The Issues of Capital Punishment - Essay Example

?ENGL Mark D. Pepper 11/26 Capital Punishment Introduction One topic that has generated fierce and endless debate since the beginning of 18th to 21st century is capital punishment or death penalty. It is worth noting that human beings have experienced a variety of social, economic and environmental issues that cause serious negative consequences. As a result, society developed systems of punishing those who commit serious crimes such as killing, stealing felony among others. One such way of punishing offenders was death penalty. Ideally, the authorities came up with procedures to be used in determining the crimes that warrant death penalty, the steps to be followed while executing individuals among others. In some occasions, crimes such as rape, incest, sodomy as well as adultery were punished through death penalty. In a country like china, high level corruption, human trafficking as well as drug trafficking are punishable by death (Cullen, Bartkowski and Unnever 317). There is no doubt that use of capital punishment was used by a variety of society as a process of enhancing justice. At present a total of 58 countries still use capital punishment while about 97 states have done away with it for whatever crime, 8 countries have abolished it for specific common crimes while about 10 countries have not used death penalty on the last 10 years. It is worth mentioning that approximately 90.0% of death penalty occurs in Asia. In the United States of America, the history of death penalty has centred on the two views of the same issue. One side holds the view that death penalty is necessary in the society to bring sanity while the other side believes that an advanced and civilized society like the US should not resort to using death penalty as a way of punishment since it is a cruel way of instilling sanity in the society. It is important to note that over the years, advocates for improvement in the way capital punishment is done has resulted a in a number of changes. For instances, through passage of laws which are in line with the constitution, some states have abolished capital punishments. However, others have embarked on strategies aimed at changing the techniques utilized when executing offenders, critically examining the types of crimes that warrant death penalty as well as developing plans to identify factors that lead to crime. Ideally, capital punishment in the US has its root in the primitive British laws. It has been argued by proponents of capital punishment that the approach helps the society tremendously reduce crime. This paper seek to present arguments for and against capital punishment and make a judgment whether the approach is good in deterring people from committing crime or not. Arguments for capital punishment Eliminating future dangerousness It has been argued by proponents of capital punishment that executing individual who have committed serious crimes such as killing, others, stealing, raping, treason among others will eliminate that individual and the society will live with no fear of being raped, killed among others. This school of thought can be traced to moral theory of John Mills. In this theory, the guiding principle is that the best option to be taken is the one that generates greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. To that effect, if majority of the citizen will live comfortably when a few thieves, rapists, corrupt individuals, drug traffickers are eliminated so be it. Berry, in his article published in 2010 stated that the rationale for punishing someone based on their dangerousness is that the state needs to protect its citizens from the threat that the offender poses to society. In other words, the state chooses to incapacitate an offender in order to ensure that the offender does not commit another criminal act (Berry, 894). From the beginning of the post-Furman era, most states have included and relied on an evaluation of an individual‘s dangerousness to contribute to the determination whether a criminal offender should be put to death. Texas and Oregon use the dangerousness criteria to justify capital punishment (Cullen, Bartkowski and Unnever 321). It is important to mention here that this notion is in line with the idea that capital punishment enhances deterrence hence preventing future crimes. Since societies are interested in preventing crime and other social ills, using a stronger punishment will help it deter crimes and that is the reason why capital punishment is deemed to be the best. The guiding notion is that when criminals are indicted for crimes and are punished by death, future or potential criminals will always think twice before committing any crime in fear of being punished by death (Kelly, 129). Before 1973, attempts were made to explain whether death penalty resulted in reduced crime rates, the results were not conclusive. However, the efforts of Isaac Ehrlich concluded that for every offender who was punished by death, a total of seven lives were saved since other members of the society were scared of being offenders as they feared being executed. The same sentiments are expressed by Ernest van den Haag who stated that whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. In his 1986 article, Ernest stated that “Execution of those who have committed heinous murders may deter only one murder per year. If it does, it seems quite warranted. It is also the only fitting retribution for murder I can think of” (Litton 348) Sustein and Vermeule contend that since there is considerable evidence from recent empirical studies that suggest the association of capital punishment and deterrence, the validity of these findings should lead consequentialists and deontologists to the conclusion that capital punishment is both morally permissible and morally required. Sustein and Vermeule (704) points out that most refutations to capital punishment are based on the points that it is “inherently cruel and barbaric”, and cannot be imposed in any way possible that adheres to the rule of law, and as it is administered currently, it could lead to the execution of some innocent people (Kelly, 126). Retribution The issue of criminal justice has been central in social civilization. Societies have evolved believing that every crime should be punished as this will enhance justice. Ideally, it has been held that if someone commits murder, we should distribute the balance of justice (Berry 915). Usually, if the society fails to restore the balance, then it is likely that the society will succumb to rule of violence. To that effect, the only way a society can truly show that they do not tolerate certain crimes such as murder, corruption, drug trafficking is by taking the lives of offenders thereby restoring balance of justice. It is worth noting that this notion has its roots in religious values which advocates for an eye for an eye and a life for a life (Litton 339). Although it is acknowledged that victim together with his or her family cannot regain their initial status before the crime or murder, at least an execution brings closure to the murderer's crime (and closure to the ordeal for the victim's family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more victims. It has been advocated that for the most cruel and heinous acts, offenders should receive an equal punishment to their crimes, any punishment that is deemed to be kisser is considered to undermine values societies places on protecting lives, property among other. On the same note, Article 3 in the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person (Cullen, Bartkowski and Unnever 315). Based on this statement, proponents believe that when one takes the life of another person, they should then sacrifice their lives as a form of retribution. Sustein and Vermeule claim that capital punishment is not only permissible but also morally required, particularly give the proven empirical evidence between capital punishment and deterrence. It is no longer cruel and inhuman Those in support of death penalty fault their counterparts on the issue that it is cruel and torturous. They state that the tremendous changes in the way offenders are executed uphold the principle of the eighth amendment and the requirement and definition of United Nation Convention. The later states that torture is any subjection of human being to a painful, as well as suffering experiences be they physical or mental in order to punish or obtaining information from him or a third person (Kelly, 122). It is worth noting that legislations have been passed to ensure that those convicted and sentenced to death are executed in the most human way. For instance, it is now a requirement that a qualified physician is present during execution. This will guarantee offenders die without undergoing pain and suffering. Arguments against capital punishment The process is irreversible There is no doubt that once an individual have been executed, there is nothing that can be done to bring his life back. This issue has raised concerned particularly when those executed are innocent. Research has shown that there is a likelihood of 68% for innocent people to be convicted of cruel and heinous crime that warrant death penalty. To put this in a perspective, between 1973 and 2009, a total of 88 people have been left free from death row after it emerged that they were indeed not guilty (Vartkessian 467). At the same time frame, approximately 650 people were executed. From this statistics, it emerged that for every 7 execution, one person is being unfairly judged. In 1993, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in one of his famous statements said that “Given the fallibility of human judgments, the possibility exists that the use of capital punishment may result in the execution of an innocent person” (Berry 919). more importantly, research has shown that individual convicted of crime when taken through a thorough process of successfully re-integrating them back to the society revaluate their lives and become law abiding members. However, since capital punishment is an irrevocable process, individuals are not given the chance to re-invent themselves (Vartkessian 486). It is unconstitutional, cruel and inhuman One of the points presented by opponents of death penalty is that the process goes against the American constitution; it is inhuman as it entails nothing but torture of a victim. Although proponents tend to suggest that the changes brought forth such as presence of physician during execution, use of drugs and methods that kill victims within the shortest time possible, there is no doubt that opponents still believe that the process is cruel and inhuman (Litton 336). To support, this fact, a study conducted on offenders executed through lethal injection arrived at the conclusion that based on the blood levels of anesthetic, the individuals might have experience pain and suffering in close to 90.0% of the instances and these individuals might have been conscious before they actually died (Berry 897). Additionally the fantasy held that we have attained painless death is nothing but a contrary view since no one can define the state of consciousness as well as pain during the process of execution. This is mainly because it is impossible to get firsthand testimony. On the same note of, the American constitution under the eighth amendment upholds the right of life for citizens. Similarly, the UN convention against torture states that no one should be subjected to cruelty, suffering and pain either physically or mentally (Vartkessian 456). Capital punishment has failed to deterred future crimes Although there were studies which showed some negative correlation between capital punishment and rate of crime, other scholars have discredited such studies suggesting that in fact the process is no more of a deterrent when compared to life imprisonment. According to one of the scholars, Bowers William, capital punishment has the opposite consequences meaning that any society is brutalized by utilizing increasing the chances of more crimes (Berry 899). As evidence, statistical records reveal that states in the U.S that abolished use of capital punishment have lower murder and other crime rates compared to states that practice death penalty. Similarly, when compared to other European nations such as Canada which do not employ capital punishment, the U.S has a higher murder rate. According to Sustein and Vermeule is merely centered on an unquestioned assumption that acts are morally different from omissions in the eye of the government, and the failure to question this assumption is a fundamental moral error. In this case, they argue that “an indefensible form of the act or omission distinction is important to some of the leading objections to capital punishment” (Sustein and Vermeule 705). Therefore, defenders of capital punishment have failed to notice the logical conclusion of their theory that capital punishment is in fact morally obligatory and not just permissible, by making the same distinction. To this end, Sustein and Vermeule suggest that on the strength of certain empirical assumptions, capital punishment may not only be permissible, but also it may be a moral requirement to discourage the taking of innocent lives, rather than for punitive reasons. Steiker critiques Cass Sunstain and Adrian Vermeule’s argument that establishment of the validity of recent empirical studies that have associated capital punishment with a substantial deterrent effect should lead consequentialists and deontologists to conclude that capital punishment is not only morally permissible, but also morally required. Steiker (751) contends that “while the empirical evidences suggesting associations between capital punishment and considerable levels of deterrence are highly suspect, acknowledging that the government has special moral duties does not render inadequately deterred private murders the moral equivalent of government executions.” In this case, Steiker argues that executions constitute not only a purposeful moral wrong, but also a distinctive sort of injustice and acceptance of ‘threshold’ deontology does not call for a commitment to capital punishment, the proven substantial deterrence notwithstanding. In addition, Steiker suggests that Sustein and Vermeule imposes the acceptance of brutal or disproportionate punishments, and urges that not even consequences should be convinced with the argument that capital punishment is morally required (Steiker 786). Opponents of death penalty argue that the approach fails to do what it was intended to do, deter others from committing same crime. However, it has been acknowledged that in most cases, offenders when committing murder of other heinous acts do not expect that they will be caught and their actions was under influences of drugs or alcohol. Others are committed when one is angry or in passion; in all these cases the offender acted impulsively. In support of this notion is the view of Attorney General Jim Mattox, "It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse" (Cullen, Bartkowski and Unnever 310) Since it has been argued that life imprisonment is as good as capital punishment in deterring future crimes, it is only reasonable to imprison offenders for life without an option of parole since such individuals will have no opportunity to commit crimes in future. Death penalty is unfair and unjust Even if the holy book advocates for an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth and John Mills and majority of utilitarian theorists believed the greatest happiness for the greatest, number, there are other avenues that can be used to ensure that no one losses live as a way of paying for their mistakes. For instances, enhancing equal distribution of resources, and early education on social issues among others will help a society experience less crime (Litton 336). Ideally, when an individual is executed, it is not the immediate family that suffers but also friends, the community as well as the nation at large particularly when the offender was wrongfully convicted and executed. Steiker faults Sustein and Vermeule because their conclusion automatically sanctions the acceptance of brutal and disproportionate punishments. This is because according to Steiker, capital punishment is not morally required because it is both a moral wrong and an injustice. The disagreement between Sustein and Vermeule, and Steiker is both sociological and legal in nature, particularly because whereas the former content that the government has the moral obligation of deterring the taking of innocent lives, the latter contend that capital punishment is morally required wrong and unjustifiable. Whereas Steiker arrives at his conclusion by critiquing and countering Sustein and Vermeule’s conjecture, Sustein and Vermeule on the other hand arrive at their conclusion after examining the empirical evidence of recent studies that have suggested the potential of capital punishment at motivating deterrence; they posit that the legal fraternity has been, and continues to be plagued by certain views. For instance, the legal academy is beset by the view that capital punishment does not deter murder, or no one has ever proven it does so, as well as the view that some categories of murder such as crimes of passion are cannot be deterred at least by capital punishment. In addition, the view that even if it does deter, the effect is bound to be trivial because of the relatively few incidences of capital punishment and the long time lags between sentencing and execution abounds (Vartkessian 448). Conclusion From the review of the issue of capital punishment, it is evident that it is one of the oldest modes of instilling sanity in early and present societies. Over time, tremendous changes have occurred with regards to the policy ranging from abolishing it, critically looking at crimes which should be punished by death as well as methods used to end lives of offenders. Looking at both the arguments for and against capital punishment, I am left with no doubt that the approach is indeed backward, cruel, unjust, unconstitutional, irreversible hence deny individual an opportunity to correct themselves and it failed to successfully accomplish what it was intended for, reducing crime rates. Works Cited Berry, William W. Ending death by dangerousness a path to the de facto abolition of the death penalty. Arizona Law Review, 52:889 (2010): 890-923. Kelly, Oliver. “The plight of ethics.” Journal of speculative philosophy, 26.2 (2012): 119-133. Litton, Paul. “Physician participation in executions, the morality of capital punishment, and the practical implications of their relationship”. Journal of law, medicine & ethics, (2013): 333-349. Steiker, Carol S. "No, capital punishment is not morally required: Deterrence, deontology, and the death penalty." Stanford law review 58.3 (2005): 751-89.  Sunstein, Cass R., and Adrian Vermeule. "Is capital punishment morally required? Acts, omissions, and life-life tradeoffs." Stanford law review 58.3 (2005): 703-50.  Unnever, James D., Bartkowski, John P. and Cullen, Francis T. “God imagery and opposition to abortion and capital punishment: a partial test of religious support for the consistent life ethic.” Sociology of Religion 71:3(2010): 307-322. Vartkessian, Elizabeth S. “What one hand giveth, the other taketh away: how future dangerousness corrupts guilty verdicts and produces premature punishment decisions in capital cases” 32:2(2012): 447-487. Read More