The Death Penalty - Article Example

The Death Penalty The of the death penalty involves legal and moral issues that literally are of life and death importance and a major barometer when measuring a society’s collective conscience. The Supreme Court has on several occasions dealt with judging the merits of the death penalty and whether or not it is interpreted by the Constitution as punishment which is cruel and unusual. The Court has always ruled the terminology of the Eighth Amendment does not exclude the implementation of death as punishment. The Constitution is a malleable document, however. The interpretation of the Eighth Amendment has evolved somewhat throughout the years and the Court could possibly reverse this point of view sometime in the future as result of changing societal values. For example, the whipping of offenders was commonplace until the late Eighteenth Century. This practice came to be considered inappropriate because society’s opinion changed to include it as a ‘cruel’ punishment. With respect to capital punishment, though, “the Court has maintained that there remains broad public support for the death penalty as a remedy for the most serious of crimes” (Mott, 2004). Historically speaking, the rational for punishing criminals has been to avenge the crime, to protect society by imprisoning the criminal, to deter that person and other potential offenders from the commission of crimes and to obtain reparations from the offender (Wolfgang, 1998). Throughout the history of civilization, this rational has not changed substantially. The four fundamental reasons society punishes can be classified into two areas. One is to obtain desired consequences which includes protecting society, seeking compensation and deterrence. The other, retribution, or vengeance, involves punishment for a wrong perpetrated on society. Those that subscribe to retribution as justification for the death penalty often invoke the Bible’s reference to ‘an eye for an eye.’ Aggression must be met with aggressive punishment (Olen & Barry, 1996: 268). “This use of punishment is society’s way of striking back at one who has disturbed the emotional and ethical senses of a people” (Lunden, 1967: 232). Interestingly, those that use the quote from the Old Testament to justify the use of the death penalty as moral either overlooked or ignored the passage in the New Testament where Jesus rebuffs this statement explicitly then reminds his followers to instead to ‘turn the other cheek.’ However, the ‘eye for an eye’ justification is still used by many today. Those that hold this view are certainly correct when they say that the death penalty insures that the criminal will not commit another crime against society. In addition to a vengeful act, the death penalty is the ultimate preventative measure (Olen & Barry, 1996). By definition, capital punishment is not unusual, legally speaking, unless one considers and acknowledges the racial bias that exists in the justice system. 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). Opponents also believe a justice system that disproportionately executes its citizens cannot be considered anything but corrupt which devalues the entire system. Capital punishment opponents argue that the practice does not deter crime, which statistics reprove. In addition, if offenses that caused ‘no harm’ to others were decriminalized, such as gambling, prostitution and drug possession, the inmate population would decrease by about half. This would allow for the violent offenders to serve their entire sentence without having to be paroled early because of over-crowding. Thus, society would be properly protected. Opponents also deny that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime because of the nature of the reasons people commit homicide. People cannot conceive their own demise therefore cannot contemplate or appreciate the consequences. In addition, these crimes are usually committed as a result of impulsive actions and not carefully considered beforehand. Therefore, “the deterrent case has no validity” (Johnson, 1968). If the person committing the murder does contemplate the consequences, they may kill not only the victim but any witnesses as well rather than risk being caught (Olen & Barry, 1996). Again, the opponents view has been substantiated. Many studies have been performed to determine if the death penalty is indeed a deterrence. They are conducted by “comparing homicide rates in contiguous jurisdictions, some of which had abolished capital punishment; examining time series data on homicide rates within a jurisdiction during the years before and after the abolished capital punishment; and comparing homicide rates in a jurisdiction before and after the imposition of the death sentence or execution” (Hagan, 1985). These studies have unanimously demonstrated that the death penalty does not deter crime. Those that oppose capital punishment believe that every life should be valued and that imprisoning a person for life without the possibility for parole is adequate punishment. Opponents also think that revenge is wrong and ultimately more destructive to the value system and very fabric of society than is the crime itself. In addition, opponents feel that outlawing the death penalty will “allow opportunities for confronting those who had been hurt most and possibly encourage remorse or reconciliation (and) suggest those that have killed be made to service the community as a way of partially making amends” (Olen & Barry, 1967: 272). According to opponents, capital punishment is ethically and morally objectionable in today’s society. Some oppose it based on religious grounds citing morality as the fundamental issue; however, differing religions and people within those religions have differing opinions. Christians who live in Europe, for example, tend to oppose capital punishment but in America, they tend to support it. The societies in European countries have already formed the opinion that the death penalty is both ‘cruel’ and ‘unusual’ punishment that remains largely ineffectual. Most European citizens enjoy cradle to grave health care and are much less likely to be incarcerated than those in the U.S. Though there is much evidence to the contrary, American society is growing more compassionate through time. The 1964 Civil Rights Act is but one example of this. One day, it will be a compassionate society that does not use the emotion of revenge to decide its laws and the death penalty will go the way of the Salem witch trials, a barbaric punishment of the distant past. References Hagan, J. (1985). Modern Criminology: Crime, Criminal Behavior, and it’s Control. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Johnson, E.H. (1968). Crime, Correction, and Society. Illinois: The Dorsey Press. Lunden, W.A. (1967). Crimes and Criminals. Iowa: The Iowa State University Press. Mello, M. (1995). “Defunding Death.” American Criminal Law Review. Vol. 32, pp. 933-1012. Mott. Jonathan. (March 2000). “Is the Death Penalty Constitutional?” This Nation. December 20, 2006 Olen, Jeffrey & Barry, Vincent. (1996). Applying Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. “Race and the Death Penalty.” (February 26, 2003). Unequal Justice. New York: American Civil Liberties Union. December 20, 2006 http://www.aclu.org/capital/unequal/10389pub20030226.html Wolfgang, M.E. (1998). “We Do Not Deserve to Kill.” Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 44, pp. 19-32. Read More