For the Abolition of the Death Penalty - Essay Example

For the Abolition of the Death Penalty Introduction The New Testament of Bible teaches us that Jesus Christ was a victim of capital punishment. He was tried and sentenced without even the chance of defense, and the accusations were all fabricated. Christ left us an example – that the state’s finishing of life, legally killing a criminal, is all wrong. Although, theologically speaking, Christ’s dying on the cross was for some deeper meaning, which is redemption of mankind, there was other meaning of the crucifixion, or the state’s condemning the life of a convicted criminal. He was showing to the world that it was all wrong – the method, the principle, and all the circumstances surrounding the death penalty. Our main points for the abolition of the death penalty are morality and technicality. The original arguments for capital punishment does not anymore apply but are outdated – deterrence, retribution, etc. Why do we say morality and technicality? The teachings of the Bible – the Old and the New Testaments – tell us one important aspect of creation: protect life and do not allow vengeance. God did not kill Cain for killing his own brother Abel but instead sent him on exile and put a mark on him so that no one would kill him. A passage in the Bible of states: ‘an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth’. This teaching does not mean taking the life of a murderer or someone who has committed a heinous crime, but it means limiting the retribution for an offense. When Jesus was presented the woman accused of adultery, he did not condemn the woman but told those present “to cast the first stone”, which means we should not condemn anyone but allow a sinner to reform. Another argument is the ground of technicality. The criminal justice system, a human system, is flawed. I mean, it is not always perfect despite all the bright, legal minds the world has ever produced. Rulings are not perfect. Supreme Court rulings The following Supreme Court rulings can provide a bit of enlightenment: 1.) Furman v. Georgia (1972) The Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty violated the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments. Then in another ruling in 1976, Gregg v. Georgia, the Court again contradicted itself by ruling that the death penalty per se was not unconstitutional. (Bedau 2005, p. 23) 2.) Woodson v. North Carolina Through this case, the Court ruled in 1976 that the mandatory death penalty was declared unconstitutional. 3.) Coker v. Georgia The Court said that the death penalty for rape was unconstitutional. In Furman, it was ruled that some state statutes were unconstitutional, which allowed that death penalty statutes had to be rewritten. Advocates of the death penalty began proposing new laws for capital punishment. In other words, advocates of the death penalty interpreted this as an opportunity to write new laws so that there would be no more doubts of retaining the death penalty. It was reported that there were 35 states that rewrote their death penalty statutes. While these rulings apply to all of America, there are still some states which allow the death penalty. Arguments for Abolition Our arguments for the abolishment are based on the following: 1.) Capital punishment is a violation of the right to life 2.) Capital punishment is not a deterrent 3.) The administration of the death penalty, even in developed legal systems, is inherently and irredeemably flawed 4.) The effect is counter-productive in that it gives out very confused moral messages. (Professor Roger Hood, 2001cited in Hodgkinson, 2004, p. 3) There is racial disparity in the way convicted murderers are being punished. Studies have found that there are more black sent to the gallows than whites. A study dealt with 245 persons arrested for homicide in Philadelphia in 1970. Of these 170 were eventually convicted of some charge. Sixty-five percent of defendants who killed a white got either life imprisonment or a death sentence, while only 25 percent of those who killed a black did. Since these murders produced only three death sentences (all imposed on blacks who killed whites), most of the apparent racial unfairness involved life imprisonment, not execution.” (Martinez 2002 p. 191) Michael Mello (1997), a death-row lawyer, said that the system of capital punishment is flawed. Mello tells of how a convict named Stanley, considered mentally retarded, was executed for some inefficiencies of the trial attorney. The issue of deterrence has been raised by governments to support retentionist position. But Hodgkinson (2004, p. 10) says that this could be a “reliance on hope than evidence”. Deterrence means “the belief that criminals would end their careers in crime due to the threat of punishment [death] by the criminal justice system” (Levinson, 2002, p. 162). The deterrent effect is an old issue that has been proved and disproved. There is no econometric analysis that capital punishment has greater deterrent than alternative penalties (Roger Hood cited in Hodgkinson, 2004, p. 9). Studies conducted by John Sorenson, Robert Wrinkle, Victoria Brewer and James Marquart, found that capital punishment had no deterrent effect in the state of Texas. Texas has a high number of sentences and executions. Kronenwetter (2001, p. 27) says, “Abolitionists argue that most murderers cannot think rationally enough to be deterred by any penalty, including death. Most murders are crimes of passion, committed in moments of intense rage, frustration, hatred, or fear when the killers aren’t thinking clearly of the personal consequences of what they do. People in such state are incapable of taking such consequences into account.” Murder and other capital offenses are committed in moments where criminals do not have time to think that what they were about to commit are punishable by death. Most other murderers – those who cold-bloodedly plan and carry out their crimes – think they are too clever to be caught. The death penalty cannot be a deterrent to them because they are convinced they will escape punishment of any kind. What Albert Pierrepoint, the legendary British executioner who became an opponent of capital punishment after his retirement in the late 1950s, said on capital punishment is worth noting here importantly: “The death penalty never once acted as a deterrent in all the jobs I carried out … and I have executed more people than anyone this century.” (Kronenwetter, 2001, p. 23) Supporters of capital punishment face an obvious problem when they try to prove that the death penalty deters. “How can they establish that someone would have committed a crime if that person had not been deterred by the threat of the death penalty?” (Kronenwetter, 2001, p. 23) And some governments just support it for no apparent reasons. “Governments and others in positions of influence refer to strong public support for the death penalty as one of the justifications for retaining it.” (Hodgkinson, 2004, p. 18) Capital punishment is cruel and inhuman as provided for in the Eighth Amendment. Cruel and unusual punishment, which is prohibited in the Eight Amendment in the Bill of Rights, means “punishment that inflicts pain in a wanton and unnecessary manner, as well as punishment that is disproportionate to the crime committed.” (Rae, 2000, p. 214) On the other hand, moratorium can be used to fix the defects or flaws of the system. Hodgkinson (2004, p. 6) cites Governor Ryan of Illinois, a conservative Republican and a strong supporter of the death penalty who on 31 January 2000 imposed a moratorium on executions. The governor said that Illinois capital punishment system is flawed and there should be something done on it. The governor said this based on historical events. Between 1990 and 2000 there were ten executions carried out while at the same period thirteen prisoners were released from their death sentences for a variety of reasons. Nine states followed Gov. Ryan’s move, requesting further studies on the death penalty, and some similar move has been instituted by others. Governor Ryan’s Commission submitted its findings with eighty-five recommendations on the flaws of the Illinois system, but some of the Commission’s members suggested that the death penalty should be replaced because they believed “the system was incapable of being replaced.” (Hodgkinson, 2004, p. 6) Governor Ryan announced a new legislation. The Parole Commission submitted clemency petitions and some recommendations to commute the death sentences. Finally, on 11 January 2003, he commuted the sentences of all 156 inmates on Illinois’ death row, two days before leaving office. This all means that Gov. Ryan through the Commission knew that there could be innocent persons on death row who are ‘victims’ of the flaws of the system as cited by the Commission. In the state of Maryland, Governor Glendening announced in May 2002 a moratorium and ordered a Commission to conduct a study and review the death penalty. The Commission confirmed Glendening’s concern of ‘racial and prosecutorial disparity.’ (Hodgkinson, 2004, p. 8) In the 1960s, the death penalty was halted de facto and between 1972 and 1976 there was a de jure halt to executions. But the death penalty was not abolished; only the defects of the system seemed to be fixed. Capital Punishment is cruel and inhuman and violates the Eight Amendment. Imprisonment can replace the death penalty as capital punishment. The Islamic style also provides death as capital punishment. The death penalty cannot be said as humane even if the state tries to stage the most “painless” kind of death for capital execution such as lethal injection. This is just the same as saying that killing is humane or that a crime could not be corrected. It is the duty and responsibility of the government to correct criminals by giving them the chance of another life. Besides, there are numerous reports of the flaws in administering the death sentences in terms of technicality to the point giving more pain and torture on the convicts. Even lethal injection cannot give 100% ‘painless death’ on the convicts. According to retentionists, or those in favor of retaining the death penalty, retribution is offered for the sin of the offender. Retribution has been considered an invalid argument, and some states has totally abolished the death penalty, although there are still some states that who have retained the death penalty for believing that terrible crimes can only be corrected by killing the criminal. (Franck et al., 2003, p. 34) The Catholic view states that killing the perpetrator denigrates the dignity of a human being who was made in the likeness and image of God. Human life is reduced to that of a worthless animal. (Rae, 2000, p. 215) Hans Gvran Franck, Swedish human rights activist and political figure, who contributed much to the adoption of Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, said that humans have inalienable rights that ‘extend even to the most hardened criminals’ (Franck et al., 2003, p. 34) When victims demand for justice, they are seeking revenge which is against the teachings of Jesus and the Bible on loving one’s neighbor and. It is confusing personal with social ethics. We indeed have to love our neighbor and teach others to make peace even when they commit wrong against us, because this is part of personal ethics taught by Jesus Christ. God has given the state the responsibility of criminal punishment and this means to correct a person not to kill him. How can you correct a wrong done by that person if you end his life? A convict who spends his life in jail can have the chance to reform and put his life back together. A convict who is waiting for execution is like a tortured individual. His condition is similar to torture, an inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, which is prohibited under international law. “The prohibition against torture is universal and absolute, thus no exceptions are permitted.” (Franck et al., 2003, p. 35) Conclusion Human justice and human system are flawed: they are never system. If we kill a convict, it is possible we kill an innocent an innocent person. How many wrong convictions have been reverted due to recent DNA testing? Retentionists can argue that we can now put a convict to death with the availability of DNA testing, but this technology is not available all the time. Moreover, it still is a new technology, again not perfect. We have to uphold human life, not destroy it. It is high time the state of Connecticut start to abolish the death penalty, and follow the examples of other states. There are enough laws for punishment, for correctional purposes. Retribution can be done without inflicting too much damage to the point of torture on convicted criminals. In the modern world of high technology, it is not society’s obligation to kill a hardened criminal. Let us give a chance to even the murderers of society. We have other laws such as life imprisonment without parole that can be enforced on the most hardened criminal. Humans and their established governments do not have the right to kill. It is only God who has the right to take the life of human beings he created. Although God respects human laws and established governments, he has never authorized man to take the life of another human being for justice sake. References Bedau, H. A., 2005. An abolitionist’s survey of the death penalty in America today. In: H. A. Bedau and P. G. Cassell, eds. 2005. Debating the death penalty: should America have capital punishment?: The experts on both sides make their best case. U.S.A.: Oxford University Press. Franck, H., Nyman, K., and Schabas, W., 2003. The barbaric punishment: abolishing the death Penalty (The Raoul Wallenberg Institute Human Rights Library, 12). United Kingdom: Kluwer Law International. 34-35. Hodgkinson, P., 2004. Capital punishment: improve it or remove It? In: P. Hodgkinson and W. Schabas, eds. 2004. Capital punishment: strategies for abolition. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, D., 2002. Encyclopedia of crime and punishment. United States of America: Sage Publications. Martinez, J., 2002. “The executioner’s face is always well hidden”: social science arguments against capital punishment. In: J. Martinez, W. D. Richardson, and D. Horsby, eds. 2002. The Leviathan’s choice: capital punishment in the twenty-first century. United States of America: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Mello, M., 1997. Dead wrong: a death row lawyer speaks out against capital punishment. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press. Rae, S., 2000. Moral choices: an introduction to ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. Read More