The American System of Criminal Justice - Death Penalty Should be Abolished - Research Paper Example

The American System of Criminal Justice - Death Penalty Should be Abolished Introduction Death penalty has gone through severe criticism and opposition in the recent years, and one of the most debated topics in connection with this issue has been whether or not death penalty should be abolished. Significantly, the debate concerning death penalty has become one of the most long-lasting and excited debates in politics and criminal justice today. The supporters of death penalty claim that it is the most justifiable punishment for murderers and this form of punishment is indispensable to deter potential murderers. However, those who oppose the capital punishment argue that the utility of death penalty to deter future murderers cannot be proven and there is good reason to consider that it is essential tool to deter potential murderers. According to this view, death penalty has been proved, over and over again, as a flawed machine, riddled with errors, besmirched officials, and defective practices. As Jeffrey H. Reiman maintains, death penalty, in principle, is a just punishment for murder, but it is an unjust penalty in practice, especially in American context, where it is applied in arbitrary and discriminatory ways. Thus, he makes a strong argument maintaining that “it is good in principle to avoid the death penalty and bad in practice to impose it.” (Reiman, 1998, p. 68). Therefore, it becomes evident, in a profound analysis of the research evidences, that death penalty should be abolished, sooner or later, because it is morally unjustified and uncivilized practice of punishment today. This paper makes a reflective exploration of the topic in order to identify the major arguments in favor of the view that death penalty should be abolished. Why Death Penalty should be abolished The debate concerning whether or not death penalty should be abolished has been a long one, and the idea of abolition of death penalty gained momentum across the globe over the last five decades. It is important to recognize that death penalty or Capital Punishment has been practiced by almost all the societies of the world during the different stages of their history and it is still observed as the most essential form of punishment in various societies across the globe today. Significantly, there have been varied opinions on the subject of Capital Punishment, some for it and others against it. Unquestionably, the question relating to death penalty has become one of the most engaging issues of debate in the world in the present day, and the world is divided into two parts on the same question. Whereas the supporters of death penalty argue that the practice of death penalty is essential to maintain decorum and to discourage future crimes, a stronger plea has been made by the critics of death penalty according to whom it is an infringement of the basic human rights. According to the supporters of the abolition of death penalty, it is a barbaric act of murder which is not morally, ethically, religiously, or democratically acceptable practice. Citing the declaration by the American Civil Liberties Union, Hugo Adam Bedau argues that “the death penalty inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantee of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. The imposition of the death penalty is inconsistent with fundamental values of our democratic system.” (Bedau, 1992). As Hugo Adam Bedau maintains, death penalty should be realized as an excruciating refutation of civil liberties to the citizens of a state which does not have the right to kill human beings. Therefore, it is essential to “seek to prevent executions and to abolish capital punishment by litigation, legislation, commutation, or by the weight of a renewed public outcry against this brutal and brutalizing institution.” (Bedau, 1992). In a reflective analysis of the arguments for the abolition of death penalty, it becomes lucid that several nations of the world, including Portugal and the United Kingdom, have outlawed the death penalty. The process of abolishing the death penalty around the world started as early as the mid 1800s, and the ethical dimensions of the question have been widely cited as the major reason for the abolition of death penalty. Advocates of the abolition of death penalty are hopeful that this inhuman form of punishment will of curse be abolished, sooner or later, around the world, and they even argue that it will be abolished, for good, in the foreseeable future. It is important realize that the UN has undertaken crucial initiatives to abolish death penalty all over the world. As William Schabas purports, “abolition of capital punishment features as one of the criminal law initiatives of the United Nations in its administration of Cambodia, Kosovo and East Timor. The day when abolition of the death penalty becomes a universal norm, entrenched not only by convention but also by custom and qualified as a peremptory rule of jus cogens, is undeniably in the foreseeable future.” (Schabas, 2002, p. 3). Therefore, a careful analysis of the research evidences prove that there is a significant consensus among the scholars that death penalty should be abolished for always. Considering the question of death penalty from a universal perspective is essential to understand the various claims purported in support of the abolition of death penalty. Accordingly, it is fundamental to comprehend that there is no universal norms and rules relating to death penalty, and these laws differ from one country to another. Whereas certain countries of the world opt for death penalty to be imposed on individuals who commit serious crime such as homicide or rape, some other countries draw on the same verdict for relatively less serious crimes, such as corruption. Therefore, there is no universality for the norms and laws pertaining to death penalty. Several types of arguments have been offered in favor of the abolition of death penalty all over the world. First of all, the judicial system is incapable of reforming the offender if death penalty is opted for, and it is necessary to give the convict a chance to reform and change. Similarly, there are chances that lack of proper investigations will cause the wrong person to be convicted and penalized to death penalty. “Every individual deserves a second chance in life. An individual convicted for a crime is more likely to learn from his mistake after serving the prison term…” (Naik, 2010). Another major argument against death penalty has been made on moral grounds, and the proponents of the abolition of death penalty argue that this form of penalty is morally unacceptable. A comprehensive analysis of the legal and political history of the death penalty confirms that the opinion in favor of the abolishment of death penalty has increased tremendously over the several decades and various countries. Whereas the current state of the political debate over capital punishment remains one of disagreement, controversy, and division, more and more academic studies today prove that death penalty is an undesirable practice in the modern civilized societies. In refutation of some of the central claims of the supporters of death penalty, John Donohue and Justin J. Wolfers argue that “there exists profound uncertainty about the deterrent (or anti-deterrent) effect of the death penalty; the data tell us that capital punishment is not a major influence on homicide rates host of more recent academic studies has examined the death penalty over the last decade.” (Donohue and Wolfers, 2006, 841). Some pertinent evidences in favor of this argument were provided by Goldberg and Dershowitz (1970) who applied the principles of the eighth amendment and argued that the Court should hold it unconstitutional. They make a significant plea to the Court, the legislators, and the executives to make constitutional proclamation that capital punishment should be abolished. “Despite the familiar demonstrations that we have,” they maintain, “no convincing proof of the death penalty’s deterrent effect, proposals to make the penalty mandatory and expand its applications still proliferate.” (Goldberg and Dershowitz, 1970, p. 1773). Therefore, the contemporary academic studies on the subject offer convincing evidences to buttress the claims of the opponents of death penalty, and the modern civilized society cannot disregard the pleas against the immoral forms of punishment for long. The opponents of death penalty have long been making the efforts to put an end to the brutal form of punishment and they continue to fight for the abolishment of death penalty. According to them, this is a form of barbaric murder which the educated societies cannot morally accept. They also argue that there are evidences to prove that poor people and minorities receive a disproportionate number of death penalty. The death penalty abolitionists also hold that many of those executed are innocent and victims. For example, death penalty has been employed as a powerful weapon of racism and class oppression, and the minority communities are most affected by death penalty. “The death penalty in the United States should be abolished because it functions as a potent agent of racism and class oppression. African Americans and Latino/as represent the majority of those on death row. And executions are reserved almost exclusively for the poor. Ninety percent of those awaiting execution could not afford to hire a trial attorney.” (Workers World, 2009). Thus, it is fundamental to realize that the opponents of capital punishment have strong evidences to prove their arguments and they also believe that it is barbaric to execute people who are teenage, insane, or mentally retarded. According to the recent studies, even the proponents of capital punishment are largely dissatisfied with how it is applied. “Opponents believe that the death penalty lingers as a barbaric practice from a less civilized age. They point out that most other developed democracies in the world have ceased to execute criminals. Opponents challenge the death penalty’s claims for effectiveness in reducing crime. They also raise concerns about whether the punishment can be applied without errors and discrimination.” (Cole and Smith, 2006, p. 405). According to some of the most essential arguments against death penalty, there is no hard evidence to prove that death penalty is deterrent and it is not justifiable for a government to participate in the intentional killing of citizens. Similarly, they hold that death penalty is applied in a discriminatory way and innocent people have been executed. (Cole and Smith, 2006, p. 405). Several factors have contributed to the popularity of the public debate on death penalty and one major factor contributing to the prominence of this issue is the ethical factor of the issue. According to the proponents of the abolition of death penalty, it is morally not justifiable to make a decision which kills a life. Significantly, death penalty involves a pertinent choice between life and death and human beings do not have the moral right to make judgment against one’s right to live. Thus, the execution of human life by civilized societies cannot be justified and there have been serious criticisms leveled against such a practice. According to these philosophers, death penalty cannot be set down for even the murderers because no human being has the right to execute another person. As Ernest van den Haag maintains, “the right to life is equally imprescriptible for all, that the murderer has as much right to live as his victim.” (Haag, 1984, p. 972). Therefore, the ethical factor of the issue of death penalty has been an essential matter determining the basic claim that it should be abolished. The arguments of the proponents of the abolition of death penalty are made stronger by the fact that there is a possibility of fallible human decisions causing execution of innocent people. As James S. Liebman observes, “the choice between life and death is too important and difficult to entrust to fallible human decision makers, referring mainly to frontline capital decision makers—legislators, prosecutors, juries, and sentencing judges.” (Liebman, 2007, p. 3). According to Liebman, it has been presented before the Supreme Court that there is a chance that “those decision makers will inevitably impose the death penalty in ways that deny due process or impose cruel and unusual punishment.” (Liebman, 2007, p. 4). Another major argument in favor of the abolition of death penalty has been connected with the social and political forces influencing death penalty. Although death penalty is much more severe than all other forms of contemporary punishment, there has been limited literature about the social and political elements affecting the legality of death penalty. As Jacobs and Carmichael (2002) argue, the social and political forces play a major role in determining the legality of death penalty, although statistical studies about this factor are inadequate. They point out that the racial or ethnic threat theories make a significant argument when they propose that the death penalty will more likely be legal in jurisdictions with relatively large black or Hispanic populations. (Jacobs and Carmichael, 2002). Similarly, the arguments by economic threat explanations are also relevant in this regard, and they argue that death penalty is employed in unequal areas. In the political front, conservative public and the stronger law-and-order Republicans influence the legalization of the death penalty. “After controlling for social disorganization, region, period, and violent crime, panel analyses suggest that minority presence and economic inequality enhance the likelihood of a legal death penalty… The results suggest that a political approach has explanatory power because threat effects expressed through politics and effects that are directly political invariably account for decisions about the legality of capital punishment.” (Jacobs and Carmichael, 2002, p. 109). Therefore, it is important to consider the social and political forces influencing death penalty when making an analysis of the arguments in favor of an abolition of the death penalty. Conclusion In this analysis of the major arguments against capital punishment, it has become lucid that capital punishment or death penalty is a form of punishment which no civilized society can accept as a supportable means of castigating criminals. There have been several arguments against the death penalty which are based on the political, religious, ethical, and societal factors, and it has been generally accepted that death penalty will be abolished all over the world, sooner or later. Most essentially, death penalty is generally regarded as a form of punishment which is not suitable to an educated society, and no society is eligible to execute a life. In other words, death penalty is also a type of murder, and it remains the same even if it is committed by a state or a society. Another strong case against death penalty has been presented by the argument that it is a form of punishment which affects the family of the convict more than the convict. Similarly, it has also been argued that death penalty has not been effectively implemented by the people concerned. There have been solid evidences to prove that the legislators, prosecutors, juries, and sentencing judges have taken fallible decisions to execute the innocent. It has been underlined that capital punishment usually is imposed upon the poor, the uneducated and the minority groups, and it has been used as a weapon of racial discrimination. In essence, the supporters of death penalty fail to prove that this form of punishment is effective as a deterrent to put off further crimes in the society. In conclusion, the evidences from recent research studies prove that death penalty should be abolished all over the world. References Bedau, Hugo Adam. (1992). “The Case against the Death Penalty.” ACLU Free Reading Room. Retrieved 25 February 2011, from http://users.rcn.com/mwood/deathpen.html Cole, George F. and Smith, Christopher E. (2006). The American System of Criminal Justice. Cengage Learning. p. 405. Donohue, John and Wolfers, Justin J. (2006). “Uses and Abuses of Empirical evidence in the Death Penalty Debate.” American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings. Retrieved 25 February 2011, from http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1842&context=alea Goldberg, Arthur J and Dershowitz, Alan M. (1970). “Declaring the Death Penalty Unconstitutional.” Harvard Law Review. The Harvard Law Review Association. JSTOR. p. 1773. Retrieved 25 February 2011, from http://www.jstor.org/pss/1339687 Haag, Ernest van den. (1984). “The Death Penalty Once More.” Hein Online. 18. (957). p. 972. Retrieved 25 February 2011, from http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol18/Issue4/DavisVol18No4_vandenHaag.pdf Jacobs, David and Carmichael, Jason T. (2002). “The Political Sociology of the Death Penalty: A Pooled Time-Series Analysis.” American Sociological Review. 67. p. 109. Retrieved 25 February 2011, from http://texasmoratorium.org/rgraphics/Jacobs_Proof3.pdf Liebman, James S. (2007). “Slow Dancing With Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment, 1963–2006.” Columbia Law Review. 107 (1). p. 3. Retrieved 25 February 2011, from http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/107/1/Liebman.pdf Naik, Abhijit. (2010). “Should Death Penalty be Abolished.” Retrieved 25 February 2011, from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/should-death-penalty-be-abolished.html Reiman, Jeffrey H. (1998). “Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished in America.” The Death Penalty: For and Against. Louis P. Pojman, Jeffrey H. Reiman. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 68. Schabas, William. (2002). The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 3. Workers World. (2009) “Another Reason to Abolish the Death Penalty.” Retrieved 25 February 2011, from http://www.workers.org/2009/editorials/death_penalty_0917/ Read More