The Death Penalty and US Diplomacy - Term Paper Example

Introduction Death penalty is a world recognized law, which is used to combat crimes in cases where the defendant if found guilty of committing first class crimes, rape, and terrorism. However, most Human Right Groups have fought against this law because it violates the basic human rights. Therefore, its imposition has to be based on the nature and degree of crime and not on the basis of race or gender. There have been claims that in some jurisdictions, race determines final decisions made on the subject matter. Due to the rampant claims in most U.S. states of racial discrimination, the Racial Justice Act was adopted to deter juries from making uninformed decisions without following stipulated rules. Death penalty is such a big issue that has for a very long time affected formation of policies of most governments because Human Rights Activists are ever against this law because it at times is applied on innocent victims. Racial discrimination In 1967 for instance, there were lots of cases revolving around crime in the U.S., which recorded a 16% increase. From this perspective, policies had to be formed to curb the rise in insecurity and for that reason; death penalty was the best option. However, most Human Right Activists still argue that death penalty is no deterrent to crime. While the policy can in one way or the other be an effective tool in reducing crime, there have been frequent complains that prosecutors pass judgment basing on race. Race has been a “mutant pest” in the U.S., whose eradication remains an uphill task. The U.S. signed three treaties to ensure justice is not administered on racial bias. The U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1984, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that deters anyone from unconstitutional application of death penalty, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of racial Discrimination, which requires administration of justice in accordance to human rights and not on the basis of race. However, in 1992, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights noticed that the U.S. had breached the treaties when it executed William Andrews in Utah, which indicates that there is racial discrimination in administration of justice. Most empirical research findings indicate that 90% of decisions made in the U.S. judicial system have geared influence by racial disparities (Dieter, 2012 p.27). The U.S. government should consider acting quickly on matters pertaining racial discrimination to streamline judicial equity. Religion Most religions have a strong belief in a Supreme Being; God, who has the power to give and take away human life. Therefore, no person has the authority to take away another person’s life. For instance, Kayser (2011 p. 27) claims that Christians support their view by quoting John 8:7, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.” It is known that the first murder in the world; Cain was cursed by God for killing his brother Abel. Even though he was not killed, he was a wanderer upon the face of the earth. In addition, the Ten Commandments in the bible list murder as an offense before the Creator. Almost all religions have a negative perception on death penalty because it destroys creation and that no one has consent to end another person’s life. Religions have a strong belief in forgiveness, something ruling governments are always against. According to rulers, murders must be executed or face punishment equivalent to their mistakes. There is no satisfactory evidence to prove that death penalty deters crimes and that is why religions are against the capital punishment. Costs The death penalty system is expensive, which is funded by public money. For instance, the trial for three Washington County murder cases of 1995 cost the government $1.7 million. At the end of the trial, only one of the three defendants was found guilty and sentenced to death. The other two were set free. In real sense, the judicial department would have saved a substantial amount of money. The public is burdened to finance such trials through taxes, which can be useful in supporting constructive community activities other than death trials. A rough estimate indicates that it can cost a government more than $9 million per annum to fund death penalty trials and executions (Mathias, 2013). Even though the government can be defensive on this matter in the sense that it has to do anything possible to obtain justice, critics view such funding as a pure waste of public money. It must be known that People are the State, and when the State supports death penalty, it then means that everyone is part and parcel of every step. Instead of wasting a lot of resources on death penalties, the judicial system can use that money in educating the public, handling other pending cases that require a lot of time, and improving the judicial infrastructure for efficient service delivery. Degrading treatment Statistics have shown that four out of every five Nations have abolished death penalty. However, the U.S. still has policies that allow the judiciary to exercise this act. It has been found out that inmates sentenced to death penalty in the U.S. can spend nine years in a 6 by 9 foot cell that gives no allowance for exercise and complete denial for interaction with visitors and family members (Lawrence et al, 2003 p. 318). Psychologists term it physical and psychological mistreatment. Most international courts are against the idea because they consider such confinement as cruelty and inhuman. For instance, the European Court of Human Rights in a case termed “the death row phenomenon,” where A German National committed murder in Virginia and fled to England, the court had some considerations for his extradition appeal and thus rejected extradition to the U.S. the court’s argument was that by giving in to such demands would be a breach to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides strict guidelines to eliminate degrading treatment to all human beings (Norma, 2014 p.2). The court allowed the prisoner back to the U.S. after Virginia agreed not to use death penalty in administration of justice. Conclusion Death penalty is a topic that continues to raise questions of concern all over the world. The U.S. has signed a series of international treaties to limit its application of death penalty especially to foreigners. However, it is evident that, to some extent, the U.S. seems to distance itself from the idea and thus decides to rely on its domestic law in administration of justice. It must be known that death penalty is not a solution to crime matters. There is a better way in handling criminals regardless of the crime they commit. Human Right Activists both national and international are against this type of punishment because it deprives people their human nature and exposes them to psychological torture. However, in some cases, it can be the only solution to handle crime but the degree and longevity of the exercise is the matter of concern. Professionalism is essential in handling first class crimes and thus the judicial system should at all costs distance itself from applying discriminatory attitudes in arriving at verdicts. It does not ruin the good reputation of the system but the corporate image of the Nation internationally. While public safety is a concern by most governments, it must be known that in its quest to realizing this must be in accordance to prevailing human rights, differentiating the innocent from the guilty, speeding up processes to reduce psychological torture for suspects, and support families of those who are affected so that they can recover from the shock. References Dieter Richard C. (2012). The Death Penalty and Human Rights: U.S. Death Penalty and International Law. New York: Oxford PP. Kayser Phillip G. (2011). Is the Death Penalty Just? Omaha: Biblical Blueprints. Lawrence Katz, Steven D. Levitt, & Ellen Shustorovich (2003). Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence. American Law and Economics Review, 5(1):318. Mathias Mathew D. (2013). The Sacralization of the Individual: Human Rights and the Abolition of the Death Penalty. American Journal of Sociology 118(5): 124-83. Norma, C. (2014). The death penalty and US diplomacy: how foreign nations and international organizations influence US policy. Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy, (ahead-of-print), 1-4. Read More