinous crimes are not committed in the society.
Criminal justice systems have faced criticisms regarding the implementation of the death penalty. Even though they try to ensure that this process is conducted in a humane way, it has still not gained acceptance by many people and organizations (Bedau 2011). In addition, states are now becoming cautious in administering this punishment. This essay explores the various controversies and reasons that support or oppose the abolishment of this penalty.
Definition
Death penalty refers to the termination of criminals lives after facing criminal charges to prove that they committed capital offenses (Goodheart 2011). Many nations had adopted this policy but they are now reconsidering to abolish it because of the controversies surrounding its application.
Reasons for the Abolishment of this Sentence
The prevalence of criminal activities necessitated the need to establish strict laws that will ensure the culprits are given appropriate sentences. However, it has now come to the attention of most states that this penalty is not an effective way of punishing capital offenders because of the following reasons.
First, it denies prisoners their right to life, yet constitutions all over the world state that people have an express right to life and no one is allowed to take away another persons life (Bergman 2011). This sentence ignores this constitutional requirement and offers the state an ability to kill criminals. In addition, religious teachings insist that no human being has a right to deny another person the right to life.
It is only God who created people and has the right to decide when they should die. Criminals have a right for life just like other people no matter the degree of the crime committed (Albenese 2012). Therefore, this sentence must be abolished since it contravenes constitutional and religious declarations.
Secondly, all suspects are presumed to be innocent until the court proves otherwise using the evidence presented before it. However, sometimes, defense lawyers fail to present sufficient evidence to prove their clients are innocent. On the other hand, the petitioners present evidence that links the suspect with the alleged criminal activities (Goodheart 2011).
However, no matter the turn of events, sometimes, court rulings are reversed long after the concerned suspects have served long terms in jail. This occurs when there is a new evidence to prove that the suspect never committed the crime or there was no adequate evidence to subject the criminal to corporal punishment. However, death penalties do not give courts opportunities to reverse their rulings since the suspects are usually already dead.
Thirdly, there are other alternatives that may be used to punish capital offenders. The most common and ethical long term punishment for a criminal is life imprisonment (Albenese 2012). This is a decent punishment compared to the death sentence.
This punishment should be abolished because it denies family members their right to associate and interact with their people even though they are criminals. It is necessary to state that human beings have strong bonds that are only broken by death (Roth 2010).
However, when prisoners are killed by means of the death sentences, this act denies them and their family members their right to interact with one another. Therefore, this penalty should be abolished since it leaves family members with painful memories.
Lastly, this sentence has finality issues that cannot be reversed. Once an individual is condemned to death, he or she feels that the society has discriminated against the individual and it does not recognize their value. In addition, once an individual is killed, there is no way the person can be brought back to life (Bergman 2011).
This sentence assumes that there are sufficient reasons to kill a criminal and that there is no possibility that the case can be readdressed. Therefore, it should be abolished and replaced with ones that can be reversed in case there is the need to evaluate the evidence presented at the first place (Albenese 2012).
Reasons for the Appropriateness of the Death Sentence
Proponents of this sentence argue that this is the most suitable way of punishing capital offenders and deterring others from committing similar crimes. People are always cautious about their lives and will try to avoid anything that may lead to injuries or death (Bedau 2011). Therefore, when criminals realize that they may face death penalties in case they are caught, they will try to avoid committing capital crimes or even stop their criminal activities.
Secondly, nations are spending a lot of money on financing various correctional facilities. Life imprisonment means these states must prepare long term budgets to cater for these criminals (Albenese 2012).
However, death sentences ensure these criminals not to spend additional and unnecessary money in their upkeep. The opponents argue that there is no need to spend a lot of money in supporting a convicted criminal, but instead they should be killed to save this money for other purposes (Roth 2010).
Lastly, this penalty should not be abolished since it reflects the magnitude of the crime committed. Justice requires that individuals get proportional punishment for their crimes and thus this penalty is an adequate punishment for capital offenders.
Conclusion
This sentence is an abuse of human rights and does not give the victim a reprieve for the crime committed. This sentence perpetuates human suffering and ignores the need to rehabilitate criminals. Therefore, it should be abolished and replaced with appropriate sentences.
References
Albenese, J. S. (2012). Criminal Justice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bedau, H. A. (2011). The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bergman, P. (2011). The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System. California: Nolo Publishing.
Goodheart, L. B. (2011). The Solemn Sentence of Death: Capital Punishment in Connecticut. Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press.
Roth, M. P. (2010). Crime and Punishment: A History of the Criminal Justice System. New York: Wadsworth Publishing.
Since ancient times, our societies had used the death penalty as the highest form of capital punishment. The idea behind capital punishment was simple fear was supposed to keep criminals from committing crimes. In ancient societies, capital punishments were very common even the acts of simple theft were penalized with beheadings or cutting limbs off.
The latter was often a delayed form of death, as many convicts simply bled out shortly after. Still, despite the harsh punishments, crime did not vanish from the world. Nowadays, death penalties are considered ineffective in most countries. The USA, however, remains notoriously persistent in this archaic notion, as there are some states where the death penalty is still practiced. Despite the controversial claims that the death penalty is morally just, it is still a costly procedure with a negative moral connotation and is largely ineffective at deterring future crimes.
The strongest argument for death penalty appeals to our sense of justice. Many crimes are considered beyond redemption, such as rape, murder, and terrorism. There is a strong popular opinion that some criminals just need to die. However, the reason why this notion does not find support among the legislative circles is that retribution is another word for vengeance. Many terrorists who blow themselves up in crowds are often driven by vengeance, looking to avenge either their families or their compatriots dying under bombs in the Middle East. Therefore, justifying taking life to avenge a life opens the door to many acts of vigilantism and terrorism.
Another argument frequently used by the supporters of death penalties is cost-efficiency. They claim that it is easier and cheaper to kill convicts accused of murder and rape, rather than keep them alive and in confinement for life. However, that claim is born out of ignorance. Conducting a single death sentence, whether through lethal injection or some other humane way is an extremely costly procedure.
With how many appeals a convict is allowed to have, it is more costly to execute one than to hold him in a maximum-security prison for 40 years. Afraid of death, the convicted criminal will use every single one of them before finally submitting to his or her fate. On the other hand, dispensing with these legal safeguards opens the door for judicial abuse and error. This is the reason why the death penalty is economically ineffective.
The last argument that has to be addressed is the argument of crime deterrence. Several studies pertaining to the subject were conducted by numerous researches, and the results are inconclusive at best. In order to be an effective tool that instills fear, executions need to be conducted swiftly, and on a more regular basis than they are now. Right now, death penalties are few and far between. A lot of time passes due to legal procedures before an execution actually takes place. All of this, when combined, beats the entire point of striking fear into potential criminals.
Death penalties are nothing more than relics of the past. They were never enough to stop or even curb crime in any given country at any given period. They served only as instruments of vengeance to indulge certain base desires. Nevertheless, the data accumulated on the subject reveals that the practice is largely counter-productive. More efforts and resources should be redirected towards crime prevention rather than indulging in overly elaborate punishments that do not even work.
The problem of the death penalty cannot be separated from the general concept of human rights as it violates the paramount right of a human to life. In particular, the death penalty is contrary to the international legal standards in the field of human rights, violating the universally recognized norms of the right to life. According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the establishment of a prohibition on the use of capital punishment in modern international law is associated with the statement of a basic principle of respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the general recognition of the absolute right to life (The death penalty is a human rights violation, 2012). This prohibition has already been recognized by plenty of countries members of the UN, the European Union, the OSCE, and others. Speaking of the US Constitution adopted in 1787, it is essential to note that it does not contain a specific title or chapter on human rights and freedoms while the right to life is enshrined in Amendment V (The death penalty is a human rights violation, 2012). The right to life as a pivotal constitutional right was recognized by the US Constitution, but, at the same time, capital punishment is not abolished in the 34 states of the country.
Impact on Crime Rates
In terms of overall crime rates, it should be emphasized that there is no scientific evidence that proves a deterrent role of the death penalty towards crime (Nagin & Pepper, 2012). This is the conclusion of the research team working at the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. Focusing on various issues related to capital punishment, those studies that have suggested evidence supporting a deterrent role of the death penalty were assessed in terms of the quality of the evidence (Nagin & Pepper, 2012). As a result, serious mistakes were detected that, in turn, made scholars question their scientific character.
Another authoritative organization, a Brennan Center for Justice at the School of Law at New York University, conducted a study to evaluate the impact of a wide range of factors on crime rates, including the death penalty. The conclusion was clear: the existence of the death penalty does not affect the crime rate (Roeder, Eisen, Bowling, Stiglitz, & Chettiar, 2015). The fact is that the crime rate and violent crime are determined by the common long-term trends occurring in society. If the frequency of crime increases in the country, it equally affects the states having capital punishment and those that do not practice it. Moreover, comparing the level of crime in the states applying the death penalty and those that do not, researchers found that the overall crime rate is higher in the states where there is the capital form of punishment (Roeder et al., 2015). This situation would not occur in the case the death penalty had some impact on crime rates.
Regarding retribution or revenge, the death penalty generates cruelty in society. A state that supports such punishment declares that killing is an acceptable way of solving problems. Society perceives it as an act of justice and, therefore, has a distorted notion of solving the problems of crime (Iyer, 2013). As a result, citizens are beginning to think that crime issues can be resolved by killing. It should also be noted that with the accomplishment of capital punishment, justice cannot achieve the objectives of punishment such as the reconstruction of social justice, correction of the convict, and prevention of new crimes. Considering each of the items separately, it becomes evident that the objectives cannot be reached by the death penalty. Under the reconstruction of social justice, the recovery of violated rights and freedoms is understood (Iyer, 2013). However, the rights and freedoms of the victim or his or her relatives cannot be restored after the criminals death. Also, with the death of criminal offenders, it is impossible to correct them (Iyer, 2013). Moreover, the expectation of death often motivates and encourages the sentenced to believe that nothing will change.
Tendency to Decline
Attitudes to the death penalty in the United States are not stated clearly. According to Dieter (2014), an executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, the number of cases associated with the death penalty is significantly reduced in recent years as the judges are often offered an alternative way of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Dieter (2014) explains this trend by a miscarriage of justice that is regarded as a focal argument of the death penalty abolition supporters. For instance, in their work, Gross, Obrien, Hu, and Kennedy (2014) state that until the death penalty is maintained, society cannot avoid the risk of incorrect execution of the sentence. No one can correct a fault of justice if the person is dead. At that, the irreversibility of death warrant created by mistake cannot be completely excluded in any legal system. Even the most advanced and powerful system of justice with numerous assurances cannot provide the full accuracy of the facts in all cases (Gross et al., 2014). In any case, there is a serious risk that a person will be executed for a crime he or she did not commit. It is confirmed by too many examples when people were justified after conviction, often due to DNA analysis.
Alternative Way
Plenty of crimes force to shudder from cruelty with which they were committed. Nevertheless, this cruel and unusual punishment that was identified before might be substituted by more suitable ones. However, it is pinpointed by Dieter (2014) based on the experience that the change in the current US system is difficult because it requires a decision states.
Precisely speaking, if the state is moving towards the abolition of the death penalty, it should find an adequate alternative. Such factors as politics, culture, and religion should undoubtedly be taken into account (Dieter, 2014). The presence or absence of the death penalty is an indicator of the particular level of culture, security, and public awareness. Meanwhile, it is significant that the process of abolishing the death penalty should flow steadily preventing any critical situations. These solutions can be achieved through the deep conviction that this type of punishment is unacceptable in a humane and democratic society (Dieter, 2014).
Therefore, the abolition of capital punishment is possible only in the context of a civil, humane, ethical, and fair society. Only then it will be possible to punish the criminals without depriving them of the most valuable human right the right to life. In other words, the death penalty is essential to consider in a broader context throughout the interdependence of social, economic, political, legal, spiritual, and moral factors. It is considered that life imprisonment and isolation from society scares criminals much more than the death penalty. Therefore, life imprisonment seems to be an adequate alternative to such inhumane punishment like the death penalty.
Gross, S. R., Obrien, B., Hu, C., & Kennedy, E. H. (2014). Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(20), 7230-7235.
Nagin, D., & Pepper, J. (2012). Deterrence and the death penalty. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Roeder, O. K., Eisen, L., Bowling, J., Stiglitz, J. E., & Chettiar, I. M. (2015). What caused the crime decline? New York, NY: Brennan Center for Justice at the School of Law.
The death penalty is a human rights violation. (2012).