Category: Death Penalty

The question as to whether whole life sentences with no possibility of parole are morally superior to The Death Penalty is relatively new but of the utmost importance. For most of human history, almost all punishments for crimes didn’t involve prison but instead mutilation and/or death, especially the sort of crimes that we now give out whole life sentences for; however now that The Death Penalty has been abolished in the UK, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (which should be assumed as what I’m talking about when I refer to whole life sentences from now on) is the harshest sentence we can give. In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland the whole life sentence is a specific punishment while in Scotland the judge can effectively hand out a whole life sentence due to the option of an indefinite prison sentence where parole is set outside of the criminal’s probable life; however, in all British legal systems, a whole life sentence can only be handed out when the crime(s) committed is particularly horrifying, mostly involving the murder of a particularly terrible sort. People being sentenced to life in prison is very common across the rest of the world as well, with most countries having such a punishment within their laws. The primary reason the UK and many other nations have abolished The Death Penalty is because of moral concerns and the fact that whole-life sentences can act as an alternative; however the moral superiority of whole-life sentences isn’t self-evident and since its the most extreme punishment our government can give people now it’s very important to discuss whether its better or not, which I will do in this essay.

The most common argument for whole-life sentences is that they’re like The Death Penalty in many good ways but lack the risk involved with killing someone. This is primarily argued in the sense that the criminal is no longer a threat to the public, however, they also don’t have to be killed; sparing the government from having to kill someone and eliminating the possibility of a wrongful conviction ending with an innocent being killed. This means that the government isn’t required to have the power to kill someone who’s not an active threat like with The Death Penalty (decreasing the chances of tyranny) and that the complicated moral and legal situation where a court has killed an innocent never has to reappear. This argument could be countered by referencing the fact that even if they haven’t been killed, the wrongfully convicted person could still spend much of their life in prison due to the court, which means the innocent would still be facing a terrible punishment. While it is true that wrongful convictions can’t be avoided unless how much evidence is required to convict someone changes, death is still an infinitely worse punishment than whole life imprisonment; since unlike lost time, death can never be made up for. It’s for this reason that I agree with this argument if we are to presuppose that some people are beyond redemption like whole life sentences and The Death Penalty does.

The most common argument against whole-life sentences is that they do not offer a chance at redemption, making them essentially longer and arguably crueler versions of The Death Penalty; which raises the question of whether people should just use The Death Penalty instead. This is a view often held by the religious, since most religions (for example Buddhism and Judaism) largely judge a person based upon the morality of their actions instead of a change in mindset, so from such a perspective the lack of agency prisoner’s have in prison greatly reduces their capacity to do good. This argument is often used by both those who desire more punitive justice along those who desire more rehabilitative justice since they both usually see whole life sentences as very similar to the death penalty; meaning they think you might as well go with either The Death Penalty or a lesser sentence. Those serving sentences that offer them no chance at freedom can indeed change their ways and do good from within prison-like Stanley Williams (a Crips founding member who whiles in prison on death row renounced his gang membership and spent much of his time warning people across the globe of the dangers of gangs), however, they have much more opportunity to do good with their freedom, an argument many made to try and get Williams released before he was executed. For this reason (though I think it’s an exaggeration to say that prisoners have no chance to redeem themselves behind bars), it’s perfectly valid to say that whole life sentences greatly limit the criminal’s chances at redemption, especially from a religious perspective. This is why I’m generally supportive of the argument that whole life sentences are quite similar to capital punishment, leading most of its victims to end up essentially dead, even if technically alive.

A second argument in favor of whole life sentences is that they are severe enough to match the crimes and therefore act as an effective deterrent, yet unlike The Death Penalty allow the prisoner to understand what they’ve done. This argument is a mix of practicality and sentimentality since while life imprisonment is indeed close to The Death Penalty when it comes to deterrent effect with how it deeply affects the criminal’s life, the practical effect of the criminal understanding the gravity of their actions is minimal when they’ll never actually get freedom. Nonetheless, the idea that a criminal could be executed without respecting the gravity of their actions disturbs many people. For example, you have Arthur Hutchison, who in the year 1983 at the age of 42 broke into an elderly couple’s home and killed them along with their son, before raping their 18-year-old daughter; all of which happened on the same day that their other daughter’s wedding reception took place, in that very home. Such horrific crimes’ inconceivable weight is clear to us, however, it wasn’t to Arthur himself and the idea that he could die not feeling the weight of his crimes is troublesome to many people. Most people who are given either whole life sentences or used to be given The Death Penalty commit crimes at a similar level so, understandably, many people would not want to grant them death, instead leaving them to think about their actions. I understand why people would want these criminals to know the gravity of what they’ve done, however, this is too unlikely for me to hedge my bets on. While many (and perhaps even most) people who are given whole life sentences come to understand what they’ve done, not all will; so for them, the sentence is simply an escape from execution. Then also you get people who are warped by their sentences like Robbert Maudsley, who got a whole life sentence for murdering a child rapist in 1974 before going on to murder 3 more people in prison, likely because there was little else that could be done to him now that he had lost his freedom permanently. Because of the unreliability of prisoners having this revelation and the possibility of a whole life sentence making the sentenced fearless I don’t think this argument holds up, people simply are too unpredictable to be forced into experiencing certain things.

To turn towards the views of particular groups on The Death Penalty and whole life sentences we can look at those of Humanists. The non-theistic philosophy of Humanism is based upon the idea that what drives humanity is human agency and the choices that individual humans make, not believing in anything supernatural like an afterlife. Humanists are almost exclusively against The Death Penalty because their philosophy dictates that all people have inherent value as they only ever exist in this world, so killing them doesn’t respect that value; however, the Humanist community doesn’t have as clear a stance on whole life sentences. This article from a Humanist website called TheHumanist makes an argument against whole life sentences, its core argument being summed up in this part which says:

“Humanists emphasize living in this world instead of preparing for a supposed afterlife. But with that recognition must come the understanding that life sentences without parole are inherently unethical”

As mentioned in the article itself, this opposition to life imprisonment is very similar to that of Humanist opposition to capital punishment since in both scenarios the criminal will never be able to exercise their full agency again. This is akin to the previously mentioned argument against life sentences that they don’t offer a chance at redemption, however, it’s different in that this Humanist argument (which seems very consistent with Humanist beliefs) sees human action through an agency as the only source of good in the world, making it the most important part of the criminals’ existences. I feel that to value the inherent humanness within everyone so highly without some supernatural justification is questionable, however, I still understand the concern. I’d agree that in most situations if someone’s freedom is being heavily restricted like it is in prison they have lost much of what it means to be alive, making the outcome for those who never have their sentences altered often similar to that of The Death Penalty.

The other group whose views on the matter of life imprisonment and The Death Penalty will I look at here is an organization, that is The Catholic Church. While the views of The Church have changed a lot over the years and many within it disagree with one another I shall go with The Church’s official stance, since said stance is set by The Pope and by the organization’s own rules he is the only one who can truly interpret God’s teachings. Like his predecessors, Pope Francis has taken a stand against The Death Penalty due to the Christian view that all people have a divine spark, making it possible for all to be redeemed; however, his opposition to whole-life sentences is shown in the following quote from the Catholic Citizen website is more unique to himself;

“I link this to life imprisonment. A short time ago the life sentence was taken out of the Vatican’s Criminal Code. A life sentence is just a death penalty in disguise.”

His opinion (and therefore the opinion of Catholicism) is surprisingly similar to that of the aforementioned (quite typical) Humanist, despite the many differences in their core beliefs. A belief that their ideologies do share in common is that they inherently value people and believe that they all deserve some level of respect, even if they believe this for different reasons. So while they do understand that in some circumstances people must be stopped permanently for the safety of others, this should be avoided at all costs; meaning that in the modern day because of the technology we have, etc. capital punishment and life imprisonment are unnecessary. It seems to me that almost all beliefs that place indestructible value on the individual oppose the use of both The Death Penalty and whole life sentences unless they are necessary to protect people, which most think they never are in the modern world. As someone with Utilitarian leanings, I think that there are still quite a lot of reasonably likely scenarios in the modern world where someone who isn’t an active threat would have to be at least given a whole life sentence, so I’m not convinced of the idea that they have no application in the UK. Nevertheless, I do think that all people can be redeemed and that you should never be cruel to anyone, even those who are monstrous, so I do think that whole life sentences and The Death penalty both have a similar base level of immorality.

In conclusion, from what I’ve seen and considered, whole life sentences that disclude the possibility of parole and The Death Penalty are morally almost identical; however whole life sentences just barely prove to be more ethically sound, so I would say they are indeed the morally superior of the two. I think whole life sentences ignore the inherent value of human beings in the same way that The Death Penalty does, something which Humanist and Catholic views imply. I also think that whole-life sentences can’t be trusted to punish criminals in any particular way because of how much variance there is in how people react to whole-life sentences and that they greatly limit a criminal’s chances of reformation, along with any good they could do. Despite all of this, I stand by my answer that whole-life sentences are better than capital punishment because, with whole-life sentences, there is still hope. People stuck in prison may often (though not always) in some way end up dead, but not literally: if they don’t die behind bars they could be metaphorically brought back to life through freedom. Even if they were sentenced to life imprisonment there is still hope that there could be a change in law or something else to the same effect, meanwhile, if someone has truly been killed, there is no coming back. While I’ve concluded that it’s certainly not unreasonable to be against both whole life sentences without any chance of parole and The Death Penalty, I can still confidently say that when compared to The Death Penalty, whole life sentences are the morally superior option.

Although the death penalty has been withdrawn it still exists in some states in the USA and is used in other countries across the globe. Is death a suitable punishment, or does it reduce civilization to the status of murderers?

The dilemma of whether the death penalty is ethical is a major issue that society has been facing for centuries. Currently, capital punishment more commonly known as the death penalty is used in 53 countries around the world to deprive someone of their life because they are believed to have committed crimes deemed by society and the governments as deserving the infliction of death. This essay will discuss how the death penalty should not be considered a suitable punishment and on the contrary how the law and society should condemn and abolish it as a means of punishment as there is no official evidence that killing individuals contributes to less wrongdoing or deters crime.

The death penalty has been used to punish the guilty for centuries. It is the act of executing someone for a particular wrongdoing. It is the harshest of all disciplines as there is no point of return, death is definitive. Supportive and counter considerations against the ‘moral side’ of the death penalty have been the center of debates for a long time. Although individuals who advocate the necessity of the death penalty consider the positive effects of the execution, they fail to acknowledge that capital punishment does not guide society to good morals; on the contrary, it infringes our Human Rights Act and punishes innocent individuals to an unfair and painful death without having given them the second chance that everyone deserves.

On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly passed the ‘Human Rights Bill.’ ‘No one shall be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhumane, or humiliating treatment or punishment,’ declares Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Epstein, 2014). The death penalty is barbaric and a terrible punishment for the entire human race. We preach non-violence, but we put it into action in our daily lives. Execution is an inhumane method of putting an end to a human life. The death penalty does not discourage future killings. Most intellectual criminological groups oppose the idea that the death sentence deters murder, according to the Death Penalty Information Center (The Death Penalty Information Centre, 2021). Fear of the death penalty has an insignificant effect on murderers.

An outraged person’s ‘argument’ usually leads to a murder. ‘I think I’m going to kill today,’ a normal person does not say. (DPI, 2021) People never consider the possibility of being executed if they murder someone. People still kill, and the number of murders in the United States and elsewhere in the world where people are being executed has not diminished.

Advocates of the death penalty support the idea that the fear of capital punishment would eventually diminish the killer instinct of the individual and that the dread of the execution would be a hindrance. The main weakness of this theory is that despite, what is expected, the contrary is achieved, as the individual knows that even if they get arrested the end is predefined so with that mindset, nothing will stop them from going extensively further, to do substantially more evil.

Another point of view of the supporters of the death penalty is that in society there must be some form of retribution for heavy crimes, a relief for those who are left behind, a lesson that should be taught. It is projected as the hand of law, or even worse as the way the law decides that an ‘eye for an eye’ should be applied in the case of someone who has committed a heinous crime and that what is owed to the families of the victims is to take their revenge by even allowing them to be the spectators in the execution. In this case, the state itself does not differentiate between the criminals as it chooses to commit the same crime by taking someone’s life without, however, the state having to bear the consequences of its actions. The key problem with this behavior is that the death of the criminal will not bring the lives of the victims back. On the contrary, it leads society to wrongdoing and reinforces the idea that you sow what you seed which is utterly wrong. One would argue if the death of the criminal will bring psychological peace to the relatives of the victims, if that would occur surely it would have a temporary duration, as in reality, no sane person would be happy watching someone else die. There have been cases where this temporary feeling of justice was soon transformed into guilt and regret because a person who has been saved and reintegrated into society was never given this chance. When an attempt is made to implement the policy, we should consider the examples of individuals who have come out to express their regret when shortly after the execution of the criminal, and the short satisfaction of watching him die, the family felt that this action had little or no impact on society and that they wish they had not supported the idea of the person being executed, like the case of the Hall Family in the state of Missouri in the United States.

After losing their daughter who was murdered by Jeff Ferguson, her father announced that ‘his family has come to deeply regret Ferguson’s execution.’ Death opens a vicious circle of pain and sadness that another death will not manage to heal or bring to closure. Instead, the people left behind will always have to carry it with them until they die.

More recently, research has also concluded that other factors predetermine if an individual will be sentenced to death, and the findings are contradictory. Race, gender, and social class of the victims and the offenders are potentially decisive factors when the decision is taken upon the punishment of the offender. For instance, women individuals are treated more leniently than men, as judges tend to empathize with them, being in a more vulnerable state than male offenders. Furthermore, in previous research, judges themselves have confirmed the preferential treatment of female offenders by the court (Johnson, 2003; Nagel

Introduction

The death penalty refers to a premeditated way by which the authorities (governments) take ones life for an offence previously committed as a way of restitution in the justice legal system. The death penalty presents a very controversial issue argued from the moral, religious and judicial points of view.

Arguments that do not seem to be ceasing have been presented by various parties who have a feeling that persons who have committed very gross offences deserve to lose their lives. On the other hand other arguments are raised to oppose this view. If one was unfairly judged for instance would mean they lose their lives unfairly.

Thesis Statement

In as much as death penalty serves to enforce the law in the society consequently punishing heinous crimes, it is important to analyze its clash with the ideals of a moral society. This is because any form of killing is not only immoral but an indicator of the flaws in justice system.

How does the death penalty relate to ethics?

In society persons have been quick to point out that it is not ethical to take away a persona life. On the other hand, others are of the view that people who carry out gross offences do no deserve to stay in an ethical community and therefore justifying their execution. These view points including the following will be highlighted:

1. Religion and its relationship with the death penalty
2. Morality of the death penalty
3. Roughness of the crime justifies death penalty
4. Violation of human rights
5. Application on juveniles and mentally retarded people makes it barbaric

Arguments for the death penalty

The death penalty, gross as it appears to other people, has support from different quarters. The proponents of the death penalty are of the view that several gains are bound to be achieved at the institution of this penalty. In this segment the following will be discussed:

1. Deterrence of would be criminals
2. Emotional compensation to aggrieved families
3. Justice achieved
4. Very high costs incurred in keeping criminals

Arguments against the death penalty

Although religious views form the largest bulk of people’s opinion against the death penalty, moral, social, political and ethical perspectives will be reviewed. In this section several considerations for the opponents of this penalty will be elaborated. These will include:

1. Creates a loophole for racial and ethnic discrimination
2. Cruel punishment and violation of human rights
3. High reversal rate indicates infallibility
4. Immoral and unethical
5. Unfair judgments could lead to gross damage to innocent people
6. Two wrongs do not make a right
7. Lack of respect for human life since it is a form of murder

Effect of emotions on my position for or against the death penalty

In as much as I feel emotional towards the aggrieved families, I still feel for persons to be executed. The weight of my feelings therefore leans towards the accused. In this segment details of why I feel the aggrieved needs to be given a chance to live will be expanded further.

Problems associated with the decision to execute a defendant from the juror’s perspective.

Several challenges are faced by the juror when coming up with a decision to send a human being to the gallows. The challenges to be highlighted here include:

1. Innocence of someone already sentenced to death
2. Emotions of the juror vs. the requirements of the justice system in place
3. Effect of Pressure groups
4. Overturning the ruling in future

How does morality play a part?

Morality’s effect on the death penalty has two faces to it. The tow perspectives that will be elaborated upon are:

1. The proponents view

(ii) The opponents view

The disparity in execution rates based on race as well

This segment will pose statistics for different states that indicate how great variance occurs in persons who have been sentenced to the gallows in as much as race is concerned. Blacks Hispanics and Whites arte apparently treated differently in the judicial system as seen in several researches done. These details will be highlighted but specificity will be given on the death penalty.

Conclusion

In conclusion, all the details highlighted in this paper will be given a mention.

References

Allen, H., Clubb, J., & Lacey, V. (2008). Race, class, and the death penalty: capital punishment in American history. New York: State University of New York press.

Bedau, H. & Cassell, P. (2004). Debating the death penalty: should America have capital punishment? New York: Oxford University press.

Berns, W. (1991). For capital punishment: crime and the morality of the death penalty. California: University Press of America.

Waller, B. (2008). Consider Ethics: Theory, Readings, and Contemporary Issues (2nd ed). New York: Pearson/Longman

Delsman, E. (1998). Morality and the death penalty. Amherst: Amherst College.

Jones, S. (2010). Coalition Building in the Anti-Death Penalty Movement: Privileged Morality, Race Realities. New York: Lexington Books.

Miethe, T., Lu, H. (2005). Punishment: a comparative historical perspective. New York: Cambridge University press.

Owens, E., Carlson, J., & Elshtain, E. (2004). Religion and the death penalty: a call for reckoning. Cambridge: Wm B Eerdmans Publishing.

Stearman, K. (2008). The Debate about the Death Penalty. New York: Rosen Publishing.

Zimring, F., Hawkins, G. (1989). Capital Punishment and the American Agenda. New York: Cambridge University press.

Introduction

Crime rate have gone high in various parts of the world especially in the recent past. Consequently, various institutions have been striving to find ways through which crime rates can be controlled. More specifically, robberies and other kinds of armed crimes have increased with people getting killed on the process. The loss of property as well as the loss of lives that result from these crimes should not go unpunished. People need to get punishment for their evils so as to deter others from picking up the same characters.

However, the problem has been getting the right kind of punishment for each crime. Death penalty that has been allowed for various crimes has elicited a lot of debate. People have varying views as regards this punishment. While others support it, there are those who oppose it with totality. Nevertheless, the question that we should ask ourselves is whether this punishment can be just and fairly applied.

Arguments against the Penalty

Protests have been staged by various groups of people who oppose the death penalty. On the same note, many people have also added their voice on the opposition giving various reasons why the penalty should not be used. To begin with, it has been argued that the basic human right is the right to life.

Depriving any person of that right is basically going against human rights (Simon, 2001). Any person should be given the chance to enjoy the basic human rights. However, the death penalty takes away people’s lives. On the same note, the Bible as well as the Quran prohibits people from killing others. Therefore, it is immoral to execute the death penalty because that is tantamount to killing. A sin cannot be cleansed by another sin. The fact that criminals kill people does not justify the act of killing the criminals.

Moreover, those against death penalty have argued that the penalty literally deprives the affected their right to due process of the law. While other punishments give room for people to appeal against the sentence, death penalty closes that door.

The convicts are killed and if there is any new evidence or new technology that could lead to new ideologies about the case nothing can be done (Bienen, 2010). It is important to note that there is always a possibility of innocence and advancement in technology can be vital in revealing this. Nonetheless, if the death penalty is imposed, new evidence adds no weight.

Furthermore, statistics have shown that death penalty does not help in reduction of the rates of crime in society. Research shows that murders and other forms of violent crimes are high in states where death penalty is being practiced compared to states which have abolished death penalty. This shows the inability of the penalty to meet its intended objectives.

Consequently, there are other forms of punishment that can be used instead of the death penalty and be more effective. It should be noted that opposing the death penalty does not mean that people are oblivious of the magnitude of the crimes committed by this criminals. On the contrary, it is an advocacy for a different type of punishment that will be consistent with the provisions of our constitution (Levesque, 2006). Human life is very precious and needs to be protected at all costs.

While it is clear that the government and the judicial system aim at protecting human life that is terminated by criminals, we cannot achieve this by terminating other lives. Murder is not only immoral but also lack of respect for human life. On the same note, most victims of murder do not support the death sentence. Similarly, it beats logic for the state to say that killing is wrong while advocating for the death penalty at the same time.

Additionally, the cost involved with the death penalty is higher than that of holding somebody in jail for life. This is because the court process for murder trials takes long. On the same note, no person will agree with the first sentence when the sentence is death. Therefore, appeals in these cases are more frequent compared to other cases.

There are unavoidable delays from the moment the sentence is passed to the point when it is executed. To reduce this period of time and by extension the costs associated with murder trials, safety procedures have to be reduced (Bedau & Cassell, 2005). Unfortunately, this will lead to innocent people being convicted and put to death. Definitely, this is against the aims of the judicial systems which involve giving the defendants fair trials.

It is important to ask ourselves the main aim of punishing a criminal. Basically, people are punished for the wrongs that they do so that they can learn and not to repeat the same acts again. These people are supposed to correct their behavior and learn how to behave in society in order to live harmoniously with other members.

It goes without saying that death penalty does not achieve this. In this regard, life sentence without parole is worse than death penalty. While people who are sentenced to life without parole are forced to lead a hard confined life where they bitterly regret their acts, death penalty saves criminals.

There is no way that a person can learn that his or her acts were wrong when they are dead (Simon, 2001). In many instances, violent criminals know that they will die either during their crimes or thereafter and others have already resigned to die. Therefore, sentencing these people to death only helps them to meet their targets. Moreover, no criminal thinks of the consequences of any crime before committing it.

Notably, allowing the death sentence is equivalent to saying that an equal and proportional punishment should be imposed on any crime. Take for example a person who shoots and kills a single person intentionally. That is murder and if the idea of proportional punishment is upheld, then the person should be killed. Take another example of a person who kidnaps three young girls, sexually abuses them, tortures them and finally kills.

What is supposed to be the punishment of this person? If the principal of proportional justice is upheld then the person should be tortured before being killed. It is clear from the above examples that the possibility of justifying heinous forms of punishment is high with the death penalty in place (Levesque, 2006). Moreover, it should be noted that the judicial system is not there to serve as a form of revenge but rather to protect people. Killing a criminal does not bring back the victim but adds another dead person.

We all agree that killing an innocent person is atrocious and should not be allowed in any civil society. However, it should be known that those who are caught are just a small fraction of people. There are very many people who commit various horrible crimes and are still free in the society.

On the same note, being found guilty depends on the lawyer that one has. Rich people who are able to afford good lawyers usually get their way. Meanwhile the poor have no means of defending themselves and they are often the causalities of death penalty (Bienen, 2010). Many other people in the society also deserve to die but they are given lighter sentences, why should murders’ case be different?

Arguments in Favor of the Penalty

Nevertheless, there are people who are confident with the death penalty and always favor it. The proponents of death penalty argue that people should always be punished with what they deserve. Justice is better served if each crime is punished with the equal seriousness that it deserves. Murders should be given the harshest punishment that will deter others who might think of committing the crime.

If crimes are given lesser punishments than it would be appropriate the essence of punishment will be lost. Murderers take people’s lives and it should not be different when it comes to their lives. These criminals deprive their victims of their right to life which is a basic human right. Moreover, it should be noted that many murderers kill their victims in the most crude and inhuman ways causing them excruciating pain in many circumstances.

On the other hand, the death penalty is carried out in a manner that will cause the least pain to the convict which is just fair (Bedau & Cassell, 2005). Furthermore, killing in itself is wrong and there is no reason why a person who has killed another human being be allowed to enjoy living. To make matters worse is that these criminal only kill innocent people which is immoral and wrong by any standards.

On the same note, once criminals have been caught and taken before courts, they enjoy a lot of protection. Our judicial system leans towards the side of the criminals giving them a lot of lee ways to defend themselves and get away with their crimes. Seldom does the judicial system try to understand the pain that victims suffer either during or after the crime. Victims should be able to feel that justice has been served and that their suffering has been effectively addressed.

The main argument of those against death penalty is that there is a possibility of sending the wrong person to the hangman. However, the proponents of the penalty have a counter argument. According to the proponents, there has been great improvement in scientific technology in the recent years.

Consequently, there are many ways that can be used to determine with increased precision the perpetrator of a crime especially murder.DNA testing and other scientific techniques are up to 99% accurate which minimizes the chances that an innocent person will be condemned (Levesque, 2006). Additionally, there has never been any reported case of a wrong person who has been executed. With these improvements, there should not be any question as regards the implementation of the death penalty.

In the recent years, escapes from prisons have increased. Notably, most escapees are hardcore criminals who know that they have nothing to lose if they try escaping.

hen these criminals get back into the society, crime is their only way of earning a living. As a result, these people do not mind killing or committing other violent crimes. Similarly, prisons parole can give criminals a chance to get out of prison cells (Simon, 2001). In this regard, the only way to ensure that murderers do not get the opportunity of committing the same crimes again is through death penalty.

Similarly, it is irreverent to argue that death penalty has not reduced crime rates in our society. Any rational person fears death than anything else in this world. The idea that death is imminent sends waves of fear to every person. For any rational person who takes time to plan for murder, the death penalty will serve to deter them. Unfortunately, there are others who murder due to circumstances or due to psychological instability. For these people, no sentence can deter them not even the life without parole sentence.

It is important to note that other crimes in the society cannot be punished by any other sentence other than death. If a person is a serial murderer who enjoys killing and enjoys torturing his or her victims, there is no better way to punish this person other than the death penalty. Besides serving justice, the death penalty will help to save other many lives that would have been lost in the hands of the criminal (Bienen, 2010). In a nutshell, death penalty is very effective according to the proponents.

Personal Position

Death penalty was introduced with the sole purpose of deterring people from committing violent crimes. It depends on the defense team handling the case for one to be sentenced to death. People who depend on court-appointed lawyers always lose their cases. This is because state lawyers are inexperienced and lack the necessary skills to carry serious cases like murder.

On the same note, these lawyers are mostly poorly paid which demoralizes them. It has also been argued that, the death penalty is applied depending on the race of the victim and the criminal (Levesque, 2006). There is a higher probability that death penalty will be passed if the victim is white and the defendant is colored.

On the other hand, the death penalty has failed in its essence because many murders are being reported in regions where the death penalty is in place. Moreover, it is not everybody who fears death that they can stop committing crimes because somebody was killed.

Criminals get shot and killed day in day out while committing their crimes but other gang members go ahead and commit crimes oblivious of what happened to their friends. As a result, death penalty cannot be a solution. It should be reiterated also that the judicial system is not there to help in revenge missions (Bienen, 2010). Therefore, it cannot be that because somebody is accused of violent crimes, the only punishment is a death penalty.

Conclusion

Violent crimes are very heinous and should not be allowed to thrive in any society. They are not only brutal but also inhuman and cause a lot of negative effects especially to the victims. In this regard, perpetrators of these abhorrent acts should be punished in the most serious way. However, death penalty should not be an option. It simply deprives criminals the chance to repent. Killing is killing whether it is done as a punishment or not. Consequently, the death penalty can never be fair and justly applied.

References

Bedau, H. A. & Cassell, P. G. (2005). Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? The Experts on Both Sides Make Their Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bienen, L. B. (2010). Murder and Its Consequences: Essays on Capital Punishment in America. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

Levesque, R. J. (2006). The Psychology and Law of Criminal Justice Processes. New York: Nova Publishers.

Simon, T. W. (2001). Law and Philosophy: An Introduction with Readings. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Introduction

Death penalty has been a serious debate issue both in the United States of America and other parts of the world. There have been those who champion for the abolition of death penalty and there have also been those who want the death penalty to be maintained citing that some criminals cannot be tolerated within the society.

So many nations in the world have been reported to have abandoned the death penalty yet others have continued to use it. It is crucial to mention that death penalty has been used constitutionally by some states to punish political dissidents hence raising the main objectives of the capital punishment in terms of containing felony and other forms of criminal activities all over the world.

Similarities between the two articles

The first similarity that is very conspicuous between the two articles is that they both address the issue of death penalty both within the United States of America and other parts of the world. The two articles are cognizant of the fact there are some states within the United States of America that have actually abolished death penalty as a capital punishment; however, they also recognize that of these states have not abolished the corporal punishment and still apply it in punishing specific class of criminals (Bole pp.1-3 and Hartnett pp. 1-2).

Again, the two articles examine the different modes of meting death penalty in the United States and other parts of the world. Amongst the mode of meting death penalty discussed by the articles are electrocutions through electric chair, lethal injection, gas chambers and firing by hidden prison warders. It is important to note that these articles distinguish these death penalty modes into both historic and current; they also cite technological advancements utilized in the process (Bole pp.1-3 and Hartnett pp. 1-2).

It is also important to mention that the two articles are cognizant of the fact that the execution of those sentenced to state execution have slowed down over the past several years. They both explain that it has been highly possible that innocent people have mistakenly been executed only to be realized letter that they were innocent people.

The slow down has been informed by the fact that there is need for thorough investigations to be conducted before carrying out executions. In the case of the United States of America, the slow down in the execution has been explained by the decision of the Supreme Court to stop the execution until repeals are conclusive on a particular case for which an inmate has been sentenced to death.

Both articles have also addressed the fact that some governments have considered abolishing the death penalty (Bole pp.1-3 and Hartnett pp. 1-2). For instance, one article states that a good number of states are considering putting a stop to death as a capital penalty within their jurisdictions.

Besides, another article reveals that the governor of the state of Illinois, George Ryan made of declaration of a suspension on death penalty and further appointed a commission and charged it with the responsibility of studying the system of capital punishment in the state (Bole pp.1-3 and Hartnett pp. 1-2).

Differences of the two essays

As much as the two essays have addressed similar themes, there are some differences that can be pointed out. Whereas one essay has addressed the issue of death penalty in general, another is specific din pointing out the specific cases of executions that have taken place in the past.

The essay on the American death penalty history reveals about the studies that have been done on how technological advancement has changed the way death penalty is carried out; for instance, it gives an insight into how death penalty has moved from trap-door gallows to what is known as the “Upright jerker” to electric chair then to gas chambers and finally to lethal injections. The other article has not addressed this issue.

However, it is again important to note that the essay on history of The American death penalty has not addressed some issues that are addressed by the essay on the sow death. The essay slow death gives an insight about pressure to abandon death penalty; for instance, the articles states that in Colorado, one-vote margin was used to put down an uprising meant to go against the death penalty. This has not been hinted by the essay of the history of the American death penalty (Bole pp.1-3 and Hartnett pp. 1-2).

Again, the article on slow death has given statistics regarding death sentencing while the other article has not discussed any form of statistics. In this case, the essay on slow death has systematically given various statistics touching on different issues of capital punishment. For instance, it reveals that in 2009, the state and the federal courts sentenced 37 inmates to execution which it recognizes as the lowest number since the year 1994.

In 2010, it further states that the number of those sentenced to death reduced to thirty. This makes the essay relevant in predicting that soon death penalty may be a thing of the past; this prediction is not possible with the essay about the history of the American death penalty since it is just a general discussion about death penalty in the United States of America (Bole pp.1-3 and Hartnett pp. 1-2).

The essay on the slow death has revealed the fact that despite the commitment of various states to put an end to death penalty, there are some states that still strongly mete death penalty.

One of the states is Texas which is described as amongst the world’s busiest executioners handling almost the largest executions in the world. This is stated that will make the United States of America in general unique with respect to abolition of death penalty worldwide. All these issues are not addressed by the other essay on the history of death sentencing in America (Bole pp.1-3 and Hartnett pp. 1-2).

The essay on slow death has also discussed about the cost of death sentencing to the state and concerned individuals. The cost is examined in terms of moral cost and the financial cost. For instance, the essay indicates that anti-death penalty individuals have argued that the financial cost involved in death penalty issues could be utilized in taking care of unresolved murder issues that still pending within the justice system.

In terms of moral cost, the essay on slow death posits that the death punishment has been disputed on the ground of it subverting what Pop John referred to as a “Culture of life.” However, the essay reveals that all these cannot be sufficient grounds on which death penalty should be abandoned. All these issues are also not addressed in the other essay that has dealt with the history of death penalty (Bole pp.1-3 and Hartnett pp. 1-2).

Conclusion

Death penalty has been debated by so many people amongst who are those who fight for its abolition and those who favor it its retention within the statutes. The two articles have addressed the issue of death penalty. In the process they have some similarities and differences.

Amongst the similar issues addressed by the two articles is the fight by anti-death penalty crusaders for states to abolish death penalty as a corporal punishment and the fact that some states are planning to abolish death penalty and struck it out of their statutory books. However, states like Texas has been described to still strongly cling to death penalty as a way of capital punishment and is not likely to let go any time soon (Bole pp.1-3 and Hartnett pp. 1-2).

Two essays have also discussed certain issues differently. The article on slow death has given statistics regarding death sentencing while the other article has not discussed any form of statistics.

In this case, the essay on slow death has systematically given various statistics touching on different issues of capital punishment. For example, it indicates that in 2009, the state and the federal courts sentenced 37 inmates to execution which it recognizes as the lowest number since the year 1994. This kind of statistics has not been given the other essay (Bole pp.1-3 and Hartnett pp. 1-2).

Nonetheless, the debate about death penalty is knot likely to end soon as long as there are still those who support its statutory relevance and those who view it as an outdated form of punishment and cruelty to humanity, especially with regards to how it is carried out. Even though some states in the United States of America and countries in other parts of the world have started to abolish the penalty other states are actually reinstating it in their constitution (Bole pp.1-3 and Hartnett pp. 1-2).

Works Cited

Bole, William. “A slow Death.” Common Wealth. New York: Common Wealth Foundation, 2009.

Hartnett. Stephen. “The Death Penalty: An American History.” The Journal of American History: New York: Bloomington, 2003.

Death penalty is not new in the judicial system of the United States. The state of Virginia was the first to apply it to captain George Kendal who had committed the offence of being an emissary of Spain.

It surprises to realize that the penalty has been there since the year 1608. During this time, the penalty covered all the people who had committed any of the 25 criminal offences specified by the judicial system where the offenders met their death through drowning, piercing with a sharp stake, excruciation, and blazing or beating to death among others.

However, there stands many questions concerning the penalty and in particular the people whose crimes pass for the penalty. As the paper reveals, the penalty does not serve as a deterrent to crimes.

The death penalty does not at all serve as an impediment to criminal offences. As Caxton (2008) observes, the penalty is quite “ineffective as a deterrent to lower crime rates” (Para. 1). The efficiency of the penalty ought to depend much on the type of the felony committed as well as the psychological state of those who commit it.

Majority of those who commit slaughter crimes do it based on their psychological challenges. For instance, insane people might decide any time to kill innocent people. Therefore, even if the judicial body subjects this penalty to this group of people, it will not deter the criminal offences since the crime doers cannot think logically.

In countries like the United States, crime rates are comparatively high. The observation follows several reasons one being the fact that majority do it unaware of the corresponding repercussions. Therefore, as Schaefer (2009) points out, “…they will continue to commit the crimes as long as they do not face the necessary consequences of the action” (p. 176).

Another reason behind the high crime rates is the fact that the death penalty covers some, but not all the crimes. Therefore, even if the penalty is put under operation, it will leave a space for some other crimes, which usually outweigh the ones it covers.

Different countries have responded differently towards the penalty with some rejecting it and others welcoming it. For Instance, some like Germany and Switzerland have declared the penalty unworthy thereby abolishing it and coming up with some other penalties in place of the death punishment.

They have adopted the life sentence where the offenders stay under arrest for an unknown length of time thereby going through rehabilitation. However, others like Singapore have accepted the penalty claiming that it effectively hinders criminal offences. In fact, Jeralyn (2011) confirms this.

He says, “Singapore’s law provides the death penalty for anyone caught with more than 15 grams of heroin (Kong had 47) and provides no exceptions” (Para. 1).

However, based on my opinion concerning the penalty, I do not accept it. Instead, it ought to be abolished and declared illegal because it is against the eighth amendment act, which forbids such punishments like the death penalty since according to it, they are no more than bizarre sanctions.

In addition, based on the misconceptions behind the penalty, some people have faced it unfairly, not based on the nature of crime, but based on their inability to cater for the expenses of their lawyers who in turn abandon them leaving them to defend themselves. In such situations, the judges end up declaring the offenders guilty and worth the penalty.

Youths, who have committed violent crimes, ought not to face the death penalty based on their value, not only to their families, but also to the world at large. The society expects a lot from them since they are energetic and quick of understanding.

Therefore, as a way of punishing them, the judiciary needs to rehabilitate them by instilling in them skills, which they will apply to sustain themselves and their communities, a plan that will leave them with no time and reason to commit such crimes.

Reference List

Caxton, G. (2008). Death Penalty in the United States. Web.

Jeralyn, C. (2011). Singapore’s Mandatory Death Penalty: Yong Vui Kong. Web.

Schaefer, R. (2009). Sociology: A brief Introduction. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Introduction

The death penalty is regarded as a capital punishment. The penalty can be executed by use of an injection that contains a concoction of legal drugs, beheading in some states, hanging or the firing squad. In the United States, the main crimes punishable by the death penalty are felony, aggravated murder, contacted killing and murder. The sentence is handed down by a judge, jury, or a plea of guilt (Uelmen and Boscia, 63).

The death sentence was exercised in the United States as early as the 17th century. The crimes punishable by death included theft, witchcraft, homosexuality, and hitting one’s parents. During this time, execution was done by hanging in the public followed by the firing squad.

The American capital punishment system borrows heavily from the British legal system. The first documented death penalty was of George Kendall who was a captain and was executed by a firing squad in the first decade of the 17th century (Herrmann, 37). George was sentenced for mutiny and spying.

By the 18th century, the offenses for capital punishment were limited to murder and treason. Burning of the sentenced and bludgeoning were introduced, but hanging remained prevalent. By the 19th century, juries began to advise against execution in many states with Michigan being the first to put a stop to it in 1846.

The burning and bludgeoning also ended at around this time. Burning and bludgeoning were replaced by electrocution with the ancient hanging and firing still being dominant. It was during the 1930s that there was rampant executions. In the period between 1950 and 1970, there were unanimous sentiments about abolishing the death penalty.

It was abolished for some time only to be reinstated in 1976. However, sixteen of the states abolished it while those that practice it do so minimally and for charges of treason and murder (Singh, 33). The trend of the death penalty has been decreasing over time. Notably, “death sentences reached a record low of 78 in 2011” (Kim, para 1). A debate about whether or not capital punishment should continue to be used in the United States is based on three grounds: cost, retribution and fairness.

The debate on death penalty

Whether the death penalty is cost effective or not continues to be widely controversial. Those that are against the death sentence argue that the death penalty is a costly process. A convicted person is likely to use the whole appeal processes in trying to overturn the sentence. The costs associated with placing a charged person on death row include costs of investigation, long and rigorous court hearings and appeals, and the cost of the execution itself (Hull, 113).

A report by the California Commission on the fair Administration of Justice in 2008 indicated that annual costs of the use capital punishment were at $137 million annually. However, with reforms that had been recommended by the commission to make sure that the process of issuing a death penalty was fair, it would cost $232.7 million annually.

On the other hand, the costs incurred by a system, which issues a maximum penalty of life imprisonment would be only $11.5 million annually. In addition, the costs incurred in the defense of a death case (federal), was estimated at $620,932 million. This was around eight times more than that of the same offense where capital punishment is not sought (Uelmen and Boscia, 16).

Those who are supportive of the death penalty argue that the huge costs incurred are worth it as the death sentence puts away the convict forever, and thus reduces crime. They argue that costs should not stand in the way of justice being administered (Uelmen and Boscia, 63).

In my opinion, the cost associated with the death sentence are clearly outrageous and could otherwise be put to better use in the society. Nonetheless, the quest for justice cannot come cheaply under whatever circumstances, the death penalty or not, and thus it should not be a hindrance for justice to prevail.

Whether retribution is an adequate form of justice or not is another point of controversy in the death penalty debate. The proponents of capital punishment argue that the death penalty will remind potential criminals of the consequences of their actions. Retribution refers to revenge, and those supporting the death sentence are of the view that, if a person takes away another person’s life, his or her life should also be terminated.

The retribution aspect is borrowed from the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. They believe that the punishment for a crime should match the crime committed. The advocates of the death penalty argue that there can be no other justice for a murderer other than for their lives to be taken (Singh, 189).

The opponents of the death penalty argue that killing is wrong under whatever circumstances. Therefore, killing the convict does not change the prior crime committed or help to bring back the dead to life. They argue that the state commit the same crime as that of the convict by committing murder themselves albeit knowingly.

They argue that lesser sentences like life imprisonment can serve to deter the convict and make them come to terms with the crime they committed (Hull, 76). In my opinion, using retribution as a form of justice is inevitable, but two wrongs do not make a right. The legal systems have to instill higher principles of respect for life even that of a murderer.

Fairness in the administration of the death penalty is probably the most controversial point of debate

There are many questions raised including what are the criteria used to pass the death sentence and not life imprisonment?

What is the probability of convicting an innocent person? Is there racial bias when passing the death sentences? These questions touch on the issue of fairness. There are no clear guidelines as to how to reach a death sentence. Many high profile criminals have gotten away with numerous murders just because they could afford some of the best lawyers. On the other hand, the poor and sometimes innocent are awarded the penalty due to lack of proper representation.

In addition, an aspect of racial profiling has been observed in the implementation of the death penalty (Uelmen and Boscia, 140). Some states have done away with the death penalty. However, others such as California are still practicing the death penalty. It can be noted “Proposition 34 – which would have seen capital punishment scrapped – was rejected by 53% of voter” (Topping, para 1).

Those who support the death penalty argue that the system has its own mechanisms for ensuring that sentences passed are fair enough. In my opinion, no human is perfect enough to give perfect judgment. Therefore, there is always the risk of prosecuting innocent people. On the other hand, justice and fairness should be given to the victims and their families (Singh, 78).

Conclusion

The capital punishment system comes out as one of those necessary evils in society. The main purpose of the death penalty was to reduce the rate of crime, but this argument is subject to debate. In addition, the issues of the costs, fairness, and whether it indeed is a good system of justice continue to dominate the debate on the death penalty. However, many Americans are against the death penalty, but it continues to be implemented in most of the states.

Works Cited

Herrmann, Jacqueline. The History of the Death Penalty in the United States: Presented and Analyzed on the Basis of Selected U.S. Supreme Court Cases. München: GRIN Verlag, 2008. Print.

Hull, Elizabeth. “Guilty On All Counts.” Social Policy, 39.4 (2010): 11-25. Print.

Kim, M. Jane. “Is Capital Punishment on Death Row?” US News. 2011. Web.

Singh, Robert. “Capital Punishment In The United States: A New Abolitionism?.” Political Quarterly 71.3 (2000): 341. Print.

Topping, Alexandra. “Californian death penalty fight goes on, despite vote.” The Guardian. 2012. Web.

Uelmen, Gerald F, and C. Boscia. Final Report. Santa Clara, CA: California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, 2008. Print.

Introduction

Studies suggest that the American death penalty is in a crisis. This is because of the emerging evidence, which indicates that convicts may be innocent from the charges. According to Dieter, the courts have exonerated “116 people from the death row after dropping their charges” (Dieter, 2004).

This number includes “16 people in the past 20 months” (Dieter, 2004). This shows the rate of successful appeals against the death penalty. At the same time, such successful appeals have raised concerns about the criminal justice system in the US regarding capital punishment.

Death row sentences have also declined in the last five years by more than 50 percent. Consequently, the numbers of death row inmates have also declined considerably. In addition, executions have also reduced. Further, the public support for the death penalty has also declined as studies have suggested (Dieter, 2004).

It is the innocence of some of the convicts in the death row that has created a crisis in the system. The public questions the system that should guarantee fairness. Consequently, the death penalty has met oppositions from some unlikely quarters like the judges, conservative groups, the law enforcement agency, and from some lawmakers.

However, we have to note that this crisis also has its roots in the constitutions of various States. Consequently, opponents of the death penalty have realised the need to address issues, which result from the capital punishment.

Trends indicate that the death penalty is on the decline in the US. Meanwhile, the criminal justice system has challenges from new evidence originating forensic investigations. The system should have reliable ways for the death penalty cases based on the mistakes of past convictions. The case of Ryan Mathews is an example of a successful death penalty appeal.

The case

The police arrested Ryan Mathews for “the murder of a local convenience store owner” (Dieter, 2004). This was a case in Louisiana. The court convicted the suspect in 1999 and later dismissed his charges in 2004.

The police interviewed three people who failed to identify the suspect clearly. They referred to the suspect as “short and not taller than 5’8’’ person” (Dieter, 2004). However, Mathews was at least six feet tall.

The suspect’s lawyer had not adequately prepared for the case. Consequently, he could not handle the DNA procedures and evidence as expected.

The case was difficult because the jury could not reach a verdict after many hours of deliberation and had to do it again. However, when the verdict was out, the suspect got a guilty verdict and ended in the death row list two days later.

However, in March 2003, the suspect’s attorney brought a new physical evidence for appeal. The DNA test from the ski mask did not include the suspect. The evidence brought a new suspect to the case.

In April 2004, the attorney requested for a new trial based on “the DNA evidence and argument that the prosecution suppressed evidence” (Dieter, 2004). The judge overturned the conviction. In August 9, 2004, the court officially dropped all charges against Mathews. This is how the DNA test saved Mathews from the death penalty.

The appeal process against the death sentence

This appeal process is specific to the case of Ryan Mathews who the court dropped all murder charges against after successful appeal using new evidence from the DNA test. The appeal process for a death sentence in the US depends on the new evidence presented after conviction.

Eyewitness account

The police apprehended Mathews based on descriptions of eyewitnesses. However, Mathew was slightly taller than accounts of eyewitnesses. Mathews’ arrest was a fallacy of eyewitness evidence.

According to some studies, eyewitness evidence remains “the highest cause of wrongful convictions” (Wells, 2006). It accounts for more than 75 percent of convictions, which the DNA tests and other scientific procedures prove wrong (Wells, 2006; Huff, 1987).

Most jurors believe that eyewitness evidence is reliable. However, this is not always the case. Studies suggest that we can question eyewitness evidence on three scientific grounds.

First, there is a problem of poor visibility. Second, some studies suggest that people have poor abilities for facial identification. Finally, the system relies on procedures, which are prone to bias (Bothwell, Deffenbacher and Brigham, 1987; Wells et al, 1998).

The DNA test

Most systems believe that forensic tests are infallible. Promoters of this system claim that DNA tests produce accurate results or none (Thompson, 2008). Therefore, courts have relied on DNA test results for delivering their rulings (Lazer, 2004).

The National Research Council also supports forensic DNA testing (National Research Council, 1996). The Council declared its support for the DNA testing based on the reliability and validity of tests from accurately collected and analysed data.

In the public domain, DNA testing has found its way based on post-conviction DNA test evidence and the subsequent exoneration of suspects. The DNA test results enabled Mathews to secure freedom as it brought a new suspect to the case. With such evidence on its reliability and validity, death row inmates like Mathews can secure their freedom from the criminal justice system.

Suppression of evidence

Suppression of evidence relates to “evidence that is not objectionable as violating any rule of evidence, but obtained illegally” (Udashen, 2008). In this case, the court did not bring full evidence against Mathews. Some scholars consider suppression of evidence as misconduct in the criminal justice system.

The failure of Mathews’ attorney to handle the DNA evidence effectively resulted into conviction of Mathews. This was unjust conviction based on later evidence.

The case of Mathews represents many death penalty cases where judges have reversed convictions due to suppression of evidence. The attorney discovered that the DNA testing suppressed evidence and the court was able to reopen the trial.

Suppression of evidence is a sensitive issue among judges, defence lawyers, and prosecutors. It provided a fair trial for Mathews leading to his exoneration.

Conclusion

The appeal process is not specific. However, it depends on the new type of evidence as the case of Mathews shows.

New evidence to prove innocence of a convicted death row inmate has upset the criminal justice system in the US. This trend and the rising number of cases have changed the public perception about capital punishment.

Developments in the DNA science and its applications in the criminal justice system have created news way of proving innocence in capital crimes. As a result, courts and law enforcement agencies have discovered past mistakes and set ways for appeal and new trials to prove innocence the convict.

New evidence has also promoted former advocates of the death penalty to change their opinions about it. The opinion has changed in the public domain as the number of people supporting the death penalty has dropped significantly (Radelet and Borg, 2000).

Critics of the death penalty now advocate for “life without parole as an alternative sentence” (Dieter, 2004).

Reference List

Bothwell, R, Deffenbacher, K and Brigham, J 1987, ‘Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited’, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 72, pp. 691-695.

Dieter, R 2004, Innocence and the Crisis in the American Death Penalty. Web.

Huff, C 1987, ‘Wrongful conviction: Societal tolerance of injustice’, Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, vol. 4, pp. 99-115.

Lazer, D 2004, DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

National Research Council 1996, The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence,National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Radelet, M and Borg, M 2000, ‘The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates’, Annual Review Sociol, vol. 26, 43-61.

Thompson, W 2008, The Potential for Error in Forensic DNA Testing (and How That Complicates the Use of DNA Databases for Criminal Identification), Council for Responsible Genetics, New York.

Udashen, G 2008, Suppression of Exculpatory Evidence in Criminal Cases, The Dallas County Criminal Defense Lawyers, Dallas, Texas.

Wells, G 2006, ‘Eyewitness Identification: Systemic Reforms’, Wisconsin Law Review, vol. no. 2, pp. 1-30.

Wells, G, Small, M, Penrod, S, Malpass, R, Fulero, D and Brimacombe, C. 1998. ‘Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads’, Law and Human Behavior, vol. 22, pp. 603-647.

Introduction

Although the number of countries that still use the death penalty as a form of punishment has drastically reduced, some countries such as Saudi Arabia and China and some states in the USA still use it.

As per Amnesty International’s research reports, over 90% global states have completely abolished this form of punishment and for those that still use it, they normally use it to punish crimes that they consider to be very heinous (Radelet and Lacock 495-509).

Death Penalty in Saudi Arabia

For a while now, Saudi Arabia has remained one of the global nations that strongly believe that punishing by death is one of the ways of giving justice to victims of crime and one of the best ways of deterring heinous crimes.

Capital punishment in this Arabic country is well defined in Sharia laws, and once somebody has been found guilty of a capital offense, the best form of punishment they are subjected to is the death sentence. Some of the wrongdoings that attract such a sentence are theft, infidelity, witchcraft, rape, killing, and if you are assumed or found guilty of being a false prophet or apostrophes.

When one is convicted with one of these offenses, there is normally a couple of ways justice is applied with the favourite being a public cutting of the head, which is done in the middle of Riyadh. There have been 345 executions carried out in the three years culminating to 2010, 82 executed in 2011 and 17 to date. Other methods of execution are death by stoning, although this method is not currently used.

Before the execution day comes, the defendant firstly has to undergoes a trial (which is usually a closed door meeting) and is allowed legal representation and a right to appeal if the case goes against him or her for fairness purposes.

Later on if one is found guilty, they will have to go to prison and await their execution day; whereby the family of the victim will be given a chance to decide what they want to be done. Any guilty individual can be punished by death, be allowed to serve a jail term and compensate the bereaved family or pay the government some fine and serve some jail term (Lines 6-17 and Schabas 225-231).

Effectiveness

According to Hands off Cain (1), in 2003 there were 52 executions, in 2004 38, in 2005 90, in 2006 39, in 2007 166, in 2008 102, in 2009 27, in 2010 81, and in 2012 the figure stood at 78. The statistics above show that, although the number of executions has not reduced very much, there is a slight reduction; hence, showing that this form of punishment has really helped to reduce occurrence of heinous crimes.

Considering that every year the population increases, statistically, there should be a larger number of perpetrators of capital crime. Therefore, even though the figures may seem to go up in certain years, the figures point to a startling finding that indeed capital punishment is effective.

The Death Penalty in the United States

Although the United States is a first world country and the use of this form of punishment is one of the most controversial topics, this form of punishment is still alive and practised in some if it’s states with immense support from its population.

According to Radelet and Lacock (481-487), for a long time now, there have been numerous individuals who support this from of punishment, because to them there is no any better form of punishment for heinous crime perpetrators. Although a good number of individuals who are found guilty of committing of heinous crimes are put on death row, most of these convictions are normally overturned for lesser forms of punishments.

Before being convicted, the accused will have to first pass through the legal system of the court; whereby, they will be charged. After this, a direct review of the conviction is made to ascertain if the sentencing was fair. This is the final stage where the defendants can have their case overturned based on the judge’s final ruling.

If a defendant is unsuccessful with the above process, there is the “Federal habeas corpus”; where one can demand their case to be heard by the federal court. In case all the above appeal processes completely fail, the last process will be the “section 1983 contested”, which involves setting of the execution date.

Most convicted felons on death row in this continent are normally executed by lethal injection. Though hanging is the oldest method that was used, it’s unpopular now and less likely to be used. Other ways that are used are electrocution, using the lethal gas or a firing squad.

Effectiveness of this form of Punishment in Deterring Crime

Some Americans still think that the death penalty is not being utilised to its capacity, since some killers actually slip through the hand of justice and are left to kill again.

Most people justify the death penalty on grounds that that the convicted killer will never live to kill again, and is seen as the best deterrent to potential future murders. As per Weisberg (153-161), as far as can be established, a single death sentence helps to prevent more than 18 murders; hence, this sentence is effective.

Conclusion

In conclusion, considering the numerous benefits of this form of punishment and because of the significance of a fair justice system, capital punishment should be appreciated and embraced. However, to limit the chances of killing innocent people and executing the guilty ones cruelly, state and governmental organs must endeavour to find better ways of executing this form of punishment

Works Cited

Hand off Cain. Saudi Arabia – Retentionist. 2013. Web.

Lines, Rick. “The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: A violation of international human Rights law.” London: International Harm Reduction Association (2007):1-30. Print.

Radelet, Michael and Lacock, Traci. “Recent Developments: Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading.” The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Criminologist 99.2 (2009): 489-508. Print.

Schabas, William A. “Islam and the Death Penalty.” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 9.1 (2000): 223-236. Print.

Weisberg, Robert. “The death penalty meets social science: Deterrence and jury behaviour under new scrutiny.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1(2005): 151-170. Print.

The death penalty is a controversial topic that continues to elicit a lot of debate in the contemporary society as it did in ancient civilizations. Several questions have been raised regarding this topic, for example, should we abolish the death penalty? or, does death penalty violate man’s fundamental right to live? Whenever the issue of death penalty comes, opponents and proponents stand up to defend their positions.

One side says deterrence, the other side says the possibility of killing an innocent person. One side says fairness, the other side replies retribution, and punishment claims are met with ‘killing is murder’.

Whatever side of the debate we explore, it is plain that the death penalty is a denial of the basic human rights as it contravenes the right to life as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as stated by the UN. The death penalty is the ultimate form of cruelty, inhuman, and demeaning act that can ever be perpetuated on an individual.

Since court sentences and punishment are meant to be a disciplinary act, then a death penalty contradicts the law itself as it does not give an offender a second chance at reform. Besides, various studies have proved that the death penalty does not deter future offenders from committing the same crimes that would lead to a similar penalty, therefore, the death should be banned in all countries.

One of the arguments that has always that has always been used to defend death penalty is deterrence. The notion that executing persons who break certain laws will deter persons from engaging in similar crimes sounds convincing, besides, deterring any form of crime is for the good of all of us.

However, the jury is still torn whether this form of punishment actually deters crime as a number of studies have shown that heavy punishment does not necessarily imply deterrence. Should we give the death penalty to prove that we are serious? Does a criminal mind ever consider the existence of a death penalty? No. Studies indicate that unless executions reach a certain level, crimes that warrant the death penalty may continue unabated.

Most death penalties are normally given to persons that commit murder. However, behavioral studies have shown that most murders are normally committed in response to strong feelings of passion or anger, or by persons who are under the influence of alcohol or drugs who act impetuously.

For this reason, they do not act rationally and do not think of the consequences of their actions. Giving such an individual a life sentence does not really help him and instead amounts to another murder. The Merriam-Webster defines murder as the “unlawful killing of one person by another, especially with premeditated malice”, going by this definition, it becomes plain that a death sentence is in itself another execution. The only section of the definition that supports the court’s act is the unlawful part.

The death sentence is normally full of flaws and inconsistencies, this claim arises from the number of persons that have been released from death row after additional inquiries into their crimes.

Besides, we know from research supported by the strongest and most accurate figures that the death penalty is applied with impartiality. It is a matter of race and socio-economic status; lower-class people are represented by overburdened or incompetent lawyers while rich criminals hire well paid lawyers who present a competent and well organized defense and are frequently let off the hook.

This finding means that innocent persons are executed by various legal systems around the world. Does it not seem if the state takes away an innocent person’s life, then it should also meet the same level of punishment as the criminals? Does this risk not surpass the benefits of death penalty that may exist? Should we permit issues such as the death penalty to harm the very values and beliefs that our dear nation was established on?

As we continues to give death penalties to persons accused of various crimes, we are setting a very bad example for our children. We spend a significant amount of time teaching our children on the sanctity of life at schools or other institutions, yet we justify the death sentence arguing that it will reduce crime levels. This is very hypocritical of society. Evil cannot be an answer to evil. If it wrong to take away a life, why does the state contradict itself by executing others? The death penalty must be abolished immediately.

Conclusion

Despite opposition from various quarters, our legal system continues to mete out the death penalty. This must stop since the death is a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as dictated by the United Nations, besides, the death penalty does not deter offenders from engaging in crimes that would lead to this sentence.

Persons that commit murder, for whom the penalty is frequently given, normally act under the influence of alcohol or drugs or act impetuously and should be given time to reform rather that delivering them to the hangman, the legal system itself is full of flaws and inconsistencies that block the exercise of justice to suspects. Finally, death penalties sends a poor message to our children as they grow up with the notion that evil is paid with evil.