The Death Penalty in the United States - Essay Example

? Topic: Lecturer: Presentation: Introduction Death penalty is a premeditated and planned taking away of a human life by the government as a means of punishment for capital offences. It has been used by many countries to punish offenders of such crimes as murder, rape, arson, treason among other serious crimes. However, today it is mostly used to punish first-degree or premeditated murder in the USA. However, due to criticisms by human rights movements and religious groups especially on its inhumane and immoral grounds, many countries especially in the west have abolished death penalty. In America, execution is under the jurisdiction of the states hence some states such as Texas, Kansas, and New Jersey still impose death penalties while states such as New York, Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa have long abolished the practice (Walker, 17). The death penalty debate has been in the limelight for a long time leading to abolishment and later revival of the practice in US. The proponents of death penalty argue that it deters crime while opponents argue that it is inhumane and contravenes the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution, besides they also argue that states that have a death penalty in place have a high rate of murder than those states without (Meyer & Grant, 35). The justice system has also been blamed for being lax with criminals leading to increased rate of murders as criminals do not fear prosecution. The question that begs an answer then is whether death penalty deters crime or whether life sentence without parole is more appropriate to mitigate murder crimes. This paper will thus explore the arguments for and against death penalty in the US. One of the main arguments for death penalty is that it deters crime. Death penalty is a harsh punishment as it condemns one to die hence a rational human being would rather avoid committing such an offence for fear of death. It instils fear in potential criminals therefore making them to avoid the crime and a result, murder rate declines. A research carried out by the University of Colorado on the relationship between executions, pardons and homicides in 2003 revealed that for each additional execution deterred five murders while each commutation reduced deterrence and produced five additional murders (Cassell, 192). This shows that punishment by death penalty is more efficient in deterring crime. However, opponents would argue that death penalty has no effect on crime since those regions which have long abolished death penalty such as the south have lower crime rates than those currently using it. Assuming they are right, this justifies death penalty as a deterrence for crime as it means those areas have high rates of crime hence death penalty is needed. Moreover, the variations may be caused by other factors such as educational level and economic prosperity of such regions which has direct relation to crime rate. For example, according to Banner (6), people of the south originated from violence prone areas and wealth was unevenly distributed hence at the initial stages they were using death penalty to deter all sorts of crime. Another argument in support of crime deterrence is that death penalty incapacitates offenders. The death of a first-degree murderer means fewer crimes will be committed as the individual is not able to commit the crime again. Cassell (183) noted that a murderer who had been convicted and given a death sentence but escaped when the state abolished death penalty committed more of such crimes thereafter such as rape and murder. If he had been hanged, those crimes against innocent citizens would have been avoided. However, opponents advocate for life imprisonment without parole to enable the offender to get rehabilitated and change hence reduce crime (Guernsey, 2010). Walker (10) argues that contrary to popular belief, death penalty is justified in the sense that according to public opinion, many citizens of US even in states where death penalty was abolished are in favour of it as a punishment for heinous crimes against humanity such as premeditated murder. She is supported by Cassell (186) who argues that death penalty is acceptable in law. The trial is carried out in court and a jury of 12 persons evaluate the facts, review evidence and acting under the constitutional procedures finds the defendant guilty. This means the sentence passed to the defendant is just as it matches the crime committed under the law. He also notes that since murder differs from other crimes in kind, the punishment must also differ in kind hence it is justified (198). The opponents argue that it is unjust since the Supreme Court had ruled in their favour leading to abolition before the decision was reverted. The practice is also condemned by other nations such as European nations thus should be abolished on such grounds. However, such nations are considered as undemocratic therefore has no effect on democratic states like America. Death penalty also serves as a retribution for crimes committed. Cassell (186) acknowledges the horror and pain suffered by victims by listening to stories of relatives of victims who were raped, tortured and murdered. These people deserve justice and the only way is to make them pay by making them go through the same experience. According to Walker (42), retribution was there even in biblical times in the book of Genesis. Men were created in the image of God, and committing a crime against humanity is like committing a crime against God. People were killed in those times for working on Sabbath, abusing parents, communicating with the dead, and for following another religion as well as committing adultery. One woman was about to be stoned to death for committing adultery when Jesus intervened so the practice was common. However, the same bible teaches that life is sacred and no man should take the life of another. Opponents also argue that retribution is not rational since it does not have a good will hence not justified (Pojman, 2004). Despite death penalty serving as deterrence, retribution and as a just punishment, critics have advanced many arguments in favour of abolition of such a penalty. It has been referred as an immoral act by many critics as it takes away the life of a person thus denying him/her life and liberty as stipulated by the constitution under the fourteenth amendment and according to Christian faith which values human life and dignity (Walker, 7). It is also considered immoral in that it discriminates against the poor, ethnic minority as well as some races such as the African Americans and Hispanics. However, proponents argue that by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his destiny, he is responsible for his own actions and besides not all Christian faithful advocate for abolishment since death penalty is rooted in the bible as a form of punishing offenders. Some people also argue that it is a cruel form of punishment because those executed suffer pain. The inhumane methods were applied by traditional societies but today with technological advancements, there are ways of executing the offender without pain such as the lethal injection. Besides, the victims suffered more pain than the offender. Death penalty in most of the states is only there in writing but not in practice as no executions are carried out. For example, in 2007 only 1099 executions had been carried out since 1976 in US and in other states such as Kansas, no executions were reported. Texas had the highest number of executions amounting to 80% of all executions (Walker, 17). One of the reasons why executions are few is that most people die in prison due to the lengthy and costly process involved. It involves a pre-trial and two trials and those found guilty are given a chance for appeal. Normal cases have only one trial and an appeal. To add to that, more attorneys are required to perform the job satisfactorily. Since the cases are of high magnitude and of interest to many individuals and bearing in mind it is a decision to put someone’s life in danger, the cases need highly qualified judge, jurors and attorneys (Meyer & Grant, 38). It also requires investigators and experts to verify the evidence thus making the process costly. Texas uses $2.3m per year, Florida $ 51m and California $114 m in execution cases instead of putting this money into more useful activities such as education. The critics argue that these costs exceed the cost of a life imprisonment by a great margin but Cassell (192) argues that though the initial cost of death penalty is high, in the long-run the costs for life imprisonment without parole are greater than for execution Despite spending a lot on death penalty, critics argue that chances of prosecuting an innocent person are high. The decision once made is irrevocable hence needs careful evaluation of facts. There are many people who have been found innocent after repealing but if they were not given a chance they would have been prosecuted. However, Guernsey (67) is quick to point out that the due process of the law is of high standard hence there is minimal chances for error. If an error was to occur, it would be unfortunate but anyone is bound to make mistakes and cannot be judged based on a single mistake hence abolition is uncalled for. The due process leading to death penalty is under criticism for promoting racism. The jury is seen to be racist as it comprises mostly white individuals thus giving undue advantage to the whites. Another issue is that from those already in prisons, a high number comprises of blacks and colored people and not then whites (Guernsey & Bren, 79).It is therefore logical to conclude that it is likely for a black man to be convicted of murder than a white man. The process also favors the rich over the poor as they do not have the resourcing needed to employ highly qualified attorneys, investigators and other prosecutorial staff. Poverty is thus related to high rates of colored people awaiting execution. However, Cassell (193) argues that the difference in race may be due to other factors such as the proportion of the blacks or Hispanics to total population. The fourteenth amendment of the constitution considers everyone residing in US as a US citizen and the state should not devise laws that abridge the privileges of citizens. Every individual is entitled to non –discrimination. Another argument put forward by the abolitionists is that the families of the victims suffer as a result of the death penalty. This is supported by the fact that the process is lengthy and costly hence giving the family undue stress. The offenders convicted of murder take a long time to be executed and most of them die of natural causes even before their appeal cases are heard. This means the victims take a long time to get justice hence the retribution function of the death penalty may not be achieved or may not be satisfactory (Banner, 180). In other countries, the process is faster hence giving victims the justice that they deserve although this may be disadvantageous if one is convicted wrongly. The offenders also lack adequate representation as they are unable to hire attorneys without the help of the government. The attorneys needed are highly qualified thus demand a high fee which the offender may not be able to pay. This affects their defense as they utilize the government attorneys who are inexperienced and incompetent as well as underpaid and have a lot of cases to attend to hence have no time to handle the case effectively. This may lead to an innocent person being thrown to jail due to poor representation (Meyer & Grant, 40).The process of arbitration is also unfair as it depends on the jurisdiction in which the case is taking place. Some jurisdictions like Texas impose heavy penalties while others may consider the crime as mental slaughter liable to life imprisonment. It also depends on the quality of the legal counsel and in most cases facts of the case are less considered thereby giving undue advantage to others. In that sense, the opponents feel that death penalty should be abolished. Another contentious issue is the use of physicians to assist in intentionally killing offenders. According to American Medical Association, the role of physicians is to protect life at all cost and not to end it. Even euthanasia is prohibited in some states as it is considered unethical and against the codes of physicians. However, proponents would argue that since death penalty is widely accepted and is lawful, then the physician would not be violating the code of ethics (Pojman, 205). The idea that death penalty is widely condemned in civilized European countries makes it a case for rejection in America. However, death penalty emanated from the very same colonists. The English law was very strict and death penalty was given even to petty crimes such as theft and burglary (Banner, 5). However, the colonies did not adopt the strict rules but only implemented death penalty for major offenses such as murder. These countries should not thus be used as criteria for abolishing death penalty. Many developed countries like China, Japan and Middle East also have death penalties for first-degree murders and some even sentence to death those against religion. USA is ranked with these countries in enforcing death penalty laws. Conclusion Death penalty is a widely debated subject in the US and in international arena. There has not yet been an agreement as to whether death penalty should or should not be abolished since each side of the divide is bent on proving itself right. USA tried to abolish death penalty as it was viewed as racialist and against the constitution spirit of life, liberty and of human rights. However, due to increased crime it was forced to reinstate the death penalty in 1976 but gave states freedom to choose whether to have death penalty or not. Most of those found guilty are never executed but die of natural causes. Arguments advanced in favor of death penalty include deterrence of crime, retribution and just punishment. Opponents on the other hand, argue against immorality, costs incurred, racism, poor representation for the poor, sentencing of innocent people, suffering for victims among others. Despite these arguments, no single argument has been proven hence the opponents do not have a sound ground for their claims. Death penalty will therefore continue to exist in our justice system until proper bases for abolition is established. References Banner, S. The Death Penalty: An American History, Harvard University Press, 2003. Cassell, P. In Defense of the Death Penalty, in: Hugo, A. & Paul, C. eds. Debating the Death Penalty: Should America have Capital Punishment?, Oxford University Press, 2004 Guernsey, J. B. Death Penalty: Fair Solution or Moral Failure? Lerner Publishing, 2010 Meyer J. F. & Grant D. R. The Courts in Our Criminal Justice System, Prentice Hall, 2002 Pojman, L. Why The Death Penalty is Morally Permissible. In: Hugo, A. & Paul, C. eds. Debating the Death Penalty: Should America have Capital Punishment? Oxford University Press, 2004 Walker, I. The Death Penalty, ABDO, 2008. Read More