The Death Penalty in the USA - Term Paper Example

 The death penalty: A necessary punitive action that should be continued in the United States The death penalty within the United States is one of the most controversial punitive measures that is used to punish offenders. The United States is one of a small number of countries that uses the death penalty. When the nature of the crimes that provide for the imposing of death on a defendant are examined, an understanding of the victims allows one to understand this form of punishment as just. However, the use of the death penalty is a permanent solution that can provide human error room for terrible mistakes. When weighed against the deterring factor that the penalty provides it is clear that the unfortunate mistakes do not justify the elimination of the penalty. The current statistics show that within the United States we have a high rate of recidivism from offenders. The financial costs of a death penalty conviction are high, but not in comparison to the cost of a crime plus the life sentence. The use of the death penalty, when handed down after conviction of a crime from which the offender cannot be liberated or from which the forgiveness of society is not conceivable, provides a service of justice to the citizens in providing a resolve for the crime committed, an example to promote the deterrence of crime, and a relief in costs that are incurred during a lifelong prison term. Crime is a social situation that exists in all nations, all communities, and in all social groups. Where there are laws, there are those who will attempt to bend, manipulate, and break them. An urban myth exists that the United States has one of the worst crime rates in the world. However, according to Winslow and Zhang (2008), the United States ranks twelfth out of a grouping of 165 countries, with England, Denmark, Australia, and Sweden all ranking with higher rates of crime. According to their research, Sweden, which has the highest crime rate, records approximately 9,604 crimes per each 100,000 of population figures, while the United The death 3 States has a figure of 4,160 crimes per 100,000 members of the population (p. 30-32). According to Amnesty International statistics for 2008, there are 59 countries that still utilize the death penalty as a punitive measure. However, in the European and Central Asian countries, only the country of Belarus still uses this measure. As well, of the countries who have this judicial tool available, only 25 of the 59 countries actually used the death penalty. The United states showed the lowest number of executions in 2008 than had been carried out since 1995. Of the countries that use the death penalty as a punitive measure, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United states comprise 93% of the executions that are carried out by judicial systems in the world (p. 5). At first glance, one might question how the United States finds itself in a group of five with countries that have contrary ideals to those our forefathers discussed in the constitution. However, when one looks at the current crime rate and understands the type of crimes for which the death penalty has been used, a more clear understanding of the use of this measure can be appreciated. In 2008, there were 37 executions in the United States (USA executions, 2009). The crimes varied, but all had a sense of horror in common when the victims of the crimes are reviewed. The death penalty is reserved for the most heinous of crimes and once the sentence has been decided, a lengthy appeals process goes into effect in order to shed any reasonable doubt that the crime was indeed committed by the person who will pay the price. According to Amnesty International (2009), in 2008 four men were released from prison after the discovery that they were actually innocent of their crime. Since 1975, 120 such cases have been discovered where the man convicted and sentenced to death was released after the discovery of evidence that vindicated the defendants. The four who were released in 2008 had The death 4 each spent more than ten years in prison, taking a significant portion of their life away from them from poor prosecution (p 18). At first glance this seems an appalling figure to comprehend. The idea that the state might be executing individuals who are innocent of their crimes seems reason enough to abolish the death penalty. However, it is important to understand the crimes that result in such a penalty and while the tragedies of these men wrongly convicted are horrific and put the state in a position to have miscarried justice, when the emphasis is put on the victims of the crimes where the penalty has been imposed a different perspective can be achieved. Crimes that result in the death penalty have victims that are undeniably tragic and are committed by individuals that were most often recidivist offenders, having already spent time in prison, only commit a worse crime upon release. When the executions of offenders in July of 2008 are examined a wide array of victims can be explored in order to understand the necessity of putting to death these convicted criminals. When an anti-death penalty opinion is explored, the plight of the offender is emphasized, but when the victims and the nature of the crimes come to light is far more difficult to defend a position against imposing death on those who commit such crimes. As in many arguments that support more lenient sentencing laws and prison reforms, the crimes and the victims are forgotten and sympathy is promoted for those who left permanent and irrevocable memories, scars, and losses on people who may never get over the tragedy that these willful acts caused within their lives. In July of 2008 there were seven executions within the United States. The crimes of these offenders had taken the lives of nine people. In the same month, ten death row inmates were The death 5 given stays of execution. However, 25 murders had been committed by the ten inmates whose lives would not see justice that month for their loss (Hall, 2009). Junny Rios-Martinez was eleven years old when his life was taken by Mark Schwab after he abducted the boy, raped and then killed him. Junny died in 1991, leaving Schwab to have 17 years that Junny would never get to experience. Previous to this time, Schwab had spent three and a half years in prison for sexual assault on a thirteen year old boy from which the death of Junny now represented an escalation. In the same year that Junny died, Melody Flowers, age 27, was raped and murdered by Derrick Sonnier in crime that included the killing of her two year old son. Sonnier had stalked the victim for two years before committing his crime which included beating her with a claw hammer, strangling her, stabbing her, then pushing her underneath bath water after which he stabbed the two year old boy twice and tossed him into the bloody bathwater with his mother. He also got seventeen years of life that would have allowed that child to grow to adulthood had the crime not been committed. In addition, the four other children that Melody left behind struggled with being separated from each other and growing up in various homes and foster situations, without the love of their mother (Hall, 2009). Beulah Mae Kaiser was 79 years old when she died. The way in which she passed was violent and cruel. Among the many crimes that were committed against her was the use of her cane to both sodomize her and to ram it in her throat with such force that her teeth were knocked out and her tongue torn and shoved into her throat. She was found beaten, stabbed, and asphyxiated by her tongue. According to the state of Virginia, this crime was so heinous that her attacker, Kent Jackson received the death penalty and was executed on July 10, 2008. (Hall, 2009). The death 6 In looking over the nature of the crimes that earned the offenders this penalty, one can come to a better understanding that these defendants are not victims of a judicial system as anti-death penalty protestors might try to present, but are offenders of the worst kind that take the lives of individuals in such a way that warrants the most extreme form of justice. The seventeen years of life that both Mark Schwab and Derrick Sonnier were allowed to live were taken from children who would never seen the world through adult eyes. For seventeen years these men had the opportunity to fight for their lives, while their victims would lay cold and buried as the world moved on past the impact of their deaths. Of course, the loss would always be felt by the remaining family members who waited those seventeen years to see justice served. As previously mentioned, there are times when human error allows for the conviction of someone who is innocent. According to Amnesty International (2009), there have been 120 such cases since 1975 (p. 18). On January 31, 2000, Illinois Governor George Ryan declared that the opportunity for error was too high and that executions would cease until the death penalty system had been thoroughly investigated. At that time, 13 inmates had been found unjustly convicted compared to the 12 that had been executed since the death penalty had been brought back into use in 1977 (Samaha, 2006, p. 400). These issues of the conviction of innocent offenders is a grave consideration in regard to imposing death. This Illinois statistic showing that more inmates had been found innocent than had actually been executed shows two aspects of the judicial system. On the one hand, it proves that human beings are fallible, therefore organized social instruments are subject to human error. It also shows that those convicted erroneously are provided enough opportunity to bring that error to light and that injustice has been righted, despite the number of years lost to the victim of wrongful prosecution. At the time of the The death 7 moratorium imposed by Governor Ryan, he commuted the death sentence of over 160 inmates to life imprison in order to make right this perceived problem within the judicial system. This opportunity to provide for new evidence to exonerate offenders is being supported by technological advances by forensic sciences. Therefore, the incidents of offenders being executed when innocent are being reduced. The Innocence Project has used advances in DNA testing to free more than 143 offenders serving serious prison time or on death row since 1992 when the organization started taking on the system in order to bring truth to the concept of justice. The organization has found a pattern that has immerged where these victims of the judicial system are often previous offenders whose past influences the nature of the initial investigation. Some of those convicted in error had been convicted for previous homicides, providing a pattern for the police who used these convictions to push assumptions of guilt (DeLisi, 2005, p. 166). While the idea of human error is an appalling concept when the life of someone who is convicted of a crime is adversely affected by the nature of imprisonment and the potential for state imposed death, this does not negate the benefit of the death penalty. This does provide for an encouragement in investigative, judicial, and appeals process reforms that must provide more than ample opportunity for the innocent to be vindicated. The horrific crimes that allow for the death penalty to be imposed still need justice for their victims. Society needs the protection that the concept of the death penalty provides against those who might commit heinous crimes. The cases of innocent men and women being convicted and put to death are tragic, but the service that the death penalty provides in deterrence and justice requires that the sentence be supported by safeguards against error, rather than the abolition of the opportunity for the state imposed The death 8 death. In contemplating the death penalty, it is important to consider the case of Kenneth Allen McDuff. In 1966 McDuff and a companion forced two teenage boys and a teenage girl into the trunk of a car. The two boys were shot in the head while the teenage girl did not get such a quick death. After raping her and then sexually assaulting her with a coke bottle and the handle of a broom until they finally gave her rest by crushing her windpipe. He was convicted of the crime and sentenced to death. However, after an outcry against the death penalty provided pressure that pushed the Supreme Court in1972 into invalidating all death penalties through Furman v. Georgia, McDuff’s sentence for the brutal deaths and rape was commuted to a lighter sentence. McDuff found himself free in 1989 (Bedau & Cassell, 2004, p. 183-184). In the early 1990’s, McDuff raped and murdered at least nine women, including his last victim Colleen Reed. He and another companion forced her into a car, repeatedly raping and then torturing her by inserting a lit cigarette into her vagina. Had McDuff been executed as the court originally imposed as a sentence for his earlier crime, the lives of these women would have been saved from his heinous crime. His obvious lack of regard for women was evident in his statement “Killing a woman is like killing a chicken - the both squawk”(Bedau & Cassell, 2004, p. 184). His years in prison for his earlier crime had no obvious affect on his attitude and he did not exit prison in fear for his life because he had bee shown that he could do a terrible thing and then be released to do more terrible things. However, to execute such a man is to show other such men and women that there are unforgivable crimes against society. However, it must be recognized that the strongest deterrence that is provided is what is known as specific deterrence (Bedau & Cassell, 2004, p. 187). In other words, the deterrence that The death 9 is most supported by use of the death penalty is in preventing the individual offender from committing more heinous crimes. Offenders of such types are not usually affected by the concept of punishment by society. Many of the offenders who qualify for the death penalty, such as McDuff, fit into the category of the sociopath. A sociopath, according to Martha Stout (2004) require “a greater than normal need for stimulation so he often takes big risks, and he guiltlessly charms others into taking them too”(p. 44). Therefore, the concept of this type of personality responding to the threat of a death penalty would not outweigh his need to take the risk. The need to stop him is increased and the concept of the specific deterrence becomes important. People with no social conscious who can commit such terrible acts must be permanently deterred from ever having the opportunity to express their need for higher stimulation in such violent ways. It is important to recognize that general deterrence is also achieved by the imposition of the death penalty (Bedau & Cassell, 2004, p. 189) . For those who might be driven to think about a crime of murder and plan its details before the commission of the crime, the opportunity to think about the consequences is also presented. When the possibility of death is present, an individual might easily decide that the crime is not worth the risk. Therefore, one must not dismiss the general deterrence affect that the death penalty provides. This deterrence reinforces the social conscious of members of a society who may waiver when facing a moral dilemma involving a desire to commit an act in balance with the consequences of such an act. According to the findings of the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia, 1976, “The salient issue is not whether the death penalty deters every murder, only whether it deters some murders. Logic suggests that at least some potential murders will be deterred.” (Bedau & Cassell, 2004, p. 190). The death 10 There is evidence that deterrence works as well as the inference that can be made by the logical recognition of human nature. According to Senator Dianne Feinstein of California she was presented a very poignant way in which deterrence is relevant to the potential of the death penalty. ……I saw that she carried a weapon that was unloaded into a grocery store robbery. I asked her the question “Why was the gun unloaded?” She said to me: “So I would not panic, kill somebody, and get the death penalty.” That was first hand testimony directly to me that the death penalty in place in California in the 1960’s was in fact a deterrent (Bedau & Cassell, 2004, p. 1990). If one uses the lessons of childhood, that actions reap consequences, logic dictates that a severe deterrent will work. However, as shown in the evidence of the statement taken by Senator Feinstein, heinous crimes are affected by the feelings of offenders who stage their crimes in order to avoid that potential. Unfortunately, the rate of recidivism suggests that prison and other subsequent penalties are not always enough to deter offenders from committing crimes after having been initially convicted of a crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 68% of prisoners are rearrested after release for the commission of a serious crime. Of those new offenses, 47% were convicted of new crimes and 52% were returned to prison to finish sentences that had been reduced through parole (Travis & Visher, 2005, p. 8). The unfortunate consequence of having had the mind to commit a crime and violate the social context of law does not fully amend once an offender has experienced the consequences. As creatures of habit, human beings will gravitate toward the familiar. However, as in evidence by the example given by Senator Feinstein, crimes are undoubtedly less sever than they could have been had the potential for death penalty sentencing not been available. The death 11 The average cost of the entire process of engaging an offender in the death penalty process is higher than the costs of incarcerating a prisoner for 40 years. This fact, on the surface, may suggest that it is not economically wise to carry out the death penalty. Costs incurred per death penalty circumstance, which includes lawyers fees, court costs, and incarceration financing can range from $750,000 to 3.2 million dollars, depending on the state ant the issues of the case. The cost of incarcerating a prisoner averages about $25,000 per year. A 40 year life span would therefore cost approximately one million dollars, with the potential of a death sentence costing much more (Carlson & Garrett, 2006, p. 248). However, the superficial costs of incarceration are not the only issues to address when discussing the economics of the death penalty sentence. As evident by the recidivism rates, the potential for a released inmate to do more harm and cost more in damages and social harm are far greater than these figures an attribute to the statistical evaluation of incarceration versus death penalty. While a life sentence may suggest that the inmate is no longer a threat to society, this is not always the case. The potential for parole suggests that a life sentence may not be a life sentence. There are many factors that are taken into consideration when parole is possible and a life sentence is not always honored because of prison crowding issues, good behavior issues, and well orchestrated efforts with the parole board (Carlson & Garrett, 2006, p. 261). A life sentence may not actually extend for the life of an inmate and might be shortened, thus putting the offender back into society and allowing for the potential of more victims and more financial costs to be incurred in damage and prosecutorial efforts. When all factors are considered in regard to the death penalty, the practice appears to have great value to the safety of the citizens of the United States. As a society, it is the The death 12 responsibility of its members to determine how it will treat those who choose not to live by the laws that are designed to create a structured community. From a historical perspective, the death penalty has been associated with most cultures and has been an effective means of eliminating a threat within a community (Delisi, 2005, p. 253). In creating strict standards of behavior and enforcing those standards with harsh penalties, a society will have the ability to protect its members from harm that might disturb and disrupt the natural harmony that the culture has nurtured. There are some anthropologists who support the death penalty on the basis of Darwinian theory. Darwin hypothesized that natural selection would weed out the weak from the strong, allowing for the strong to continue forward in order to strengthen the overall propagation of a species. This can be applied to human cultural experiences as well. In discussing the way in which a culture will control its identity, the strength and effect of its punishments will define how the structure will be maintained (Gould, 2008, p.170). Using Darwin as an example of how to keep a society strong, it is the responsibility of its members to separate those who disrupt the structure. Sometimes, this must be accomplished by eliminating that threat entirely. In choosing to select those who exhibit sociopath behaviors for execution, this type of individual is given a clear statement as to the potential affect their presence within the society of the United States is not welcome. In protecting communities from the future crimes that might cause irreparable harm to individuals, families, and the overall sense of security that people have attempted to create fro themselves, the message is clear. With 38 states having reinstated the death penalty after the Supreme Court in 1972 during Furman v. Georgia ruled that the penalty was not constitutional therefore striking down all death penalty laws throughout the states until The death 13 the were restructured, the people have loudly stated their opinion on the matter. After that ruling all states had to go back and reexamine their death penalty laws, send out referendums to be voted on by the citizens of that state, and to establish that all measures of ensuring that justice was being served through a lengthy appeals process were met (Gardner & Anderson, 2009, p. 167-168). The fact that over two thirds of the 50 states came back with new death penalty statutes suggests that the culture of the United States took a stand and defined what was unacceptable. The death penalty is one of the strongest weapons in the arsenal of the judicial system. Its use is not considered without extreme contemplation and thorough investigation of a claim of innocence. There are examples of convicted death row inmates who were later discovered to be innocent of the crime for which they were convicted and this is a tragedy. However, with the examples of how the neglect to use the penalty, such as in the McDuff instance, showing deeper impact on life and society, those tragic examples of a miscarriage of justice are symbols of our humanity. As a culture, the citizens of a state must set down lines over which they will not allow their members to cross. The victims of crimes that warrant the death penalty have suffered at the hands of their fellow citizens and this demands justice from a society as does the safety of the still living community demand that protection. Despite the heavy costs to the tax payers for the death penalty process, the long term effects of not using this punitive measure far out weigh the immediate cost concerns. The death penalty is a deterrent for specific criminals as well as for the nature of future crimes. The safety that it provides is necessary for the culture of the United States to continue towards protecting its designed structure. The death 14 Reference List Amnesty International (2009). Death sentences and executions in 2008. Retrieved 23 October 2009, from http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/annual_report/DeathSentences Executions2008.pdf Bedau, H. A., & Cassell, P. G. (2004). Debating the death penalty: Should America have capital punishment? : the experts on both sides make their best case. New York: Oxford University Press. Carlson, P. M., & Garrett, J. S. (2006). Prison and jail administration: Practice and theory. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett. DeLisi, M. (2005). Career criminals in society. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications. Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2009). Criminal law. Belmont, Calif: Thomson/Wadsworth. Gould, S. J. (2008). The mismeasure of man. New York: W.W. Norton. Hall, C. (2009). July 2008 executions. Retrieved 22 October 2009 from, http://www.pro deathpenalty.com/Pending/08/jul08.htm Mooney, L. A., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2009). Understanding social problems. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning. Samaha, J. (2006). Criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Stout, M. (2004). The sociopath next door : the ruthless versus the rest of us. New York: Broadway Books. Travis, J., & Visher, C. A. (2005). Prisoner reentry and crime in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. USA executions in the United States 2008. (2009). Retrieved on October 22, 2009, from http://people.smu.edu/rhalperi/exec08.html Winslow, R. W., & Zhang, S. (2008). Criminology: A global perspective. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Read More