Death Penalty and Sentencing Information - Essay Example

?Michael Pistner Tammy Lancaster English 111-1151 7 October The Necessity of Capital Punishment Capital punishment or as many know it, the death penalty has been a matter of public controversy since its introduction. While one class of thought argues that the death penalty is very necessary for governments to control the more serious law breakers, others are of the opinion that the death penalty can in no way be allowed as there are various ethical, legal, economic, and cultural issues involved. However, a thorough look into the factual information proves that capital punishment is an inescapable inevitability to protect the lives of citizens Fagan argues in the article ‘Death penalty focus shifts to costs’ that the death penalty causes economic burden to the public. The stunning revelation in the article is that in the State of California, the annual legal costs related to capital punishment are estimated at $184 million. Also, it is claimed that by replacing death penalty with life sentences, this amount can be brought down to just $ 11.5 million. Admittedly, this claim Fagan makes seems attractive only to some hardcore do-gooders. People with a sane mind will easily identify that the lives of the citizens in a country cannot be put into jeopardy for economic benefits. It can be admitted that capital punishment invites extensive legal jargons in the forms of appeals and reviews. However, one has to remember the fact that this delay and higher expenditure only shows the ineffectiveness of our legal system; not the ineffectiveness of capital punishment. So, it is evidently irrational to set serial killers free to save the money spent on legal works. Also, as Nugent argues, locking up such insane shooters in jails for the rest of their lifetime will cost taxpayers millions of dollars. One is forced to think whether it would not be a better administration of justice if the killer is executed and this millions of dollars are paid as compensation to the next of kin of the victims. Moreover, as Nugent points out, it costs only ‘a 25 cent bullet’ to eliminate the criminal in cases like the Tucson shootout. If any money more than that is spent on legal battles, it is the justice system to be blamed; not capital punishment. Also, the figures put forward by Fagan are under criticism for lack of evidence. In fact, the work ‘Death penalty and sentencing information’ by Sharp points out that life without parole (LWOP) is nearly $1.2 to $3.6 million more expensive than death penalty. Another minor argument seen in the article of Fagan is that sometimes the society seems as guilty as the culprit in certain crimes. For example, the killer of a 22 year old female is found to be mentally unstable and brain-damaged. The investigation proves that the killer had a very horrible upbringing as a child as he had his birth as an impoverished Mono tribe American Indian. Also, he was taken away from his alcoholic parents at a very early age and was molested and abused in foster homes and other institutions. As a result, he was addicted to heroin and other drugs by the time he turned 5. Thus, Fagan argues that in such cases, giving capital punishment to the criminal is unjustifiable as the culprit is not guiltier than the family and society he lives in. It is with this insight that the article says that if capital punishment is replaced with life imprisonment, “you would also run no chance of executing an innocent person” (Fagan). However, the fact is that laymen or the citizens of a country cannot bear the brunt of setting mentally deranged people free. For example, Nugent writes in The Washington Times about the Tucson shootout which killed six and wounded 13. As Fagan argues in his article, in this case too, the culprit was mentally deranged. As a result, he is going to spend the rest of his life in the comfort of jail eating up the tax paid by obedient citizens. As Nugent argues, “you don’t need to be an overpaid prison psychologist to determine that (the criminal is mentally deranged) no sane person would commit such unspeakable acts.” The mere fact is that there is no criminal with a fully well-aligned thinking. So, it is not right to claim that capital punishment should not be given when the person is mentally deranged. In other words, allowing a killer to live free is like giving approval to criminals to kill. In the words of Nugent, “Allowing him to live out his days in prison is our convoluted legal system allowing Leady Justice to be mugged again and again” (Nugent). Moreover, the work by Sharp proves that nearly 6% of the murderers who are released after punishment get rearrested for murder within 6 years. According to him, nearly 9-15% of the criminals on death row have at least one more murder in their credit prior to that. Also, between 1988 and 1994, nearly 14% of those who were sentenced to death had at least two death sentences. That means once set free, these criminals are highly likely to kill again (Sharp). The point to be remembered here is that the purpose of the court system is not to offer a comfortable life to the criminals but to offer justice to the victims of crimes and also to deter criminals from committing crimes. If a serial killer kills an innocent person, allowing the criminal to live his life is not a justice done to the victims. Nor does this stop other criminals from resorting to commit similar crimes. Instead, it is only assuring the criminals that even after committing heinous crimes, they can live a life in total governmental protection. The argument against capital punishment is further elaborated by Curran Jr., attorney general of Maryland. According to him, the most important point that goes against death penalty is the possibility of mistakes. He argues that the legal system is a manmade institution, and as such it is always prone to mistakes. The scholar argues that “any trial judge and any trial lawyer will tell you-mistakes happen.” To support his argument, the scholar points out that when 821 people were executed after 1976, nearly 103 people were exonerated in the same period. That means the court erred and later corrected its mistakes in 103 cases before the people lost their lives. Thus, Curran argues that it is not possible to claim that the court was error-free in the case of the 821 executed people. It might be that those people were less lucky and the mistakes went unnoticed in at least a few of them. Moreover, the scholar argues that if the society is giving a criminal the death penalty, there is no difference in the moral standards of the criminal and the society. The society is supposed to possess a better moral standard than the killers. What Curran suggests is that capital punishment should be replaced with death in prison. The benefit of this change, according to him, is that the possibility of wrongfully incarcerating an innocent person is totally avoided. The scholar provides the example of Bernard Webster, a man who was wrongly convicted in a rape case and was exonerated from the charges after 20 years of life in prison. It became possible for the court to correct its wrong conviction only because the person was put in prison. Had the person been executed, this would not have become possible. However, this argument of execution by mistake is proved wrong by the factual information provided by Sharp. He argues that the extensive procedures of pretrial, trial, appeals, writ and clemency are all intended to avoid an innocent person getting sentenced to death. He points out that if 37% of the death row cases were overturned after 1973, it does not mean that the judiciary was wrong in the first instance but that the judiciary is utmost careful to see that no person is unnecessarily punished. In the words of Dudley, the release of certain death row inmates only proves that the procedures of judiciary are rather accurate and generous in the case of death penalty. Another important fact that becomes evident from the work of Sharp is that though many death penalties were reverted later on, in 78% of them, the decision was not because the DPIC offered any evidence of innocence, but because of the merciful nature of the judiciary. Also, while elaborating on the possibility of some very rare innocent people getting executed erroneously, Curran fails to think about the blindfolded woman holding a scale. As Cathleen points out in the article ‘Justice or vengeance: is the death penalty cruel & unusual?’ retributive justice is often confused with private revenge and social control through deterrence. Very often, people consider the death penalty as an indication of private revenge. However, it is necessary to consider justice and revenge as two different concepts. The purpose of justice is only to make the transgressor pay his debt to society so that the balance can be regained. So, when the justice system finds capital punishment as the most suitable punishment, it is necessary to adopt the same. Giving unnecessary consideration to other economic and ethical factors will seriously affect the quality of justice provided. Another important point is the role of punishment as an instrument of social control. In the opinion of Cathleen, cruel and unusual punishment has always been used as an effective tool of social control. When one criminal is given the death penalty, many other aspiring criminals will cringe. This point can be further elaborated using the concept of utilitarianism. The concept points out that an action is good if it brings satisfaction to the majority of stakeholders. That means such a harsh punishment like death of one criminal deters various other criminals from committing such crimes and gives security to the lives of citizens, it is right to kill that criminal. In fact, this claim is supported by the work by Sharp. Sharp points out in his work that out of the 52,000 prisoners in 1984; nearly 810 prisoners had the history of killing at least two times. The total number of people they killed in the last instance was 821. That means if they were executed after the first killing, the lives of 821 innocent people could be saved. Moreover, if they are set free again, they are highly likely to do the same again. Here, it is for the do-gooders to answer which is more important: the lives of innocent citizens or the lives of the serial murderers? Another problem involved in abolishing capital punishment is that a person who is already serving life without parole is free to kill as many people as he likes. This is so because he has already been given the highest degree of punishment possible. That means the society can never get rid of any wrongdoer, whatever his crime may be. Admittedly, even these days, it is this knowledge of the lethargic attitude of the judiciary that encourages a number of people to engage in killing. So, to protect the lives of people, the only way out is to use capital punishment effectively and scientifically. Its abolition will only lead to total anarchy in the society as judiciary will go ineffective. In conclusion, it becomes evident that the arguments against capital punishment hold no water. First of all, capital punishment benefits our society economically as the criminals are not kept in prison for their entire lifetime. Also, if capital punishment presently involves a complex web of legal proceedings, it is for the justice system to improve itself. It is unwise to give up such an effective punishment for the short-comings of our legal system. Secondly, as utilitarianism points out, it is wise to eliminate a criminal if that action benefits the entire society. Works Cited Cathleen. Kaveny. "Justice or vengeance: is the death penalty cruel & unusual?" Commonweal 135.3 (2008): 9. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 7 Oct. 2012. Curran Jr. Joseph. “Call for the Abolition of the Death Penalty”. Capital Punishment , 2008. Print. Fagan, Kevin. “Death penalty focus shifts to costs”. Death penalty focus shifts to costs – SFGate. Updated Monday, September 24, 2012. Web. 07 Oct 2012. Nugent , Ted. "McNugent rule: Automatic death penalty; Justice requires satisfaction for murders." Washington Times [Washington, DC] 4 Sept. 2012: B04. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web.7 Oct. 2012. Sharp, Dudley. “Death Penalty and Sentencing Information.” Pro Death Penalty. 1 Oct. 1997. Web. 7 Oct. 2012. Read More