Category: Death Penalty

This briefing paper is presented to the American people so that all doubts and plans of retaining the death penalty despite all the Supreme Court rulings and the bad effects of it shall henceforth be erased from our minds.

Presented this 14^th day of April 2009 by the Concerned Citizens Association for the Abolition of the Death Penalty in the United States of America.

Statement of the Topic

Our main points for the abolition of the death penalty are morality and technicality. The original arguments for capital punishment does not anymore apply but are outdated  deterrence, retribution, etc.

More on this on our background of the subject.

Background of the issue

Why do we say morality and technicality?

The teachings of the Bible  the Old and the New Testaments  tell us one important aspect of creation: protect life and do not allow vengeance. God did not kill Cain for killing his own brother Abel but instead sent him on exile and put a mark on him so that no one would kill him. Again, the passage in the Bible of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth principle does not mean to take the life of a murderer or someone who has committed a heinous crime, but it means limiting the retribution for an offense. When Jesus was presented the woman accused of adultery, he did not condemn the woman but told those present to cast the first stone, which means we should not condemn anyone but allow a sinner to reform.

Next is technicality on the ground that the criminal justice system is flawed. Why flawed? So many instances of injustice we can cite here. First, there are Supreme Court rulings but each state is following each own way and ruling. Try to look at these rulings:

1. Furman v. Georgia (1972)  the Court ruled that the death penalty violated the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments, but in 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia, the Court ruled that the death penalty per se was not unconstitutional. (Bedau 2005, p. 23)
2. In 1976, the mandatory death penalty was declared unconstitutional (Woodson v. North Carolina).
3. Coker v. Georgia  death penalty for rape was ruled unconstitutional. (Bedau, p. 23)

In Furman, it was ruled that some state statutes were unconstitutional, which allowed that death penalty statutes had to be rewritten. States advocates of the death penalty began proposing new laws for capital punishment. In other words, states advocates of the death penalty interpreted these as opportunity to write new laws so that there would be no more doubts of retaining the death penalty. It was reported that there were 35 states that rewrote their death penalty statutes.

While these rulings apply to all of America, there are still some states which allow the death penalty. Bedau says, The changes wrought by these developments show that the death penalty in America today is but a shadow of its former self; abolitionists are not the only ones likely to believe there is no serious prospect of breathing much life into the practice of capital punishment in the future. (p. 24)

The main objectives to the death penalty in the words of Professor Roger Hood (2001, as cited in Hodgkinson, 2004, p. 3), are:

1. capital punishment violates the fundamental right to life;
2. capital punishment is not a unique deterrent;
3. the administration of the death penalty, even in developed legal systems, is inherently and irredeemably flawed; and
4. its effect is counter-productive in that it gives out very confused moral messages.

The justice system of the United States of America is sending innocent victims to the gallows which shows how flawed our system is. There is racial disparity in the way convicted murderers are being punished. A study dealt with 245 persons arrested for homicide in Philadelphia in 1970. Of these 170 were eventually convicted of some charge. Sixty-five percent of defendants who killed a white got either life imprisonment or a death sentence, while only 25 percent of those who killed a black did. Since these murders produced only three death sentences (all imposed on blacks who killed whites), most of the apparent racial unfairness involved life imprisonment, not execution. (Martinez 2002 p. 191)

Michael Mello (1997), a death-row lawyer and author of Dead Wrong: A Death Row Lawyer Speaks Out Against Capital Punishment, and who had witnessed the system of imposing capital punishment in the Circuit Court in Texas, says how flawed the system of capital punishment is. Mello tells of how a convict named Stanley, considered mentally retarded, was executed for some inefficiencies of the trial attorney. What happened to the principle that it is better to free a guilty man than to execute an innocent person?

Deterrence means the belief that criminals would end their careers in crime due to the threat of punishment [death] by the criminal justice system. (Levinson, 2002, p. 162)

The issue of deterrence has been raised by governments to support retentionist position. But Hodgkinson (2004) says that this could be a reliance on hope than evidence. (p. 10)

Roger Hood (cited in Hodgkinson, p. 9) states: [E]conometric analyses have not provided evidence from which it would be prudent to infer that capital punishment has any marginally greater deterrent effect than alternative penalties. In other words, states imposing death penalty have no grounds holding as deterrent measure for crimes.

Hodgkinson (2004, p. 9) cites a study conducted by John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer and James Marquart in Texas between 1984 and 1997 found that capital punishment has no deterrent effect. They used Texas as the subject for their study because this state had a high number of sentences and executions.

The deterrent effect is an old issue that has been proved and disproved. But for the purposes of this essay, we will cite some contrary arguments.

Kronenwetter (2001) says, Abolitionists argue that most murderers cannot think rationally enough to be deterred by any penalty, including death. Most murders are crimes of passion, committed in moments of intense rage, frustration, hatred, or fear when the killers arent thinking clearly of the personal consequences of what they do. People in such state are incapable of taking such consequences into account. (p. 27)

This is one of the best arguments supporting the abolitionist stand. Indeed, murder and other capital offenses were committed in moments where criminals did not have time to think that what they were about to commit were punishable by death. Although this is an explanation taking into consideration the psychological point of view, what is pointed out here is the logical side of things.

Most other murderers  those who cold-bloodedly plan and carry out their crimes  think they are too clever to be caught. The death penalty cannot be a deterrent to them because they are convinced they will escape punishment of any kind.

What Albert Pierrepoint, the legendary British executioner who became an opponent of capital punishment after his retirement in the late 1950s, said on capital punishment is worth noting here importantly: The death penalty never once acted as a deterrent in all the jobs I carried out & and I have executed more people than anyone this century. (Kronenwetter, 2001, p. 23)

Supporters of capital punishment face an obvious problem when they try to prove that the death penalty deters.

How can they establish that someone would have committed a crime if that person had not been deterred by the threat of the death penalty? (Kronenwetter, 2001, p. 23)

And some governments just support it for not apparent reasons. Governments and others in positions of influence refer to strong public support for the death penalty as one of the justifications for retaining it. (Hodgkinson, 2004, p. 18)

But capital punishment is cruel as provided for in the Eighth Amendment. Cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited in the Eight Amendment in the Bill of Rights, means punishment that inflicts pain in a wanton and unnecessary manner, as well as punishment that is disproportionate to the crime committed. (Rae, 2000, p. 214)

On the other hand, moratorium can be used to fix the defects or flaws of the system. Hodgkinson (2004) cites Governor Ryan of Illinois, a conservative Republican and a strong supporter of the death penalty who on 31 January 2000 imposed a moratorium on executions. The governor said that Illinois capital punishment system is flawed and there should be something done on it. (p. 6)

The governor said this out of the fact that between 1990 and 2000 there were ten executions carried out while at the same period thirteen prisoners were released from their death sentences for a variety reasons. Nine states followed Gov. Ryans move, requesting further studies on the death penalty, and some similar move has been instituted by others. Governor Ryans Commission submitted its findings with eighty-five recommendations on the flaws of the Illinois system, but some of the Commissions members suggested that the death penalty should be replaced because they believed the system was incapable of being replaced. (p. 6)

Based on the Commissions recommendations, Governor Ryan announced new legislation. The Parole Commission submitted clemency petitions and some recommendations to commute the death sentences. Finally, on 11 January 2003, he commuted the sentences of all 156 inmates on Illinois death row, two days before leaving office.

This all means that Gov. Ryan through the Commission knew that there could be innocent persons on death row who could be victims of the flaws of the system as cited by the Commission. However, Hodgkinson notes that this however will tell us that the state of Illinois is meant on improving the death penalty not removing it.

In the state of Maryland, Governor Glendening announced in May 2002 a moratorium and ordered a Commission  the University of Maryland  to conduct a study and review the death penalty. The Commission confirmed Glendenings concern of racial and prosecutorial disparity. (Hodgkinson, 2004, p. 8)

In the 1960s, the death penalty was halted de facto and between 1972 and 1976 there was a de jure halt to executions. But the death penalty was not abolished; only the defects of the system seemed to be fixed.

Analysis of the Issues

Capital Punishment is Cruel and Inhuman

Rae (2000) says:

The Eight Amendment of the Constitution protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically, it provides protection from the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. That is the reason imprisonment is the principal form of criminal punishment administered in most of the Western world, and is why the Western justice system rejects much of the Islamic style of punishment. (p. 214)

The death penalty therefore cannot be said as humane even if the state tries to stage the most painless kind of death for capital execution such as lethal injection. This is just the same as saying that killing is humane or that a crime could not be corrected. It is the duty and responsibility of the government to correct criminals by giving them the chance of another life. Besides, there are numerous reports of the flaws in administering the death sentences in terms of technicality to the point giving more pain and torture on the convicts. Even lethal injection can not give 100% painless death on the convicts.

Retribution, as often argued by retentionists, is not a valid argument. Franck et al., 2003, p. 34) state:

& Civilized nations ruled by law have gradually come to abandon the concept of retribution and either abolished the death penalty or thought up new reasons for using it. There are still, however, people who cling to the retribution argument and who believe that there are crimes so terrible that societys only appropriate response can be to kill the perpetrator. (Franck et al., 2003, p. 34)

Rae (2000) says that the death penalty undermines the dignity of persons made in the image of God and cheapens human life. (p. 215)

Hans Gvran Franck, Swedish human rights activist and political figure, who contributed much to the adoption of Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, said that todays societies are assured of certain inalienable rights, rights that extend even to the most hardened criminals. (Franck 2003, p. 34)

When victims demand for justice, they are seeking revenge which is against the teachings of Jesus and the Bible on loving ones neighbor and putting the other cheek when one strikes you on the other cheek. It is confusing personal with social ethics. We indeed have to love our neighbor and teach others to make peace even when they commit wrong against us, because this is part of personal ethics taught by Jesus Christ.

God has given the state the responsibility of criminal punishment and this means to correct a person not to kill him. How can you correct a wrong done by that person if you end his life?

Franck (2003) adds that the conditions surrounding the execution itself and the period between the sentence and the carrying out of the sentence, which is frequently quite long, make it possible to compare the death penalty to torture. (p. 35)

This condition is similar to torture, an inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, which is prohibited under international law. The prohibition against torture is universal and absolute, thus no exceptions are permitted. (Franck et al., 2003, p. 35)

Conclusion/Recommendation

Our justice system has to be strengthened and the flaws corrected. It is high time the United States of America abolish the death penalty in all states. There are enough laws for punishment, for correctional purposes. Retribution can be done without inflicting too much damage to the point of torture on convicted criminals. In the modern world of high technology, it is not societys obligation to kill a hardened criminal. Let us give a chance to even the murderers of society. We have other laws such as life imprisonment without parole that can be enforced on the most hardened criminal.

The original motive of capital punishment was to punish the criminal by death. This does not anymore apply.

Further Information

As Franck (2003) said perceptions and attitudes of peoples towards the death penalty can change with increased knowledge. If theres enough information campaign by people in government and those concerned, favourable opinion can be gained for the abolition of capital punishment. (p. 33)

It is therefore recommended that a massive information campaign on the evil of the death penalty be done on the American public.

References

Bedau, H. A. (2005). An Abolitionists Survey of the Death Penalty in America Today. In. H. A. Bedau and P. G. Cassell, Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment?: The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Best Case. U.S.A.: Oxford University Press, 2005. 23-24.

Franck, H. G., Nyman, K., and Schabas, W. ( 2003). The Barbaric Punishment: Abolishing the Death Penalty (The Raoul Wallenberg Institute Human Rights Library, 12). United Kingdom: Kluwer Law International. 34-35.

Hodgkinson, P. (2004). Capital Punishment: Improve it or Remove It? In P. Hodgkinson and W. Schabas, Eds. Capital Punishment: Strategies for Abolition. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 1-10.

Levinson, D. (2002). Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. United States of America: Sage Publications. 160.

Martinez, J. M. (2002). The Executioners Face Is Always Well Hidden: Social Science Arguments Against Capital Punishment. In J. M. Martinez, W. D. Richardson, D. B. Horsby. The Leviathans Choice: Capital Punishment in the Twenty-First Century. United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Martinez, J. M., Richardson, W. D., and Horsby, D. B. (2002). The Leviathans Choice: Capital Punishment in the Twenty-First Century. United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Mello, M. A. (1997). Dead Wrong: A Death Row Lawyer Speaks Out Against Capital Punishment. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Rae, S. (2000). Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. 211-215.

Schabas, W. A. (1997). Introduction. In H. G. Franck, K. Nyman, and W. Schabas, The Barbaric Punishment: Abolishing the Death Penalty (The Raoul Wallenberg Institute Human Rights Library, 12). 1-21, 34. United Kingdom: Kluwer Law International.

Introduction

Death Penalty or Capital Punishment is the lawful infliction of death as a punishment of a crime called capital offence or capital crime. The death penalty has lately become an increasingly controversial issue not only in the world, but in the U.K too, with many in this country calling for its reinstatement. While many arguments have been put forward for and against it, there is no doubt that the Death Penalty is nothing but a cruel murder perpetrated by the State that deserves to be totally banned.

Arguments against the Death Penalty

Life Imprisonment is a better alternative

Life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) is much better for two reasons. Firstly, it does not involve murdering any human being. Secondly, it delivers a more appropriate punishment that is prolonged for a longer period. In case of the Death Penalty, the convicts suffering is limited to a few years, whereas LWOP makes the punishment continue until the end of the convicts life. This is especially better in the case of convicted terrorists, who would love to be martyred by the Death Penalty {thereby giving them heroic status among their people} rather than bear the shame and suffering of undergoing lifelong imprisonment without parole (Messerli).

No real deterrent effect

Murderers do not examine risk/reward charts. Criminals will not commit crimes if they believe they will be caught. And when they are caught, it is improbable that they will be worried about what form of punishment lies in store for them. Therefore, it is unlikely that a few executions each year via the Death Penalty will have any significant deterrent effect on the crime rate of a country. For example, although Canada has banished Capital Punishment for many years, there are hardly any bad effects to social life (MVFHR).

Mental torture of the executed persons family

In addition to the ones executed, their family members are very adversely affected. They are made orphans or widows and their agony is prolonged by mandatory appeals and ever probing media coverage (MVFHR). The family and friends undergo a period of suffering, mental torture, desperation and social exclusion during the time leading up to and during the execution; it will often cause them serious trauma even for many years later.

Capital Punishment has no moral basis

Nearly every major religion including the Bibles New Testament denounces the Death Penalty as an ineffective and socially destructive punishment (MVFHR). Every persons right to life is given by God and only He can take life. The State has got no right to interfere in Gods divine rules. This stance is supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights {Articles 3 and 5} which declare that the Death Penalty goes against two basic human rights  the right to life and the right against torture or subjection to any merciless, unfeeling or humiliating punishment (Amnesty International).

High possibility of miscarriage of justice.

One cannot expect the law machinery {police and courts} to hit the right spot every time. There have been several cases where convicts have been freed from death row due to wrong sentences caused by prosecution mistakes. In almost all such instances, the mistakes came to light due to the efforts of third-party groups or persons, and not due to any court procedure (MVFHR). Secondly, all jurors selected in Death Penalty cases have to be death eligible, namely, he or she should be ready to pronounce a guilty verdict while well aware that such a sentence can result. This ensures that the defendants already have the decks stacked against them because nobody who is anti-Death Penalty is going to be present on the jury (MVFHR). Thirdly, many nations have been guilty of not totally and properly adhering to the terms of The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations that need authorities to provide foreign nationals in their custody the right to meet and seek legal help and advice from their consular officers. There also have been several cases where Death Penalty executions have taken place without the convicts having been informed about their right to seek consular advice (University of Alaska). Lastly, the Death Penalty has been used disproportionately against racial minorities. For example, since the U.S reinstated the Death Penalty in 1976, 35 percent of all executed persons have been African Americans (Sarat, 18), and the same racial group accounts for 42 percent of all death row convicts (MVFHR).

High Cost of Execution

The Death Penalty is a very costly mode of punishment which puts a huge burden on the countrys budget. On the other hand, incarcerating convicts for the remainder of their lives costs 2  5 times less than it (Messerli). For example, it cost $ 13 million to convict and execute the notorious U.S criminal Timothy McVeigh, while the families of all the victims of the Oklahoma City Bombing got a total amount of only $ 250,000 to be split between them (MVFHR).

Arguments favouring the Death Penalty are inconclusive

The first group of 3 arguments {it permanently removes the worst criminals from society, it has a strong deterrent effect on crime, and criminals and the victims families feel vindicated} is well countered by the first 3 anti-Death Penalty arguments presented herein. The fourth pro-Death Penalty argument that internationally respected documents directly or indirectly permit the practice is counter balanced by the fourth anti-Death Penalty argument presented herein which projects the hugely revered Bible and all other religious books {plus the Universal Declaration of Human Rights} that denounce the Death Penalty as much more ethical as compared to other man-made documents. The fifth pro-Death Penalty argument that it is based on the vengeance principle of an eye for an eye is countered by the anti-Death Penalty stance that such vengeance philosophy results in nothing but never-ending violence. A good example is the Israeli-Palestine problem that has been festering for the last 5 decades in which thousands of people have lost their lives in revengeful tit-for-tat killings (Messerli). A far better solution would be to abandon the quest for vengeance and make efforts at reconciliation and social reconstruction (Sarat, 15). However, there is one pro-Death Penalty argument that largely outweighs the fifth anti-Death Penalty argument presented herein, namely there is no possibility of mistake when a Death Penalty verdict is delivered. This is because DNA testing has recently emerged as a strong tool that denotes a persons guilt or innocence beyond doubt. However, it must be remembered that DNA testing is effective only in cases where such evidence can practically be used, and even then it cannot condone the procedural inconsistencies pointed out in the fifth anti-Death Penalty argument.

Conclusion

While the anti-Death Penalty arguments presented above clearly hold a lot of weight, the fact that the world in general is against the practice is highly significant. This is evident from two revelations. Firstly, over two-thirds of the worlds nations have chosen to eradicate the practice {these include the U.K which did so in 1998}, while only 59 nations {including the U.S} have chosen to persist with it. Secondly, during a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in December last year, 106 member nations voted in favour of a stop to the use of the Death Penalty, as compared to 46 countries that voted against the moratorium, and 34 nations that chose not to vote (University of Alaska). As the U.K is among the current world leaders, other nations are expected to have a favourable image of it. This will not come about if it reinstates the Death Penalty thereby projecting an image of a country that is angrier, less compassionate, more intolerant and more divided (Sarat, 15), a nation that patronises violence and revenge  nearly the same perception Europeans had of the U.S when it persisted with the policy of slavery after the practice had been prohibited in Europe (Messerli). The Death Penalty should not be allowed to become a part of our countrys culture {unlike the U.S whose peoples support for the Death Penalty is attributed by scholars to their support for the an eye for an eye vengeance policy (Sarat, 12)}. Instead, we should all work together to prevent it from being reinstated so that it can endanger our personal values, the moral norms of our society and the reputation of our country.

References used

An International Perspective on the Death Penalty. University of Alaska Anchorage. 2009. Web.

Death Penalty. Amnesty International UK. 2009. Web.

Death Penalty Information. MVFHR. Web.

Messerli, Joe. Should the Death Penalty be banned as a form of Punishment? Balancedpolitics.org. 2000. Web.

Sarat, Austin. When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition. USA: Princeton University Press. 2001.

The death Penalty has always held popular support in the United States since the colonial days. The entire premise of the death penalty hinges on the rationale that the perpetrators of heinous crimes must pay for their crimes with their life so that they cannot commit any more such crimes and that the punishment would serve as a deterrent to others. This essay examines whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent and should it be abolished in the US.

Till 1972, the validity of the death penalty held wide acceptance in most U.S. states. In 1967, William Henry Furman, a 26-year-old black man, while committing a burglary shot at the house owner, William Joseph Micke Jr while trying to escape. Micke died and Furman got a one-day trial in which he was sentenced to death by the State of Georgia in 1968. (AllSupremeCourt Cases.com, 2007,p.1). The case went up for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court as the landmark Furman v. Georgia (1972) case.

In the case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a 5-4 vote that capital punishment was administered in an arbitrary manner that constituted cruel and unusual Punishment (Philips, 2008, p. 5). For about four years, from 1972 to 1976, the death penalty remained invalidated in the U.S. as the fallout of the judgment. As a result, state judiciaries sought to revise their statute books. Based on the logic that the states had corrected their statutes, the moratorium on the death penalty was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Gregg versus Georgia (1976) case. Since then, 36 U.S. states have the death penalty in their statute books (Death Penalty Information Center, 2008, p. 1).

The operative principles of the death penalty in the U.S. have come in for considerable criticism from Human rights activists and minority groups. It has been stated that death was more likely to be imposed against black defendants than white defendants, and death was more likely to be imposed on behalf of white victims than black victims. (Philips, p. 4). Out of the 123 nations that allow the death penalty, only the U.S. and Iran currently sentence juvenile offenders to death (Political Research Associates, 2005, p. 2).

The Death penalty has been invalidated in Europe. In 1989, the UN General Assembly adopted the second optional protocol to the ICCPR which aims at the abolition of the death penalty. Human rights activists and opponents of the death penalty argue that the punishment has no salutary effect at all.

They judge this by stating that despite the U.S. executing 1132 people to date since 1976, the crime rate of heinous crimes is much higher than in entire Western Europe where the death penalty has been abolished. More alarmingly, according to the activists, the danger of an innocent person being executed is a possibility as statistics show that since 1976, more than 120 people have been released from US death rows on grounds of Innocence (Amnesty International, 2008, p. 2).

Youth up to a certain age should be judged leniently before deciding death penalty because behavioral psychologists through neurobiological studies have found that the poor judgment performance of adolescents is attributable to incomplete frontal cortex and cerebellum development (Hanson, 2006, p. 19). Thus, the ability of youth to judge right and wrong is debatable. Since the statistics show that US death penalty enforcement has not shown any salutatory effects and that European crime figures are much lower where the death penalty has been invalidated, the author of this essay opines that the US should abolish the Death penalty and concentrate more on better policing and interventionist programs like the Europeans.

Works Cited

allsupremecourtcases. (2007). Furman Vs Georgia. Web.

Amnesty International. (2008). World: 2007 Death Penalty Statistics, Notes and Case studies. Web.

Facts About the Death Penalty. (2008). Web.

Hanson, M. J. (2006). Towards a New Assumption in Law and Ethics. The Humanist , pp. 18-21.

Philips, S. (2008). Racial Disparities in the Capital of Capital Punishment. Web.

Political Research Associates. (2005). United States Versus the World. Web.

Abstract

This paper discusses capital punishment as a legal measure and sentence for people who committed serious crimes. The history of the death penalty, as well as its pros and cons, are studied to determine the appropriateness and relevance of this punishment in the modern world. A short review of history showed that capital punishments were common in ancient and medieval times; however, modern democratic society most often abandons this practice. The most common reasons in favor of death sentences are statements that people deserve punishment equal to their crimes, and this kind of punishment assures that criminals will never commit their horrible deeds again. However, there are more arguments in favor of abandoning capital punishment, such as the value of human life, the possibility of killing innocents, and high expenses for death sentences. Thus, the research demonstrates that the abolition of capital punishment as a legal measure is more acceptable than its support.

Introduction

Capital punishment or the death penalty is still part of the judicial system in many states, although its use has declined significantly in recent decades. At the same time, there are still two opposing points of view about capital punishment among the population, since some people advocate its maintenance, and the second requires its abolition. Consequently, this paper will review the history of capital punishment, as well as the pros and cons of its use to determine the relevance and appropriateness of such a measure of penalty for crimes.

History of Capital Punishment

Capital punishment originates with the creation of the first human societies and states, although in those days, it did not yet have such a name. Scientists and historians note that various archaeological finds demonstrate that such punitive practice was common in Ancient Babylon, Rome, and other civilizations that existed before the current era (Hoag, n.d.). In the Middle Ages and even the New Age, public executions were cruel and served to spread the influence of the church through the punishment of sinners or even as part of entertainment (Hoag, n.d.). However, today most countries have abandoned this practice, setting human life as the highest value.

The United States still has capital punishment as a legal means used by the judiciary. Although death sentences have existed since the colonization of America, the modern history of the use of death penalties began with the Furman v. Georgia case in 1976 (Shatz, 2017). Since 1976, the number of death sentences has increased significantly, and 35 US states have reenacted death penalty status (Shatz, 2017). However, in the 21st century, the popularity of capital punishment declined. Since 2004, nine states have banned the death penalty, and of the 25 states that support it, only 11 have carried out at least one execution in the last three years (Steiker, C & Steiker J., 2020). Community support has also declined from 76% to 56% since the mid-1990s (Steiker, C & Steiker J., 2020). Therefore, it is worth noting that the United States is also approaching the threshold of the abolition of capital punishment in the country, and there are many reasons for this decision.

Arguments for the Death Penalty

One may note that the population in many states still supports capital punishment for people who have committed serious crimes. The first argument in favor of this legal measure is that each person deserves a punishment equal to his or her crime. Thomas Aquinas said that, in some cases, the evil deeds of criminals turn murder for the sake of justice into good deeds, since, in this case, the execution is the punishment of the sinner (Arguments against capital punishment, 2014). In addition, the families of many victims wish the same fate for their murderers, and this decision seems fair. For example, terrorists who took the lives of dozens of people are dangerous and must be punished for their actions.

Moreover, many rapists, terrorists, and murderers are fanatics, and they cannot change their minds even in life imprisonment, but they have a chance to escape and cause even more harm to society. Consequently, the death penalty is a measure that makes society and the judiciary confident that a person will not be able to repeat his or her crimes. Hence, the benefits of a death sentence are ensuring the safety of society and a sense of fair punishment for the person who deserves it.

Arguments Against the Death Penalty

Modern societies are increasingly negatively attributed to the capital punishment of criminals, and there are many reasonable arguments for its abolition. Among the most compelling reasons is the value of human life, the likelihood of conviction of the innocent, and the high cost of capital punishment. The first reason for abolishing the death penalty is both philosophical and legal since all countries and societies understand the value of human life, and the constitutions of many states note this fact. Although the argument in favor of the death penalty is that it is equal to crime, many people agree that violence cannot defeat violence, so execution is not a solution. The life of a person belongs only to him or her, and the Declaration of Human Rights clearly states this freedom that should not be violated. Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is also a sufficient punishment since people do not own their freedom.

In addition, there is always the possibility of conviction of an innocent person. This fact is confirmed by statistics since 130 people were released after being sentenced to death on false charges from 1973 to 2012 (Arguments against capital punishment, 2014). Besides, quite often, people are condemned not because of mistakes of the investigation, but due to deliberate actions, since the modern world still has not overcome corruption, blackmail, and other criminal frauds. Therefore, even if the percentage of death sentences of innocents is low, this type of punishment only increases the level of injustice but does not reduce it.

Another rational and pragmatic argument for abolishing capital punishment is its high cost. Many studies have shown that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment; for example, in Texas in 2018, a death sentence cost $ 4.1 million, and life in prison is $ 1.3 million (Wilson, 2019). However, Texas is the state in which the most significant number of executions was carried out, and for some states, the retention of capital punishment costs a large part of the budget without justifying the expenses. For example, the governor of California noted that the state spent about $5 million and committed just 13 executions in 40 years (Steiker, C & Steiker J., 2020). Such a big waste exists because states need to spend more costs on jury selection, keeping criminals before sentencing, expert research and testimony, and appellate review (Wilson, 2019). Consequently, the high costs of maintaining such a system are unjustified.

Conclusion

Thus, the history and modern practices of applying capital punishment by the judicial system demonstrate that the abolition of such a system is more acceptable than its keeping. Arguments in favor of the death penalty as a fairer and safer punishment for society are refuted by the fact of the value of human life. At the same time, the conviction of innocent people to death and the high cost of such a procedure reinforce the abolition of capital punishment.

References

Hoag, R. (n.d). Capital punishment. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 

Wilson, B. (2019). Valuing the death penalty. Mississippi Law Journal.

Shatz, S. (2017). The American death penalty: Past, present, and future, Tulsa Law Review,53(2), 349-362.

Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2020). The Rise, fall, and afterlife of the death penalty in the United States. Annual Review of Criminology, 3(1), 299315.

Arguments against capital punishment (2014). BBC. 

Introduction

Crimes have always been present in the life of mankind. Robberies, murders, and other types of violence were at different times and different punishments were provided. The type of punishment depended on the level of crime. The modern system of punishment is governed by laws and also is based on the level of cruelty and the type of crime. The most minor type of crime is robbery or disorderly conduct and the most significant is murder. Different countries have different laws and as a result different punishments for the crimes, but the death penalty is considered to be the highest type of sentence in all countries. The death penalty in the USA exists in some states, and it must be to discipline people and to threaten them from murders and other great crimes.

Death penalty in the modern world

The death penalty is the killing of a person which is allowed by the law and is commonly used as the punishment for, especially terrible crimes. The death penalty in the modern world usually precedes the long court trial on different levels, and the accused has the opportunity to appeal. Different causes and situations, new facts, and other issues may drag out the pronouncement of a sentence and then its execution for many years. It is impossible to avoid the case with Jack Alderman, who is famous for his being the longest prisoner in the USA. His story began on June 14, 1975, when he was sentenced to death for the murder of his wife, and only on September 16, the last 2008 year, the sentence was executed. Simple mathematics calculations give us the result that 33 years the person was waiting for his punishment.

The death penalty may be provided only by the authorized representative of the law, in another way it is considered murder and may be punished. The death penalty is provided nonpublic, this means that only several authorized people may be present on the penalty. The death penalty was abolished in most countries, but still some countries refuse to cancel this law and continue to provide this punishment for the highest level of crime.

People are afraid of death and it is impossible to deny it. The governments of the countries where the death penalty exist say that capital punishment is the controlling factor for people, as the threat of death interferes and people do not make mistakes which may be the paid a too high price. Some criminals think before doing this or that action and the existence of the death penalty may prevent them, as life is the biggest gift for a person and nobody wants to refuse it.

Any subject has at least two points of view and in most cases they are opposite. The same deals with the death penalty, there are supporters of it and those who think that it is inhuman and try to convince that the death penalty should be forbidden all over the world. The arguments are given various from the contending parties. It is possible to give a lot of examples, which could support this or that part and these arguments are absolutely convincing.

Supporters

First, the supporting facts about the death penalty are going to be considered. Let us try to imagine the situation, when a person wakes up in the morning, do all he/she has used to do, and then decides to kill someone, a person whom he/she does not like. The operation is planned and in several days, the person kills. Is this person is worthy of life? Does he/she have any moral right to live while the person was killed? The planned and realized murders must be punished. The other situation: drunk driver kills a child. Whose fault is it? The drivers as the drunken person in the car is the murderer. Shall he/she live? Des, this person has the right to live? No! Even life imprisonment is not the punishment for such people as they have made a mistake which is impossible to correct, as nobody can raise people from the dead.

Opponents

The opponents of the death penalty state that life was given for us by God and it is only his desire and right to decide whether the killer should live or die. Life imprisonment is the deserving substitution to the death penalty, as the opponents of capital punishment think, as the absence of life makes people crazy, the understanding that the rest of life is going to be spent in the same walls with the same people, it is really difficult. People, sentenced to life imprisonment, very often finish by suicide and it is the considered Gods punishment for the crimes which these people had committed. People should not become murderers even permitted by the state law, as Gods laws are different and the Bible says to us, Do not kill, as killing, even the murderer, the person also becomes the murderer, which contradicts Gods laws. These were the arguments of those who are the opponents of the death penalty and offer life imprisonment instead.

Death penalty and the life imprisonment

Returning to the difference between the death penalty and life imprisonment, it is possible to mention that life imprisonment is considered to be the hardest as a person has no freedom till the end of his/her life, and the death penalty is easier. Let me deny this opinion. Death is a horrible thing people and a lot of people are really afraid of it as they do not know what is there, in that part of existence. The religious pictures of hell and devil appear in the mind, and it is difficult for most people to live those 2  10 hours to the death penalty. Life imprisonment is easier as the person knows that he/she will live, that even without freedom, he/she will be able to breathe, eat and to drink, to have some fan (reading or other playing activities), he/she will see the sun even through the gates, but still, he/she will be alive, and people who were killed by them will never have such opportunity.

The conclusions may be made different by different people, as peoples minds may offer a lot of additional arguments to support this or that idea, and my strong opinion is that the death penalty must be present in the society, but at the same time the society should possess the power and justice court system. It is not a secret that the modern court system is not so perfect and that there are some cases when the innocent person was sentenced to different years of imprisonment. The additional investigations, facts, and witnesses helped to disentangle the case and people were released. In this case, if the death penalty was executed, there would have not been a way back. So, before implementing the death penalty, a lot of facts should be gathered and thorough investigations should be provided to prove whether the person is guilty or not.

The USA is the one country, but the laws are different in different states that allow criminals to hide from the death penalty in the state where it is forbidden. The death penalty is allowed in 38 states of the USA. To my mind, it should not be so, as such fundamental laws about the death penalty should be the same within one country. There are a lot of ways of capital punishment which were used in the USA at different times, the ancient types are as follows, burning, slow slicing, stoning, boiling, flaying, disembowelment, impalement, crucifixion, crushing, dismemberment, sawing, or decapitation. All these types of punishment are historical and are not used in the modern world. The modern types of capital punishment which is used in the world, and the USA, are hanging, shooting, electrical chair, gas chamber, or injection. The most human type of the death penalty (no matter how paradoxically it may sound) remains the death injection, which is considered to be the easiest type of death.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the opinions about the death penalty are different, some people support it, the others do not. A good example of opinion sharpening is the USA, where within one country different states have different laws about capital punishment. My strong opinion is that the death penalty must be part of the jurisdictional system of the country as there are some crimes which impossible to penalize by any of the existing punishments, except the death penalty. People should know that by killing a person, he/she will also be killed and that there would not be a way back.

Background Information

Punishment for crimes, which are deemed cruel and unusual is forbidden by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment is often invoked when discussing the legal merits of the death penalty. The use of the death penalty is considered by some to be the most obvious and heinous example of cruel and unusual punishment. Those opposed to capital punishment do not believe that the government should be vested with the power to put any of its citizens to death. Opponents also maintain that the practice is racially biased, overtly costly, and does not achieve the intended outcome. Proponents believe it to be neither cruel nor unusual, on the contrary, they think it just and fair.

Thesis Statement

The purpose of this study is to discuss the legal and moral issues that literally are of life and death importance and is a major barometer when measuring a societys collective conscience. The eye for an eye group not only accepts but vocally insists that the death penalty be continued for many reasons which will be covered thoroughly in this discussion. It will also include the opponents reasoning regarding why it should be abolished along with the legal precedents involved in an effort to gain a comprehensive overview of the death penalty debate. The discussion will conclude with an opinion regarding the future of Capital punishment in the U.S.

Death Penalty Debate

By definition, capital punishment is not unusual, legally speaking, unless one considers and acknowledges the racial bias that exists in the justice system. Whether or not it is cruel is not definable by law. It can only be defined by the collective social consciousness of a culture. The legal interpretation of cruel and unusual is somewhat open to debate but in general, the term cruel refers to brutal punishments that cause excessive pain. Most legal experts agree that punishments including bodily dismemberment or torture are undoubtedly classified as cruel.

Again, terminologies are open to interpretation as evidenced by the current debate at the highest level of government involving the definition of torture. The term unusual is commonly understood to define the equitable application of punishment for a particular offense. For example, if ten people were cited for speeding and nine of them were fined $100 but one was fined $1000, this penalty would be considered unusual. Taken together, both cruel and unusual indicate that the punishment should be exacted in proportion to the offense committed. A life term in prison is an acceptable form of punishment but if it were imposed for jaywalking, this would be an unacceptable sentence because it would be considered excessive given the severity of the offense. Excessive is also open to wide interpretation in both the public and legal realm. Some would argue, for example, that imprisonment of any amount of time for crimes such as gambling, prostitution, and the possession of drugs should be interpreted as excessive, therefore unusual.

The Supreme Court has on several occasions dealt with judging the merits of the death penalty and whether or not it is interpreted by the Constitution as punishment which is cruel and unusual. The Court has always ruled the terminology of the Eighth Amendment does not exclude the implementation of death as punishment. The Constitution is a malleable document, however. The interpretation of the Eighth Amendment has evolved somewhat throughout the years and the Court could possibly reverse this point of view sometime in the future as a result of changing societal values. For example, the whipping of offenders was commonplace until the late Eighteenth Century. This practice came to be considered inappropriate because societys opinion changed to include it as a cruel punishment. With respect to capital punishment, though, the Court has maintained that there remains broad public support for the death penalty as a remedy for the most serious of crimes (Mott, 2004).

Historically speaking, the rationale for punishing criminals has been to avenge the crime, to protect society by imprisoning the criminal, to deter that person and other potential offenders from the commission of crimes, and to obtain reparations from the offender (Wolfgang, 1998). Throughout the history of civilization, this rationale has not changed substantially. The four fundamental reasons society punishes can be classified into two areas. One is to obtain desired consequences which include protecting society, seeking compensation, and deterrence. The other, retribution, or vengeance, involves punishment for a wrong perpetrated on society.

Proponent Position

Those that subscribe to retribution as a justification for the death penalty often invoke the Bibles reference to an eye for an eye. Aggression must be met with aggressive punishment (Olen & Barry, 1996: 268). This use of punishment is societys way of striking back at one who has disturbed the emotional and ethical senses of a people (Lunden, 1967: 232). Interestingly, those that use the quote from the Old Testament to justify the use of the death penalty as moral either overlooked or ignored the passage in the New Testament where Jesus rebuffs this statement explicitly then reminds his followers to instead turn the other cheek. However, the eye for an eye justification is still used by many today. Those that hold this view are certainly correct when they say that the death penalty ensures that the criminal will not commit another crime against society. In addition to a vengeful act, the death penalty is the ultimate preventative measure (Olen & Barry, 1996).

Opponent Position

Those that oppose capital punishment believe that every life should be valued and that imprisoning a person for life without the possibility for parole is adequate punishment. Opponents also think that revenge is wrong and ultimately more destructive to the value system and very fabric of society than is the crime itself. In addition, opponents feel that outlawing the death penalty will allow opportunities for confronting those who had been hurt most and possibly encourage remorse or reconciliation (and) suggest those that have killed be made to serve the community as a way of partially making amends (Olen & Barry, 1967: 272). According to opponents, capital punishment is ethically and morally objectionable in todays society. Some oppose it based on religious grounds citing morality as the fundamental issue; however, differing religions and people within those religions have differing opinions. Christians who live in Europe, for example, tend to oppose capital punishment but in America, they tend to support it.

Legal Interpretations

The Supreme Court has upheld that capital punishment does not fall under the category of exceptionally cruel but has ruled that it does violate the Eighth Amendment if it is considered unusual. In the Furman v. In Georgia case of 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was being subjectively applied because a disproportionate amount of minorities had faced execution which made the practice unusual (Furman v. Georgia, 1972). As a result of the decision, approximately 600 persons on death row had their sentences commuted to life, an infamous example being members of the Mason Family. In addition, no executions were permitted in the U.S. until it was again resumed in 1976. However, the majority of death penalty opponents believe that the practice continues to be intrinsically biased against those of lower-income and minorities (Olen & Barry, 1996: 272).

Capital punishment opponents claim that wealthy, white criminals are less likely to be executed than underprivileged minority members of society and if the victim is white or wealthy, it is more likely to be imposed. The statistics provide evidence for their claim. Since 1976, 43 percent of executions in the U.S. have been black or Hispanic. This group accounts for 55 percent of those currently on death row. About half of those murdered in the U.S. are white but 80 percent of all murder cases involve white victims. From 1976 to 2002, 12 whites were executed for killing a black person while 178 blacks were executed for murdering a white person. It would seem that the unusual aspect of the death penalty continues to be a valid argument but another aspect must be present for the practice to again be abolished. There is ample evidence that the death penalty is applied with a discriminatory impact based on the race of the victim, but a constitutional challenge requires intentional discrimination (Mello, 1995: 933). Opponents also believe a justice system that disproportionately executes its citizens cannot be considered anything but corrupt which devalues the entire system.

Proponent Rebuttal

Opponents of the death penalty argue that the penalty is unjust but proponents disagree with this position because they believe what is truly unjust is the deliberate act of taking another life, murder. Further, an injustice society should not condone is allowing murderers to keep their lives after imposing the death sentence themselves on another and by that act, also sentencing the victims family to a life sentence of anguish. If someone steals a car, for example, and was allowed to keep and drive it around town without fear of retribution, no one would think that fair. It is neither fair to allow anyone that steals a life to keep their own. By allowing people who have been convicted of acting as self-appointed executioners to keep their own life devalues human life on the whole.

According to those in favor of the death penalty, opponents defy reasonable logic by arguing that taking a murderers life devalues human life. Evidently, they have never had their car stolen and dont understand the example or they believe that the murderers life is more valuable than the victims. Taking away criminals freedom is the only way of showing how much we value freedom. Protestant and Catholic philosophy has consistently confirmed the right of a fair government to end the life of convicted murderers. The Sixth Commandment in original Hebrew reads not thou shall not kill but thou shall not murder. The Torah, Judaisms chief source of ethical reference, is definite in its support of the death penalty. The only law repeated in all five books of the Torah is the condemnation of murderers to death (Prager, 2001).

Again, according to death penalty proponents, sending a murderer away to enjoy three meals a day and a roof over their heads for life simply doesnt fully address the issue. Death penalty laws have been known to change and probably will again. In addition, people tend to forget the past and parole boards constantly evolve their personnel so there is always a chance, no matter how small, that the murderer will strike again if he is allowed to remain alive. A life sentence imprisonment tends to depreciate with the passage of time as these examples illustrate.

Practical Application

In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss in New York State. Her parents were opposed to the death penalty and asked that he be given life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Moore has been eligible for parole every two years since 1982 because of a change in sentencing laws. In 1966, Kenneth McDuff was convicted in the fatal shooting of two boys in the face and the brutal rape and strangulation of their 16-year-old female friend. A Texas jury sentenced McDuff to die in the electric chair but in 1972 this was commuted to life in prison after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In 1989, he was released only to commit at least six more murders which included a pregnant mother of two. He was finally executed in 1998 (Lowe, 2006).

Although the U.S. court system is at least among the most equitable in the world, no system of justice can expect to provide perfect results 100 percent of the time. Mistakes are inherent within all systems that rely on the human element for proof and for judgment. The justice system correctly demands that a higher standard be imposed for determinations of guilt in death penalty cases. With the extraordinary due process that is applied in all death penalty cases, the risk of making a mistake is minute. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, there has been no credible evidence provided that confirms any innocent persons have been executed.

The more than 100 innocent death row inmates that were exonerated are a sham. The actual figure of innocent death row inmates is nearer 40 which should be considered in context with the 7,000-plus deathrow inmates added to the roles since 1973. Mistakes within the system, though few and unavoidable, should not serve as justification to eradicate the death penalty. We should never disregard the dangers of permitting murderers to kill again (Stewart, 2006).

Many proponents of the death penalty believe that it is an option of last resort for criminals that cannot be rehabilitated. They also argue that every murderer executed is one less person that the taxpayers are not feeding and housing. An execution is less costly to taxpayers than the alternative, long imprisonment. They believe the cost of supporting criminals in maximum security prisons until they die is very high and they feel the innocent taxpayer should not have to foot the bill for the care of depraved criminals whove demonstrated that they have no respect for societys laws or human life (Olen & Barry, 1996: 273-274).

Additionally, a lengthy appeals process is a costly process that ties up the court system. This cost is considered by opponents to be an insignificant argument because the value of human life cannot possibly be broken down into columns on a profit and loss ledger. Department of Justice statistics clearly illustrates that the death penalty contains many constitutional flaws. Between 1973 and 1993, almost half (forty-two percent) of inmates awaiting the death sentence had their sentences commuted or reversed. Capital punishment is a waste of money and resources in producing what turns out to be counterfeit death sentences in almost one out of every two instances (McCloskey, 1996: 7).

Opponent Response

Capital punishment opponents argue that the practice does not deter crime, which statistics reprove. In addition, if offenses that caused no harm to others were decriminalized, such as gambling, prostitution, and drug possession, the inmate population would decrease by about half. This would allow for the violent offenders to serve their entire sentence without having to be paroled early because of overcrowding. Thus, society would be properly protected. Opponents also deny that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime because of the nature of the reasons people commit homicide.

People cannot conceive their own demise, therefore, cannot contemplate or appreciate the consequences. In addition, these crimes are usually committed as a result of impulsive actions and are not carefully considered beforehand. Therefore, the deterrent case has no validity (Johnson, 1968). If the person committing the murder does contemplate the consequences, they may kill not only the victim but any witnesses as well rather than risk being caught (Olen & Barry, 1996).

Again, the opponents view has been substantiated. Many studies have been performed to determine if the death penalty is indeed a deterrence. They are conducted by comparing homicide rates in contiguous jurisdictions, some of which had abolished capital punishment; examining time-series data on homicide rates within a jurisdiction during the years before and after the abolished capital punishment; and comparing homicide rates in a jurisdiction before and after the imposition of the death sentence or execution (Hagan, 1985). These studies have unanimously demonstrated that the death penalty does not deter crime.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is not cruel yet possibly unusual in its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment over the past 30 years. The Supreme Court, legislators, and the bulk of the reasonable public is waiting for the remainder of societys definition to evolve further before abolishing the practice on the grounds that it is both cruel and unusual. The societies in European countries have already formed the opinion that the death penalty is both cruel and unusual punishment that remains largely ineffectual. Most European citizens enjoy cradle to grave health care and are much less likely to be incarcerated than those in the U.S. Though there is much evidence to the contrary, American society is growing more compassionate through time. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is but one example of this. One day, it will be a compassionate society that does not use the emotion of revenge to decide its laws and the death penalty will go the way of the Salem witch trials, a barbaric punishment of the distant past.

Works Cited

Furman v. Georgia. The Supreme Court Collection. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. (1972).

Hagan, J. Modern Criminology: Crime, Criminal Behavior, and its Control. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. (1985).

Johnson, E.H. Crime, Correction, and Society. Illinois: The Dorsey Press. (1968).

Lowe, Wesley. Capital Punishment vs. Life Without Parole. ProDeath Penalty (2006). Web.

Lunden, W.A. Crimes and Criminals. Iowa: The Iowa State University Press. (1967).

McCloskey, J. The Death Penalty: A Personal View. Criminal Justice Ethics. Vol. 15, pp. 2-9. (1996).

Mello, M. Defunding Death. American Criminal Law Review. Vol. 32, pp. 933-1012. (1995).

Mott. Jonathan. Is the Death Penalty Constitutional? This Nation. (2000). Web.

Olen, Jeffrey & Barry, Vincent. Applying Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. (1996).

Prager, Dennis. Death Penalty Guards What is Valued Most. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. (2001).

Stewart, Steven D. A Message from the Prosecuting Attorney. The Death Penalty. Clark County, IN: Office of the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney. (2006).

Wolfgang, M.E. We Do Not Deserve to Kill. Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 44, pp. 19-32. (1998).

Introduction

The death penalty is also known as capital punishment and it is a case where an individual is executed by judicial process as a punishment for some offense found guilty. Those crimes that lead to the death penalty are referred to as capital crimes. The use of the death penalty has been there for a long period, but of late some countries have abolished it as a form of punishment for criminals. Different groups and countries have different opinions regarding capital punishment and this has resulted in a great debate. According to some religious groups such as Christianity, capital punishment is regarded as a sin. This is according to their belief no human being has the right to take the life that God gives. There is also a lot of pressure by human rights groups against capital punishment. They term it as a denial of human rights. Each individual is entitled to life and no one or country has the right to deny any individual the right to life. In the past, individuals have been falsely convicted and have received death penalties. For example, there are claims that Wayne Felker was falsely convicted of rape. He was executed in 1996 but there are claims that the technician who did the autopsy was not qualified. It is very unfair for an innocent person to receive such a punishment. In fact, it does not matter whether an individual has committed an offense or not. Capital punishment is very unfair regardless of the crime committed. The effect of capital punishment on the relatives and friends of the convicted is very devastating. In the United States, capital punishment has been used for a long period of time and it is still practiced today. This paper will seek to analyze the death penalty and other issues that surround it.

Capital Punishment not a Deterrent

For a very long period of time, capital punishment has been used as a means of punishing individuals found guilty of some crimes. However, the crimes that lead to capital punishment are on the increase. The individuals who carry out these crimes are aware of the existence of capital punishment but they seem not to care. This shows that capital punishment cannot be used to prevent crime. In some cases, individuals who commit capital crimes do it without their knowledge only to regret it later. For example, some individuals are unable to control their anger and they might commit a capital crime out of anger. Others might be influenced by drugs or alcohol to commit such criminal activities. In addition, some individuals have mental problems that influence them to commit capital crimes. It has been found that most crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress and in other cases under the influence of alcohol and drugs (Schaefer, 2008). These are times when the logical thinking of an individual is very low. Capital punishment cannot prevent such moments that lead to the occurrence of capital crimes. Capital punishment can therefore be seen to have little if no effect in deterring capital crimes.

Other Countries Response to Death Penalty

In the past, many societies practiced capital punishment as a way of punishing individuals who have committed capital crimes. At the moment, there are about sixty countries that are practicing capital punishment. All the other countries in the world have abolished it for various reasons. The countries that actively apply it include United States, India, China, and Indonesia. Other countries have abolished it because it does not help in reducing crime. International organizations such as the United Nations called for the banning of capital punishment arguing that each and every individual has the right to life (Hood, 1996). According to these organizations, capital punishment is a violation of human rights and it should therefore be abolished. The past cases of innocent individuals being put to death by capital punishment have influenced the abolition of capital punishment. It is a miscarriage of justice on part of the individuals and those who are related and friends to such an individual (Randa, 1997). If a country is worried that an individual might commit a capital crime after being released, life imprisonment might replace capital punishment where all the claims against human rights and injustices will no longer be an issue.

Personal Opinion

According to me, capital punishment is not fair because the lord is the giver of life and is the only one who has the right to take it. Those who commit capital crimes including murder itself can be punished in ways other than capital punishment. Giving the court the right to execute is against the commandments of God and capital punishment should therefore be illegal. Capital punishment punishes the victim and other individuals who are close to him or her. It is very bad for innocent people to suffer as a result of the governments action.

The legality of Capital Punishment

Capital punishment should not be legal and it should be completely abolished. It has been used in the past yet the rate of crimes is still high. Again, capital punishment is against human rights and no one has the right to abuse an individuals human rights. God is the giver of life and he is the only one who has the right to take it. Enacting a law that is against the commandments of God is very bad.

Youths and Death Penalty

For a country that has allowed capital punishment to take place, any individual regardless of his or her status should be subject to it. The youths are not an exception because a capital crime is a capital crime regardless of the person who commits it. Capital punishment may have little effect in preventing individuals who were planning to perform capital crimes from doing so. Exempting the youths may influence them to commit capital crimes.

Conclusion

Capital punishment has been used in the past but has not been very effective in deterring capital crimes. Many countries have abolished capital punishment for its failure to prevent the occurrence of crimes and other issues such as the human rights and injustices done when innocent individuals are executed. Capital punishment should be abolished and in places where it is legal, every individual should be subject to it.

Reference

Hood, R. (1996), Death Penalty: a worldwide Perspective. New York: Oxford University press.

Randa, L. (1997), Death Penalty. New York: University press of America.

Schaefer, R.T. (2008), Sociology: a brief introduction (8^th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

While the death penalty has been banned and condemned as an inhumane and barbaric punishment in most of the world, it remains a highly controversial topic in the United States. Proponents of capital punishment claim that convicted murderers can never be reintegrated into society, and claim that execution is the only way to ensure that they pose no threat to anyone. While that may be true in certain cases, the issue of the death penalty is far more complex. Unlike any other punishment, the death sentence is irreversible in every sense of the word. To administer it justly, one must have undeniable proof that the accused is guilty of capital crimes. However, people are imperfect, and even experienced professionals make mistakes. In a country that allows capital punishment, the cost of a mistake can be a human life. This has motivated legislators to design systems that make it as hard a possible for an innocent person to be executed.

These systems tend to have several stages that are meant to give the accused every opportunity to prove their innocence. Those sentenced to death usually have time to submit numerous appeals, discover new evidence, and interview witnesses. The materials they submit are then carefully considered by the court and may result in a not guilty verdict. The convinced may also file habeas appeals if they believe that they have been incarcerated unlawfully. Finally, the state governor usually has the power to grant clemency to death row inmates or postpone the date of their execution.

The state of Texas has built a system that has the opposite purpose  to execute criminals as quickly as possible. The judiciary process in Texas is flawed in several ways, which results in a desperate situation for those accused of capital crimes. At the very first step, the state-provided free lawyers are severely underpaid, and consequently can rarely offer good representation. There have even been cases when the layer openly admitted to believing their client was guilty of arson and murder, despite the lack of concrete proof (Death By Fire). The jury may also make unfair decisions based on racial prejudice and an extremely hostile attitude towards criminals. Although such tendencies seem to decline in most southern states, Texas remains the epicenter of enmity in the justice system. Furthermore, because Texas elects judges instead of appointing them, they often act in a way that would be more popular with the public, rather than concentrate their efforts on making the fairest possible decision. Unfortunately, the majority of Texans want to see their judges showing no mercy to criminals.

After the trial, the convicted may appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals. However, the chances of a successful appeal on a death penalty case are extremely low, as the Court of Criminal Appeals is plagued by the same issues. The elected judges and low-grade lawyers leave death row inmates with one last option  asking for clemency. In Texas, this process is made more difficult than in other states, where a governor can grant clemency directly. Before that can happen, the state Board of Pardons and Paroles must vote to give the governor the option to grant clemency to a death row inmate. The issue with this clemency system is that it allows for shared responsibility. As expected, the board often fails to consider the inmates arguments, making clemency impossible. A governor could also spare an inmates life by never assigning the date of the execution, but in the state of Texas, the date of the execution is assigned by the judge.

In addition to the slew of unjust processes, Texas has optimized its system in a way that allows it to bring death row inmates to execution significantly quicker than in any other state. The main issue with the death penalty in Texas is the fact that not nearly enough effort is being made to administer it fairly. There have been cases of people being executed based on inconclusive evidence, or false witness testimonies (Death By Fire). The justice system that is dependent so heavily on public opinion is bound to make decisions that may be popular, but are neither logical nor humane. Although elections can work well for representative roles, they are unfit for the justice system. Unlike a congressman or a governor, who works to represent the opinions of the people who chose them, a judge must always remain impartial. Without this basic principle, the state of Texas will continue to execute people to please the crowd.

Works Cited

Death By Fire. PBS. Web.

Introduction

The institution of the death penalty is one of the most acutely discussed both from the perspectives of criminal law practice and compliance with the principles of constitutional and international law. In the USA, the complexity and contradictory nature of the state doctrine regarding the ethnic problem are complemented by the decentralization of the federal system. The issue of ensuring the principle of equality, which is fundamental for modern jurisprudence, requires assessing various aspects, including the topics of gender, economic status, health, or age. However, one of the fundamental imperatives for the entire legal system is the prohibition of racial and national discrimination. In this regard, the assessment of the problem of racial disparities and their correlations with the principles of death penalty sentencing is of high importance not only from a legal but also from a social perspective. To analyze the current trends and potential bias, real statistics need to be utilized. Racial disparities in death penalty sentencing are an acute and controversial topic that sometimes leads to criticism and public discontent caused by the existing trends to protect the personal rights and freedoms of ethnic minorities.

Literature Review

To explain the phenomenon of racial disparities in relation to the practice of criminal punishment, some researchers resort to specific concepts and models. For instance, according to Spohn (2015), while discussing ethnic issues raised in death penalty sentencing, three theories can be applied  the critical race theory, the conflict theory, and the attribution theory. The author describes the critical race theory in the context of legislative initiatives and notes that it regards a justice system built on sociodemographic characteristics, including race, as a hierarchical one (Spohn, 2015). The conflict theory, as the researcher states, is based on the assessment of values and competing norms among the population, which are coordinated to maintain stability (Spohn, 2015). Finally, according to Spohn (2015), the attribution theory that does not focus on macro-level processes posits that race-linked perceptions and stereotypes shape decisions (p. 53). This concept highlights that the decision-making process in the criminal system allows for the division of society along racial lines, which, in turn, proves the existence of disparities and potential bias.

While considering the history of the formation of laws and bills against racial stereotypes and persecution, one should pay attention to the amended legislation. Steiker and Steiker (2015) draw attention to the situation in the mid-20th century and note that bias against racial minorities was a pervasive aspect of the criminal justice system. The lack of legal practices and norms led to the fact that stereotypes influenced the imposition of death sentences due to well-formed social opinions. However, over time, the situation changed, and the official statistics confirm this. According to the data that reflect the number of people of different races sentenced to death in different years, as a percentage, towards the end of the 20th century, the situation stabilized (DPIC analysis, 2020). At the same time, the 1990s were a period of emerging political, economic, and social attitudes. In the United States, this difficult time was associated with a significant increase in the number of death sentences (636 sentenced prisoners in 1980 and 2393 in 1990) (DPIC analysis, 2020, para. 11). Nevertheless, in terms of racial differences, in those years, the percentage of prisoners did not change significantly.

An increase in the number of death penalties at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries was not reflected in the differences in the number of sentences from the perspective of racial disparities. For instance, according to the official data, over the past 20 years, the ratio of white and black death-row prisoners has remained approximately identical. According to the statistics, the proportion of black and white prisoners was 46.2% and 42.7% in 2000, respectively, 43.9% and 41.7% in 2010, respectively, and 42.2% and 41.6% in 2019, respectively (DPIC analysis, 2020, para. 11). In addition, there is a downward trend in the overall number of death sentences in the two racial groups examined, but the opposite is true for Latino prisoners. In 2000, the share of this population sentenced to death was 9%, in 2010  11.9%, in 2019  13.4% (DPIC analysis, 2020, para. 11). Thus, one cannot state unequivocally that the downward trend in the number of death sentences from a racial perspective is positive.

The assessment of the cases from American criminal practice confirms the ambiguity of the problem under consideration. Lee et al. (2015) analyze death sentences handed down to criminals from two racial groups and notes that, regardless of the number of white victims, the maximum penalty was applied to racial minorities more often. In this case, there is social bias, and statistics prove that racial discrimination exists in the criminal justice system. Espinoza and Willis-Esqueda (2015), in turn, note that public attitudes towards such a phenomenon as the death penalty are more favorable due to existing racial prejudices. In other words, long-standing views of ethnic inequality reinforce the beliefs of the racial majority that the death penalty should be retained as a mandatory phenomenon in the judicial system. This approach proves the existence of the problem of racial disparities and explains the need to study this topic in view of disagreements and supporters and opponents criticism.

Criticism of the Existing Criminal Procedure Practice

In a modern democratic society, the fight against racial discrimination is one of the important aspects due to the trend towards equality and personal freedom. Lee et al. (2015) provide examples from the 19th century and argue that the ideological doctrines and movements characteristic of that era, such as the Ku Klux Klan, can be considered terrorists. However, even in todays liberal society, issues of inequality and racial discrimination arise. Moreover, these issues manifest themselves in such a highly regulated and controlled industry as federal legislation. If official regulators and policymakers allow for the application of individual views and judgments to a guilty verdict, this system needs revising. With regard to the death penalty, when a persons life is at stake, no stereotypes or personal reasoning can be objective. Therefore, addressing racial disparities within the framework of this system is of high importance as a logical step towards the formation of a democratic society.

Suggestions for Improving the Policy

Since the existence of racial disparities in relation to the system of criminal punishment and, in particular, death penalty sentencing is statistically confirmed, addressing this issue should be part of the federal policy. The work to mitigate social prejudices is to begin in the legal framework to create a clear vision among the population that the government has an interest in resolving ambiguities and controversial opinions. In this regard, one of the tools to improve the existing criminal procedural law in relation to cases involving racial issues is engaging additional and independent commissions to analyze specific cases. The social background and personal interests of people involved in death penalty debates cannot be utilized as a justification for making such tough decisions. Therefore, additional discussions of controversial cases and the engagement of independent expert commissions are valuable interventions that can help overcome the barrier of racial inequality in sentencing.

Personal View on the Topic

Criminal prosecution in conditions of racial disparities creates challenges for both the majority and the minority. If such a severe conviction as the death penalty is imposed on an African American, this is the reason for an additional discussion and analysis. At the same time, the white population is also at a disadvantage. Capital punishment applied to a citizen of a dominant ethnic group can be perceived as an attempt to balance existing disparities, thereby being an equally dangerous form of bias. Thus, legal proceedings should take place in the framework of justice that is based solely on the legal assessment of a crime, without taking into account any additional factors that may be regarded as prejudices.

Conclusion

Today, fighting against any form of discrimination is a common trend, but racial disparities manifest themselves from different negative perspectives, and one of them is biased towards death penalty sentencing. The criticism of this phenomenon in academic literature confirms that the issue requires addressing at the highest possible level. Despite the downward trend in the number of executions, the proportion of racial minorities sentenced to capital punishment remains high. As a potential improvement to the existing policy, the involvement of independent expert commissions is necessary to assess disputed cases only in the legal field.

References

DPIC analysis: Racial disparities persisted in U.S. death sentences and executions in 2019. (2020). Death Penalty Information Center.

Espinoza, R. K., & Willis-Esqueda, C. (2015). The influence of mitigation evidence, ethnicity, and SES on death penalty decisions by European American and Latino venire persons. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(2), 288-299. Web.

Lee, J. G., Paternoster, R., & Rowan, Z. (2015). Death penalty and race. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Nationalism, 1-5.

Spohn, C. (2015). Race, crime, and punishment in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Crime and Justice, 44(1), 49-97. Web.

Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2015). The American death penalty and the (in) visibility of race. The University of Chicago Law Review, 82(1), 243-294.

Introduction

The article The Rise, Fall, and Afterlife of the Death Penalty in the United States examines the past, present, and possible future of capital punishment in the United States. Steiker and Steiker try to explain why America has maintained the death penalty after much of the Western world moved away from it (300). The authors cite different scientific accounts that point to the influence of various factors such as idiosyncratic political institutions and a cultural preference for retribution (Steiker and Steiker 301). They emphasize the continued significance of Americas racial history, indicating that the disproportionate deployment of the death penalty against blacks sustains a historical pattern of discrimination (Steiker and Steiker 307). The article attributes the recent decline in capital punishment in the United States to growing political support for abolitionism (Steiker and Steiker 308). The authors conclude that the abolition of the death penalty is feasible (Steiker and Steiker 310). However, they believe that it would not address more deep-seated problems in the criminal justice system related to racial injustice.

Main body

The chapter has a different focus compared to the article, providing an overview of the arguments for and against the death penalty. It recognizes the anomalous nature of capital punishment retention in the United States but does not examine its reasons (Manias and Monroe 410). Like the article, the chapter discusses the disproportionate racial impact of the death penalty; however, it also indicates that the economic disparity maybe even more significant (Manias and Monroe 415). The article effectively takes an abolitionist stance by pointing out that capital punishment in the United States cannot provide retribution or deterrence, given its increasing unpopularity (Steiker and Steiker 313). Unlike the article, the chapter does not take sides between the two perspectives, implying that the death penalty may, in theory, serve the purposes advocated by retentionists.

Conclusion

I found the article very interesting because it places the question of capital punishment in several broader contexts. The historical context includes the complicated evolution of capital punishment and its specific character in America. Its sociological context revolves around deeply-seated racial disparities in American society. Finally, capital punishment is also closely connected to other criminal punishment issues such as mass incarceration. I think that all of those contexts need to be considered when examining the question of whether and how the death penalty should be abolished, as it is a part of a larger system.

Works Cited

Manias, Nicholas, and Dave Monroe. The Moral Compass: An Introductory Guide to Critical Thinking and Applied Ethics. McGraw-Hill, 2020.

Steiker, Carol S., and Jordan M. Steiker. The Rise, Fall, and Afterlife of the Death Penalty in the United States. Annual Review of Criminology, vol. 3, 2020, pp. 299-315. Web.