Death Penalty in America - Case Study Example

Death penalty is the harshest form of punishment enforced in the US today. The European settlers and particularly the British brought with them the practice of capital punishment to America. The first recorded execution was that of Captain George Kendall of Virginia in 1608 for being a spy for Spain. In 1612, even minor offenses like stealing grapes and killing chicken attracted death penalty but reforms started in 1767 when an essay Crimes and Punishment by Cesare Beccaria had a strong impact through out the world (DPIC, 2007). This essay influenced Americans too and the first reforms took place when Thomas Jefferson introduced a bill to revise Virginias death penalty laws but the bill was defeated. In 1794, Philadelphia repealed the death penalty for all offenses except first degree murder. In 1834, Pennsylvania was the first state to move executions away from the public eye and carried them out in correctional facilities. In 1846, Michigan abolished death penalty for all crimes except treason. Rhode Island and Wisconsin abolished death penalty for all crimes (DPIC, 2007). Although death penalty was abolished in many states in US, most held on to capital punishment. The actual reform in death penalty can be traced back to the early twentieth century when six states totally abolished death penalty and three states limited it to rarely committed crimes of treason and first degree murder of a law enforcement official. This reform was short-lived as citizens expected revolution in the wake of Russian Revolution and US had just entered WWI. Intense class conflicts prevailed and five states reinstated death penalty by 1920. By 1960s there were just 191 executions against 1289 in 1940s as the fundamental legality of the death sentence was challenged. Voices were raised and the legislation was revised but it was tailored to satisfy the Supreme Court’s objection to arbitrary imposition of death sentence. Three states – Georgia, Texas and Florida had the discretion to impose death sentence for specified crimes and involved two stages (Justicecenter, 2005). By 1997, 38 states and the federal government had capital punishment law and twelve states had no death penalty. In 1997, death sentence in rape cases was pronounced unconstitutional. Currently thirty-eight states including Ohio and the federal government continue to execute people while twelve states do not (LWVC, 1996). In nutshell, the abolitionists raised voices and reforms took place on the grounds that the US had progressed to a certain “standard of decency” and death penalty should not be tolerated. Mencken in his essay, The Penalty of Death maintains that the standards of decency would shock all men if death penalty was used for ordinary crimes. While Mencken refutes the claims of the abolitionists, Quindlen disagrees that death penalty serves any purpose. The abolitionists claim that the hangman’s job is unpleasant but then so are many jobs done by different people. Deterrence is one of the reasons that the proponents desire that capital punishment be carried but then this is only a part of the issue. While Quindlen agrees with Mencken that the victims want the criminal to undergo the same suffering, she feels this is not possible. Mencken contends that the criminal should be convicted immediately without delay as the wait is cruel. Justice demands that the immediate victims be provided the same grateful relief and this is the prime object of capital punishment. It is not revenge or retribution but katharsis that the victims are looking for. Katharsis is a natural human response which helps to bring peace of mind to the victims. Quindlen argues that this human response cannot be satisfied as people cannot take law into their hands and hence death penalty is wrong. It serves no purpose according to her. For reasons different from those mentioned in these two articles, this paper will argue that capital punishment is justified as it has a deterrent effect, retribution is necessary for the victims and the society, and innocent people are not wrongly executed as law protects the rights of those facing the death penalty. While Quindlen’s contends that death penalty does not lead to deterrence, the proponents believe that fear of death acts as a deterrent (CWRL, 2002). It can exert a positive moral influence by attaching a stigma to certain crimes. The proponents further state that use of death penalty could actually reduce the number of violent murders by eliminating repeat offenders, and which is what was intended by law. Sunstein & Vermeule (2005) also claim that capital punishment does have a powerful deterrence effect. Even though it was earlier believed that capital punishment does not have any deterrence effect, there has been a shift in the opinion due to a wave of sophisticated econometric studies that have exploited a newly-available form of data known as ‘panel-data, that uses all information from a set of units and follows that data over an extended period of time (Sunstein & Vermeule). A leading study has been quoted as suggesting that each execution prevents eighteen murders on an average. This means that foregoing any given execution maybe equivalent to some eighteen unidentified people to premature and violent death. This demonstrates that refusal to impose capital punishment will results in death of numerous innocent people. Choosing life imprisonment against capital punishment ensures death of innocent people. Hence the failure to impose capital punishment is morally wrong. Besides, the state government would also be blamed for refusal to act if they impose light penalties or treat certain offenses as unworthy of attention. When the opponents propose that it is a tragic end to human life, the proponents remind them that the life of the innocent was much more of a tragedy than the state executing a murderer. Retribution is a justification for capital punishment because it is an injustice to tolerate criminal behavior such as murder. If death penalty is cruel, inhumane and degrading, murder in the first place is all the more inhumane. Execution is quick and instantaneous and hence more humane than planned murder. If the criminals are not forced to pay for their crimes with their lives, then the others too are equally responsible for allowing such criminals to thrive. Does this mean that revenge is essential? No, revenge should not be confused with retribution. While the families of the victims are undergoing emotional and psychological trauma, what they actually seek is retribution. Niven (2002) cites researchers who find that views on death penalty reflect on anger over declining morality and is therefore not a concrete response to a concrete problem. This amounts to revenge and revenge according to Byron (2002) is the activity of returning harm for harm and usually takes a particular person or a group as the object. Secondly, revenge is swift and motivated by anger or fury and people have an inclination to take law into their hands. Retribution on the other hand refers to the determination and exaction of the penalty due as punishment for a certain kind of crime. Retribution pertains to a class of criminals and is not direct at any individual. Retributive penalties can be determined in advance of knowing who will commit them. Revenge is more of a personal attack but retribution is for the good of the society and ideally proportional to the crime. Deterrence and concern for the feelings of the victims’ family have to be given due consideration and without retribution, none of these is possible. Feelings of the victims are absolutely relevant to assess the proper retribution for any crime. Those who oppose retribution and capital punishment in general need to put themselves in the shoes of the family of the victim and then analyze their feelings and reactions. Emphasis on retribution is extremely important as it serves the purpose of katharsis as mentioned by Mencken. Purging has to take place for the victims’ family to accept life. Byron states that the opponents of capital punishment lack sufficient imagination and are unable to place themselves in the place of the victim’s family. According to Singh (2000) retribution is an expression of collective outrage. For millions of Americans, ‘Some crimes deserve death and nothing else will quench our righteous anger, or vindicate our humanity, or inspire sufficiently profound respect re reverential fear of the law and the underlying moral order. Serving justice at times demands imposing the ultimate sanction’. This in itself justifies retribution and capital punishment. Another contention of the opponents is that innocent people will be wrongly executed but this is not the case as there are many safeguards that guarantee protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. Death penalty is not imposed on those below 18 years of age, pregnant women, new mothers or insane people (CWRL, 2002). Besides, those convicted have a right to appeal even after the court has announced the order. The judgment itself is declared after determining the guilt based on clear evidence. Every case takes about seven to eight years before the final judgment is announced which makes it impossible for any innocent person to be executed. Besides, DNA testing can now confirm innocence or guilt in case of death penalty. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is an essential molecule that is part of every cell in our body (ACLU, 2002). It enables an embryonic cell to become and exist as a functioning being. Modern science can accurately distinguish between DNA of individuals. It is unique because it remains unchanged through out one’s life. DNA testing on biological samples can help convict or exonerate with great accuracy but the biological evidence has to be collected and preserved with efficiency and free from contamination. Blood, semen or hair from the crime scene can be compared with the cells swabbed from the suspect’s mouth to see if there is a match (LWVC, 1996). This ensures that the guilt is confirmed before execution. There are claims that 90% of the convicts cannot afford an experienced layer and that death penalty is inflicted not on those who have committed worst crimes but on those who are represented by worst lawyers (Singh, 2000). This has been taken care by the introduction of the Innocent Protection Act (IPA). Those in support of capital punishment are not against reforms being introduced in death penalty. This Act was designed to create legislation that would require those facing death penalty to be represented by a qualified lawyer (Lilly, 2002). They would also have access to DNA testing that may not have been available at the time of their trial. The rights of the convicts are protected and all measures adopted to ensure that wrongful execution does not take place. The Supreme Court further rules that death-row inmates can challenge their convictions if DNA evidence found after their trials end shows that they might be innocent (USINFO, 2007). While reforms have been introduced regarding the form of execution, the conviction that capital punishment must be imposed is the opinion of the majority of the Americans. To safeguard the rights of the convicts, various legislations have been enacted and imposed. The convicts are being ensured an experienced lawyer to support their case apart from the DNA testing being granted to them. This ensures that wrongful execution does not take place. Katharsis or purging is essential not just for the family of the victim but for the society as a whole and this can occur only when retribution takes place. Retribution is a collective expression and not directed to any individual. It differs from revenge which is basically an expression of anger. Thirdly, studies prove that capital punishment does have a very powerful deterrent effect and failure to impose capital punishment would imply that the state refuses to safeguard the interest of the public. It thereby allows violent murder of numerous innocent people. The fear of death itself acts as a deterrent. Imposing capital punishment could reduce the number of violent murders by eliminating repeat offenders. Thus, criminals have to be punished for certain crimes and capital punishment is a necessary tool to ensure justice and maintain law and order in the society. References: ACLU (2002), DNA Testing and the Death Penalty, 10 Aug 2007 Byron, M., (2000), Why my opinion shouldnt count: Revenge, Retribution, and the Death Penalty Debate, Journal of Social Philosophy, Vo. 31 No. 3 pp. 307-315 CWRL (2002), Capital Punishment: Life or Death? 10 Aug 2007 DPIC (2007), History of the Death Penalty, 10 Aug 2007 Lilly, J. R., (2002), Death Penalty Resistance in the US, The Howard Journal, Vol. 41. No. 4, pp. 326-333 LWVC (1996), History of Death Penalty in Ohio, 10 Aug 2007 Niven, D., (2002), Bolstering an Illusory majority: The effects of the medias portrayal of death Penalty support, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 83, No. 3 Justicecenter (2005), History of the Death Penalty & Recent Developments, 10 Aug 2007 Singh, R., (2000), Capital Punishment in the United States: A new Abolitionism? The Political Quarterly Publishing Co. Ltd, 2000 Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A., (2005), Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life‐Life Tradeoffs, 10 Aug 2007 USINFO (2007), Capital Punishment in United States Continues To Be Debated, 10 Aug 2007 Read More