Is Capital Punishment Effective - Research Paper Example

? Is Capital Punishment Effective? Introduction The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Punishment forbids punishment for crimes which are considered cruel and unusual. This Eighth Amendment is often referred to when arguing the legal merits of capital punishment. The death penalty is regarded by some to be the most heinous and obvious example of cruel and unusual punishment. Those who are opposed to capital punishment do not think that the government should be given the power kill any of its citizens. Opponents also claim that the custom is overtly costly, is racially biased and does not realize the intended outcome. Advocates consider it to be neither cruel nor unusual, quite the opposite they consider it fair and just punishment. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the moral and legal issues which are literally are of life and death significance and is a principal barometer when determining the collective conscience of a society. The ‘eye for an eye’ faction not only accepts but loudly insists that capital punishment be continued for several reasons which will be discussed thoroughly in this paper. It will also include the opponents’ reasoning concerning why it should be eradicated along with the legal precedents concerned so as to offer a thorough overview of the capital punishment debate. The discussion will end with an opinion concerning the future of the death penalty. Cruel and Unusual Common Definition Capital punishment is not unusual, by legal definition, unless the racial bias existing within the justice system is considered and acknowledged. Whether or not it is cruel cannot be defined by law. Cruel can only be defined by the combined social conscious of a particular culture. The legal interpretation of ‘cruel and unusual’ is somewhat open to debate but in general, the term ‘cruel’ refers to brutal punishments that cause excessive pain. Most legal experts agree that punishments including bodily dismemberment or torture are undoubtedly classified as cruel. Terminologies are subject to interpretation as was evidenced by the debate at the national government level concerning the definition of torture during the Bush presidency. The term ‘unusual’ is normally understood to describe the impartial application of punishment for a specific offense. For example, if five people were ticketed for speeding and the judge charged four of them $100 but one was charged $1000, this person’s penalty would be deemed ‘unusual.’ Taken jointly, ‘cruel’ and ‘unusual’ indicates that the penalty should be doled out evenly and in proportion to the crime committed. A 20 year prison term is a suitable sentence for armed robbery but if it were imposed for littering, this would be an improper sentence because it would be considered extreme given the seriousness of the offense. Extreme is open to broad interpretation in both the legal and public realm. Some would contend, for example, that incarcerating someone of any period for ‘crimes’ such as the possession of drugs, prostitution and gambling should be interpreted as extreme therefore ‘unusual.’ Legal Definition The Supreme Court has on numerous occasions judged the merits of capital punishment and whether or not it can be interpreted as punishment which is cruel and unusual by the Constitution. The high Court has always ruled that the language of the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit death being implemented as punishment. The Constitution is a flexible document, however. The interpretation of cruel and unusual has evolved to some degree throughout the years and the Court might possibly reverse their viewpoint in the future due to changing societal values. For example, the whipping of criminals was routine until the late Eighteenth Century. This custom came to be considered unacceptable because society’s attitude changed to include whipping as a ‘cruel’ punishment. With respect to the death penalty however, “the Court has maintained that there remains broad public support for the death penalty as a remedy for the most serious of crimes” (Mott, 2004). The Supreme Court has ruled that capital punishment does not come under the category of extraordinarily ‘cruel’ but has upheld that it does violate the Eighth Amendment if considered unusual. The Supreme Court ruled in the Furman v. Georgia case of 1972, that “the death penalty was being subjectively applied because a disproportionate amount of minorities had faced execution which made the practice unusual” (“Furman v. Georgia”, 1972). Following the decision, roughly 600 persons on death row in the country had their death sentences commuted to life in prison. An example was members of the infamous ‘Mason Family.’ No executions were permitted until it legally resumed in 1976. However, “the majority of death penalty opponents believe that the practice continues to be intrinsically biased against those of lower income and minorities” (Olen & Barry, 1996: 272). Punishment Why Society Punishes Historically, the reason for punishing criminals has been to “avenge the crime, to protect society by imprisoning the criminal, to deter that person and other potential offenders from the commission of crimes and to obtain reparations from the offender” (Wolfgang, 1998). Throughout the history of society, this rational has not changed significantly. The four basic reasons society punishes law breakers can be classified by two rationales. One is to acquire desired consequences which include seeking compensation, deterrence and protecting society. The other, vengeance, or retribution, involves punishment for a crime committed on society. Justifications Those that believe that retribution (vengeance) is a justification for the death penalty frequently point to the Bible’s reference to ‘an eye for an eye.’ Aggression should be met with an aggressive type punishment (Olen & Barry, 1996: 268). “This use of punishment is society’s way of striking back at one who has disturbed the emotional and ethical senses of a people” (Lunden, 1967: 232). Interestingly, those who invoke the Old Testament quote to justify utilizing the death penalty as ethical either disregarded or intentionally ignored the section in the New Testament where Jesus explicitly rejects this statement then asks his followers to ‘turn the other cheek’ instead. However, the ‘eye for an eye’ rationalization is still used by people today. Those that embrace this view are undoubtedly right when they contend that capital punishment makes certain that the offender will not commit another murder. In addition being an act of vengence, the death penalty is the definitive preventative measure (Olen & Barry, 1996). Opposition View Those who are against capital punishment believe that all life should be respected and that imprisoning a criminal for life with no possibility of parole is sufficient punishment. Opponents also think that revenge is wrong and ultimately more destructive to the value system and very fabric of society than is the crime itself. In addition, opponents think that banning the death penalty will “allow opportunities for confronting those who had been hurt most and possibly encourage remorse or reconciliation (and) suggest those that have killed be made to service the community as a way of partially making amends” (Olen & Barry, 1967: 272). According to capital punishment opponents, the barbaric practice is morally and ethically objectionable in today’s society. Some are against it based for religious reasons citing morality as the primary issue; however, different religions and persons within those religions have different beliefs. European Christians, for example, are for the most part oppose to the death penalty but in America, Christians generally support it. A Wide Ethnic Disparity Death penalty critics claim that rich, Caucasian criminals are not as likely to be put to death as disadvantaged minority members of society and if the victim is rich or Caucasian, it is statistically more likely to be imposed. The numbers clearly provide evidence for this claim. From the time the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 43 percent of U.S. executions have involved black or Hispanic persons. This minority group accounts for more than half of those currently serving on death row. “About half of those murdered in the U.S. are white but 80 percent of all murder cases involve white victims. From 1976 to 2002, 12 whites were executed for killing a black person while 178 blacks were executed for murdering a white person” (“Race”, 2003). It would appear that the ‘unusual’ characteristic of capital punishment continues to be a convincing argument but another characteristic must be present for the custom to be abolished again. “There is ample evidence that the death penalty is applied with a discriminatory impact based on the race of the victim, but a constitutional challenge requires intentional discrimination” (Mello, 1995: 933). Opponents also argue that any justice system that executes its citizens disproportionately cannot be thought of as anything but corrupt which diminishes the integrity and validity of the entire system. The Argument for Capital Punishment Right and Wrong Opponents of capital punishment contend that the sentence is unjust but proponents differ with this point of view because they think what is really unjust is deliberately taking another person’s life, murder. Furthermore, an injustice society should not allow is for murderers to continue living after they impose the death penalty on another person and by that action, also sentences their victim’s family and friends to a life-sentence of grief. If someone stole a car and was permitted to keep and drive it without fear of equal justice, no one would consider that just. It is it neither just to permit someone that steals another’s life then keep their own. By permitting people who have been lawfully convicted of being a self-appointed executioner to live devalues human life. According to those who favor capital punishment, opponents disregard reasonable logic by claim that the taking a killer’s life devalues human life. Apparently, no one ever stole their car and don’t appreciate the example or they think that the killer’s life is more valuable than their victim. Taking away felon’s freedom is the only method a society can show how much it values freedom. Religious Considerations Christian philosophy, both Catholic and Protestant, have constantly confirmed the right of a just government to put convicted murderers to death. “The Sixth Commandment in original Hebrew reads not ‘thou shall not kill’ but ‘thou shall not murder.’ The Torah, Judaism’s chief source of ethical reference, is definite in its support of the death penalty. The only law repeated in all five books of the Torah is the condemnation of murderers to death” (Prager, 2001). Real-Life Illustration According to those who favor capital punishment, sending a murderer to prison where they can enjoy a roof over their heads and three meals a day for life doesn’t fully address the matter. Death penalty laws have changed in the past and likely will again. Additionally, people have a tendency to forget or diminish past events and parole boards’ change its personnel through the years so there is always a possibility no matter how minute that a murderer will kill again if allowed to remain alive. The significance of a life sentence imposed on a person tends to depreciate as time passes as these examples illustrates. James Moore raped and killed Pamela Moss, a 14 year-old in New York State in 1962. Her parents were against to capital punishment and requested Moore be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Due to a change in sentencing regulations Moore is eligible for parole every two years and has been since 1982. Kenneth McDuff was found guilty of fatally shooting two boys in their face then brutally raping and strangling to death their 16-year-old female acquaintance in 1966. A jury in Texas sentenced McDuff to death but his punishment was commuted to life in prison in 1972 following the Supreme Court ruling. He was released in 1989 and committed a minimum of six more murders including a pregnant mother of two. McDuff was ultimately executed in 1998 (Lowe, 2006). A Few Mistakes Are… OK? Though the court system is among, if not the most equitable the world has to offer, no justice system can presume to provide faultless results in every instance. Errors are inherent within all justice systems because all rely on the human factor for evidence and for judgment. The justice system appropriately demands that a higher benchmark be imposed for the determination of guilt in cases involving the death penalty. With exceptional due-process that is applied in all capital punishment cases, the possibility of making a mistake is small. From the time the death penalty was reinstatement in 1976 no credible evidence has been offered that shows an innocent persons has been executed. It has been widely reported that over 100 ‘innocent’ death row inmates have been ‘exonerated.’ This number is highly inflated. The actual number of exonerated death row inmates is closer to 40 which should be taken into account with the more than 7,000 death row inmates there have been since 1973. “Mistakes within the system, though few and unavoidable, should not serve as justification to eradicate the death penalty. We should never disregard the dangers of permitting murderers to kill again” (Stewart, 2006). Death is Not Logical Does Not Deter Opponents of capital punishment claim that it does not deter crime, which statistics demonstrate. Additionally, if crimes that caused ‘no harm’ to society were decriminalized, such as drug possession, prostitution and gambling the inmate population would be reduced by more than half. This would ensure the violent offender serves their whole sentence without the necessity of being paroled early due to over-crowding in prisons. Consequently, society would be suitably protected from ‘animals’ that cause physical harms. Opponents also disagree that the death penalty deters crime due to the very nature of the people’s motives for committing murders. No person can conceive of their own death therefore cannot appreciate or contemplate the consequences of their actions. In addition, homicides are usually committed as a result of spontaneous actions and not thoroughly considered beforehand. Therefore, “the deterrent case has no validity” (Johnson, 1968). Empirical Evidence Numerous studies have been performed to find out if capital punishment is indeed a deterrence. They are conducted by “comparing homicide rates in contiguous jurisdictions, some of which had abolished capital punishment; examining time series data on homicide rates within a jurisdiction during the years before and after the abolished capital punishment; and comparing homicide rates in a jurisdiction before and after the imposition of the death sentence or execution” (Hagan, 1985). These studies have collectively confirmed that the death penalty does not deter criminal behaviors. Curiously, states that utilize the death penalty normally have higher murder rates than those that do not. It’s as if the death penalty invites instead of deterring crime. According to a New York Times survey, “the 12 states that did not reenact the death penalty following the Supreme Courts reinstatement in 1976 have reported similar murder rates as have those states did.” (“States”, 2009). Statistics gathered from the Federal Bureau of Investigation reveals of those 12 states that do not have the death penalty, 10 of them actually had their murder rates fall below the national average since 1976. In addition, half of the states that retained capital punishment saw their murder rates increase above the national average. These statistics indicate capital punishment seldom, if ever, deters crime. If fact, the opposite is usually the case “It is difficult to make the case for any deterrent effect from these numbers,” said Steven Messner, a criminologist at the State University of New York at Albany. “Whatever the factors are that affect change in homicide rates, they don't seem to operate differently based on the presence or absence of the death penalty in a state” (“States”, 2009). Conclusion The Supreme Court has determined that capital punishment is not ‘cruel’ yet perhaps ‘unusual’ in its analysis of the Eighth Amendment during the past 35 years. The Supreme Court, lawmakers and the majority of reasonable citizens are waiting for the rest of society’s understanding of the facts to further evolve before eradicating the practice on the basis that it is both ‘cruel’ and ‘unusual.’ Our American culture loves to punish. As evidence, it is commonly known the U.S. imprisons many more of its people, by percentage, than any other developed country. Someday, it will be an empathetic society that does not apply the passion of revenge to determine its laws and the death penalty will fade into history much the same as the Salem witch trials, another barbaric type of punishment. What is required, as in most every matter, is education. References “Furman v. Georgia.” The Supreme Court Collection. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Accessed July 26, 2011 from Hagan, J. (1985). “Modern Criminology: Crime, Criminal Behavior, and its Control.” New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Johnson, E.H. (1968). “Crime, Correction, and Society.” Illinois: The Dorsey Press. Lowe, Wesley. (April 13, 2006). “Capital Punishment vs. Life Without Parole.” ProDeath Penalty Accessed July 26, 2011 from Lunden, W.A. (1967). “Crimes and Criminals.” Iowa: The Iowa State University Press. McCloskey, J. (1996). “The Death Penalty: A Personal View.” Criminal Justice Ethics. Vol. 15, pp. 2-9. Mello, M. (1995). “Defunding Death.” American Criminal Law Review. Vol. 32, pp. 933-1012. Mott. Jonathan. (March 2000). “Is the Death Penalty Constitutional?” This Nation. Accessed July 26, 2011 from Olen, Jeffrey & Barry, Vincent. (1996). “Applying Ethics.” Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Prager, Dennis. (June 9, 2001). “Death Penalty Guards What is Valued Most.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. “Race and the Death Penalty.” (February 26, 2003). Unequal Justice. New York: American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed July 26, 2011 from “States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates” (December 6, 2009) New York Times Accessed July 26, 2011 from Stewart, Steven D. (2006). “A Message from the Prosecuting Attorney.” The Death Penalty. Clark County, IN: Office of the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney. Wolfgang, M.E. (1998). “We Do Not Deserve to Kill.” Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 44, pp. 19-32. Read More