Death Penalty Distribution - Is It Unfair - Term Paper Example

Death Penalty Distribution - Is It Unfair? Introduction The use of the death penalty is considered by some to be the most obvious and heinous example of cruel and unusual punishment. Those opposed to capital punishment do not believe that the government should be vested with the power to put any of its citizens to death. Opponents also maintain that the practice is racially biased and does not achieve the intended outcome. Proponents believe it to be neither cruel nor unusual, or biased against minorities, on the contrary, they think it just and fair. The racial distribution of the death penalty is stacked against minorities. Institutional racism has been outlawed for more than 50 years but racism within the legal system continues unabated. Racial profiling insures more minorities in jail and, by extension, a larger ratio are put to death. The death penalty is patently and obviously unfair to minorities. Definition Whether or not it is cruel is not definable by law. It can only be defined by the collective social conscious of a 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. Again, terminologies are open to interpretation as evidenced by the current debate at the highest level of government involving the definition of torture. The term ‘unusual’ is commonly understood to define the equitable application of punishment for a particular offense. For example, if ten people were cited for speeding and nine of them were fined $100 but one was fined $1000, this penalty would be considered ‘unusual.’ Taken together, both ‘cruel’ and ‘unusual’ indicate that the punishment should be exacted in proportion to the offense committed. A life term in prison is an acceptable form of punishment but if it were imposed for jaywalking, this would be an unacceptable sentence because it would be considered excessive given the severity of the offense. Excessive is also open to wide interpretation in both the public and legal realm. Some would argue, for example, that imprisonment of any amount of time for ‘crimes’ such as gambling, prostitution and the possession of drugs should be interpreted as excessive therefore ‘unusual.’ By definition, capital punishment is not unusual, legally speaking, unless one considers and acknowledges the racial bias that exists in the justice system. Uneven Distribution Capital punishment opponents claim that wealthy, white criminals are less likely to be executed than underprivileged minority members of society and if the victim is white or wealthy, it is more likely to be imposed. The statistics provide evidence for their claim. Since 1976, 43 percent of executions in the U.S. have been black or Hispanic. This group accounts for 55 percent of those currently 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 seem that the ‘unusual’ aspect of the death penalty continues to be a valid argument but another aspect must be present for the practice to again be abolished. “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). Inequality in the Justice System Comparative criminal justice studies are dedicated to illustrating how ethnic minorities and immigrants are treated within the criminal justice system on a worldwide basis. Without exception, the incarceration rate in the U.S. demonstrates that the incarceration rates of minorities far exceed that of the particular majority ethnicity. In addition, minority members that experience a high crime or incarceration rate generally belong to economically and socially deprived social groups. Furthermore, minority groups experience heightened discriminatory bias in decisions regarding pretrial confinement and sentencing guidelines. Overt discriminatory practices during all phases of the criminal justice system concerning ethnic minorities, especially those of African-American or Hispanic descent have been well-documented throughout the history of the country (Sampson & Lauritsen, 1997). Racist techniques such as racial profiling create an antagonistic relation between the public and the police department attempting to serve it. A situation not conducive to effective police enforcement. Racial profiling is not only morally and constitutionally wrong, it is not pragmatic or ultimately valuable for police operations and potentially disastrous for police administration. As compared to constituents of the socially dominant faction, black men are much more liable to be detained, questioned, and searched by law enforcement officials. Once they have been arrested, minority members are also more likely to suffer police brutality and are more likely to be held in jail while waiting for their trial date instead of having an opportunity to post bond. When tried for a crime, they face a higher probability to be found guilty and are less apt to serve their sentences outside of prison such as serving community service. In addition, they are “more likely to be sentenced to longer prison terms, less likely to be granted parole, and when convicted of capital offenses, they are more likely to be executed, especially for capital offenses against dominants” (Sidaneus & Veniegas, 2000). The popularly stated position is that racial profiling is necessary because without using this tool of law enforcement would compromise the effort against terrorism thus sacrificing national security. This argument is fundamentally flawed because it erroneously presupposes that racial profiling an essential element of this emotion-evoking endeavor. However, the reverse is accurate. Profiling, as a tactic employed by law enforcement, redirects important assets, estranges and enrages prospective allies and, most importantly, is contradictory with the uniquely American concept of equality and freedom. Undoubtedly, if profiling in the name of terrorism has not been proved effective, the profiling of black citizens in the name of ‘getting tough on crime’ is not effective as well and causes more harm, ultimately, than whatever good may come of it. “Racial profiling in any manifestation is a flawed law enforcement tactic that is in direct conflict with constitutional values” (McDonald, 2001). Uneven Distribution in Prisons Anyone who has seen even a few minutes of a prison documentary is well aware that black men are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. Black men comprise about 6.5 percent of the U.S. population yet nearly half of this group is currently in prisons. Close to a third of black men have been arrested (Beck, Mumola, 1999). When categorized according to ethnicity, a wide disparity of justice is apparent. “At midyear 2003 there were 4,834 black male prisoners per 100,000 black males in the United States in prison or jail, compared to 1,778 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 681 white male inmates per 100,000 white males” (“Prison Statistics” 2006) Opponents also believe a justice system that disproportionately executes its citizens cannot be considered anything but corrupt which devalues the entire system. Inequality in Society Inequality is the practically unavoidable by-product of two prevailing dynamics, prejudice on the individual level and a political disparity on a societal level. All American citizens enjoy lawfully guaranteed equality but the equalities regarding access to the criminal justice system for ethnic minorities are unquestionably lacking. Minority members whether racial or ethnic are vulnerable groups who too often face persecution, subjective imprisonment, offensive treatment by law enforcement, and unequal treatment in the court system. At the national and local policing level, ethnic inequities arise from practices such as racial profiling where an individual’s presumed race is the determining factor in placing them under suspicion. The criminal justice system has the vast potential for implementing an unjustified discriminatory outcome even when there is no obvious racist intention. (“No Escape” 2006). Conclusion Racism permeates the family tree of societies and is reflected in all its attitudes, behavior, and institutions. The concept of racism may be conscious or subconscious and is expressed in actions or attitudes initiated by individuals, groups, or institutions that treat human beings unjustly because of their skin pigmentation. The duty of humanitarian, social and political interests is to make certain all people regardless of cultural background are both recognized and treated equitably in the criminal justice system. Unquestionably, the death penalty is distributed unevenly. Profiling, incarceration and punishment up to and including the ultimate, the death penalty is stacked against minorities. Works Cited Beck, Allen J. Mumola, Christopher J. “Prisoners in 1998” Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice (August 1999). MacDonald, Heather. “The War on the Police … and How it Harms the War on Terrorism.” Supra. Vol. 7, I. 16. (December 31, 2001). January 15, 2010 Mello, M. (1995). “Defunding Death.” American Criminal Law Review. Vol. 32, pp. 933-1012. “No Escape” Human Rights Watch New York (2006). January 15, 2010 “Prison Statistics” Bureau of Justice Statistics US Department of Justice Available (May 2006). January 15, 2010 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/> “Race and the Death Penalty.” Unequal Justice. New York: American Civil Liberties Union. (February 26, 2003). January 15, 2010 http://www.aclu.org/capital/unequal/10389pub20030226.html Sampson, R.J. & Lauritsen, J.L. “Racial and ethnic disparities in crime and criminal justice in the United States.” Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration: Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives. M. Tonry (Ed.). Chicago, Chicago University Press. (1997). Sidaneus, Jim & Veniegas, Rosemary C. “Gender and Race Discrimination: The Interactive Nature of Disadvantage.” Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. Stuart Oskamp (Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 47-69. (2000). Read More