Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Abstract
The death sentence has remained discriminatory from three perspectives, gender, race, and social-economic background. Empirical research on the death penalty suggests that discrimination and arbitrariness are rampant. This varies considerably with the stages of the prosecution and the jurisdiction. This paper identifies the paucity of research on the death penalty and preliminarily investigates the discriminatory course of justice when the death penalty is applied in any jurisdiction.
Introduction
There is a paucity of research around the context of the death penalty and its unfairness. It is widely argued that there are contradictory, yet empirically strong projections that race, gender, and social economics chivalrously determine the death sentence. This research explores the three perspectives of discrimination when the death sentence is passed. We identify, pro-rata, how gender, race/ethnicity, and social-economic background play a significant role in a prosecution and subsequent death sentence. Conversely, we discuss how the imposition of the death sentence is prompted by these factors. In finality, we deem the death sentence excessive, random, and caprice, hence unconstitutional, for it draws its functionality from unjust and discriminatory nature, which by virtue of law, is not the proper dispensation of the law.
Gender
According to Rapaport, women murders are chivalrously spare the death sentence (Rapaport, 1991). There is a deficit in research on gender and the death penalty hence, literally difficult to ascertain that this is commensurate with this projection (Rapaport, 1991). However, the small number of women sentenced to death is indicative of the judicial system bias. Arguably, it is not constitutional to be biased; hence, this relatively small number of women criminals sentenced to death in comparison to the many men offenders sentenced to death is indicative of discrimination in the system.
Relatively fewer women hang while more men die, yet the crimes these women committed are sufficiently labeled by society as sufficiently reprehensible to merit the death sentence (Rapaport, 1991). From a comparative perspective, more men are incarcerated and subsequently sentenced to death probably for the wrong reason; however, preliminary research suggests that death-row women are more likely to have committed murder (Rapaport, 1991).
While it remains, evident those death-sentenced women could have committed murder or the crime and more likely than death-sentenced men to have killed inmates, it only shows the callous nature of the law. Rapaport says that the explanation of this legal disparity can be defined as gender discrimination in the legal process. It puts the state capital statutes in credibility test since they project a gender bias inimical, which favors, intrinsically, the interests of women than men when death the death sentence is applied and along the capital punishment trajectory (Rapaport, 1991). As such, this bias inimical depicts the death penalty as imputing predatory murder. This is why; women convicted of murder are under-represented on death row in comparison to men (Rapaport, 1991).
Race
The most discussed and researched discrimination globally is racial discrimination. There is enough empirical research to support the context of racial discrimination when passing the death penalty. Kleck argues that racial bias in criminal sentencing dates back to many decades ago. Kleck overtly discusses how Black homicide offenders face the hangman’s noose in a much-prejudiced manner. In his assessment based on a reevaluation of published research on the racial bias in the justice system, Kleck points out how black homicide criminals are likely to get death sentences than white offenders (Kleck, 1981).
Legitimization crisis that Kleck identifies as core in the racial bias when the death penalty is served clearly draws out the problem in the criminal justice system. The system should dispense the legal process without ascribing the offender’s gender, race, and economic background (Kleck, 1981). Cleck draws attention to the discriminatory nature of criminal justice terming it as traditionally racially discriminatory. He supports his point by emphatically discussing how Black offenders are put to death while white homicide offenders are less likely to die, especially in America and UK.
Black defendants often face severe sentencing than white offenders (Baldus, Woodworth, & Pulaski, 1990). Black rapists are sentenced quickly and severely than white rapists. According to Kleck, there is a contradiction, hypothetically, that seems to suggest there is a legally relevant reason for such offenses (Kleck, 1981). Baldus, Woodworth &Pulaski explain, hypothetically, that there is largely a legal bias in death sentencing and racial factors influence the criminal legal system in their dispensation (Baldus, Woodworth, & Pulaski, 1990). Rape cases involving black offenders and white victims are severely sentenced while cases involving a White offender and black victim are less severely punished (Kleck, 1981).
It is evident that racial discrimination plays a significant role when sentences are passed. The undervaluing of the black defendant is indicative of racially inclined sentences, which in itself is not fair.
Social Economic
Baldus, Woodworth, and Pulaski assert the need for equal justice and the death penalty for all. In their investigation on arbitrariness and excessiveness in the death penalty, Baldus, Woodworth, and Pulaski identified flaws in the death penalty in areas where high rates of crime and murder were high. They identified a bias in the social-economic background of the murderer and the victim. There was leniency if the murderer was white and the victim was a minority from a poor background. We identify discriminatory approaches in the legal dispensation. No clause or statutes spell out the due process as pitting the poor too little justice and the rich to leniency (Baldus, Woodworth, & Pulaski, 1990).
Capital punishment should apply to all. Examination of the eighth amendment and the principles the courts use to punish defendants clearly show cruelty and unusualness. According to Goldberg and Dershowitz, the death penalty should be declared unconstitutional. This passionate appeal is drawn from various research suggestions that, the system subscribes to discriminatory principles, lacks real ethical considerations when serving death sentences, and that, the death penalty hardly suffices to provide the lenient punishment. As such, the discriminatory aspect of the death penalty is enough reason to have it scrapped and new statutes spelled out clearly on what capital punishment where homicide and other crimes that require severe punishment should be punished.
References
Baldus, D, Woodworth, G & Pulaski, C. (1990) Equal justice and the death penalty: a legal and empirical analysis. North Eastern University Press.
Goldberg, A. & Dershowitz, A. (1970) Declaring the Death Penalty Unconstitutional. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 83, No. 8.
Kleck, M. (1981) Racial Discrimination in Criminal Sentencing: A Critical Evaluation of the Evidence with Additional Evidence on the Death Penalty. American Sociological Review, Vol. 46, No. 6.
Rapaport, E. (1991) The Death Penalty and Gender Discrimination. Law & Society Review, Vol. 25, No. 2.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.