Capital Punishment - Research Paper Example

 Capital punishment Abstract Capital punishment is among the ancient forms of punishment carried on into the criminal justice systems around the world today. It was historically associated with the earlier Roman and other empires in the past centuries, and then embraced by the European nations before spreading to other foreign lands such as America and Africa. The United States among other few nations has retained it, while most countries have abolished it. It has been serving right to ensure deterrence of crime among the general society and potential criminals, and has been justified for retribution purposes. Although it has received enormous challenges from the society, human rights groups, and other abolitionists, the law has been effective and gives a warning message to the society against committing grave crimes. It has however demonstrated failures based on the implications of the execution methods, and risks of condemning and executing innocent people, despite the legislature revision and changes in modes of execution. A number of cases have demonstrated cruelty and inhumane execution processes that subjected inmates to severe pain. Apart from deterrence of crime, the changes in the capital punishment policy have succeeded to abolish executions of mentally ill or disadvantaged persons, and minor criminals or persons who committed crime when below the age of 18 years. The criminal justice systems have also managed to ensure fair trial standards, especially now that they are being supported by advanced technology to test the evidences. Keywords: Capital Punishment, Execution, Trial, Criminals, Deterrence, Retribution, Death Row, Mentally Ill, Execution Methods, Innocents Lives, Inhuman, Abolitionists, Evidence Introduction Capital punishment is a policy that is highly debatable, at least in comparison to different nations that uphold or fail to uphold it. The policy entails the execution of a person by the state as a punishment for the crime (capital offences) committed. It has a long historical background from ancient times, such as during the Roman empires and its practice in European nations, before spreading to other nations as the European colonists travelled and settled in other lands. According to Latzer and McCord, the death penalty was introduced to the American colonies from England during the 17th and 18th centuries, and has persisted in the American soil since then, which makes it approximately 4 centuries with 20 000 executions (2011). Execution of criminals has been used nearly in all societies, inclusive of the Islamic and Christian religious backgrounds. However, there have been changes with time to reflect the reasons and needs of modern times. In ancient times, capital punishment was associated with decapitation as intended from the meaning of the Latin word (caput). The changes in the execution method made the death penalty to occur through stoning, boiling in oil, burning, flaying, slow slicing and dismemberment, among other more cruel forms and with respect to cultures, before adopting modern methods such as electrocution, lethal injection, and use of lethal gas, while some places still uphold hangings and the firing squad (Schultz, Vest and MacLean, 1999). The aim of the death penalty has however prevailed over time, to scare others as a way of preventing further crime. Historical records indicate numerous reasons that could lead one to the penalties in olden times, which if applied today would make the punishment to be doubted. The policy would be applied in cases of sexual crimes, sorcery, violation of Sabbath and religious doctrines, regardless of age and mental fitness. Today, much of this policy is reserved for murder, treason, espionage, or as part of the military justice like in the case of the United States, while most nations in the Middle East that encompass the religious doctrines in their constitutions (for example, embedded sharia laws), allow application of the penalty for sexual crimes and apostasy. Although the punishment has been a deeply embedded institution in a number of nations, most countries have managed to abolish the law, opting to apply the lifetime imprisonment for capital crimes. A nation like the United States, where capital punishment in the American criminal Justice system has for long time been an embedded policy in the nation, has also been challenged by abolitionists to seek other ways to punish those who commit grave crimes. Since the days of the puritans in Massachusetts, the earlier US founders and transition of authorities have upheld capital punishment, while trying to make changes to reflect justifiable reasons for the penalty. At least most states in the United States support capital punishment and since the Furman’s legal challenge, which struck down the federal US and states capital punishment laws leading to its revision, the public has witnessed prohibition of death penalty on mentally retarded criminals, and on offenders who were below 18 years of age when the crime was committed (ACLU, 2012). Below is a trend of US executions, since the implementation of the policy. Implementation of Capital punishment in the USA Figure 1. Illustration of trend of execution between 1608 and 2002. Adapted from “History of the death penalty”, by DPIC, 2013. Copyright 2013 by Death Penalty Information Center. Apart from the cases related to militia, land, or naval forces, the United States Grand jury has been using the authority bestowed upon it to make indictments to persons liable for capital crimes, according to the 5th amendment of the US constitution. Both the interpretations of the laws (5th, 8th, and 14th amendments) and the abolitionist movements from colonial times have been common legally challenging entities to the capital punishment and its implementation, not only in United States, but around the world. Effectiveness of Capital Punishment Crime deterrence. Imposing death penalty to deter criminal behaviors was one of the justified reasons why nations and states still uphold the policy. Often, most normal people would react in a particular manner after considering the consequences of their acts. Knowing that capital punishment is real for commitment of certain heinous crimes, it serves as a warning and a threat to people, causing them to have a second thought of their intended reaction that would lead to having regrets in future. The deterrent effect infers that executions give a warning message to potential criminals, and decrease crime rates as people opt to obey the law, due to the threat of severe punishment. It also extends to deter sexual crimes such as rapes, child molestation, and other unacceptable behaviors according to its application in different countries. According to Mandery, based on a study conducted by Dezhbakhsh, Rubin, and Shepherd, they examined the deterrent hypothesis using the country level, a system of simultaneous equation and a post moratorium panel data, where they found a strong deterrent effect, portraying a reduction in executions and death row sentences, with each execution being averaged to result to eighteen fewer murders (2012).The policy acts to benefit the society by ensuring that the criminals are completely separated from them, because they face a risk of being endangered once the offender is released or flees from the prisons. Some offenders do not seem to correct their ways with imprisonment and when out, even if on parole, the same crimes are repeated. Although many economists and abolitionists would refute the correlation of death penalty and crime deterrence, several states trends in murder cases seem to have increased after abolishing the policy. Rhode Island state which has no capital punishment law demonstrate the effective role the punishment plays in the suspension of death penalty in 1972 and its abolishment in 1984, following the 1977 reinstatement, where the murder rates increased by 13 and 25 percent after 1972 and 1984 suspensions respectively, which was with respect to the legal changes (Dezhbakhsh and Shepherd, 2003). However, the logic behind the deterrence principle is that the punishment would have an effect on the general society, by making examples of criminals to warn them from perpetuating such crimes. It also employs the hypothesis that the harsher the penalty, especially when witnessed by the society, the more it does deter. Retribution. The punishment has always been confused with vengeance, but can only be justified as a due desert for the severe crime committed. Although it seems more embedded on the Old Testament religious teachings of the Bible, the law enforcers are obliged to implement it, because the crime is not repayable and would serve right to offer justice to the victims or the larger society. According to Pojman (2004), retributivism holds that only the guilty deserved to be punished, and in proportion to the severity of the crime, hence the offender is given a just reward for the deeds committed. Punishing the offenders serves right, because they would be paying the debt they owe to other citizens for breaking the law, and makes them responsible for their actions (Finckenauer, 1987). To avoid issues of anger and revenge that dominate the public domain thought, the criminal justice systems use a legal statute to guide the jury in making the indictment within the legal procedures. In such a manner, it places a trade off of innocent lives with criminals’ lives through the justice system. Failures of the Policy Inhumane methods of execution. The existing modes of execution are still not sufficient to eradicate the cruelty felt in the execution process. A strong reason that the policy opponents rely on, and which openly demonstrates the lack of conformity to the witnesses, even in the established procedure of execution. There has been evidence of painful death in the cases of asphyxiation as demonstrated by Jimmy lee and Donald Eugene (case no. 3 and 17 respectively), involving distress, agitation, and violent spasm and movements. While in the lethal injections, pain has been the likely consequence of the death chambers officials’ missing the veins during catheters insertion to deliver the lethal drug, besides mentioning the distress some criminals go through; this procedure shows evidence of lingering death, when they take longer than necessary (some half an hour or more), which may be against the eighth amendment (Hodgkinson and Schabas, 2004). If the execution of the offenders is supposed to be humane, then how comes there are numerous cases of emotional distress, signs of struggles, and even unexpected horrifying accidents in the process? Even with the change over from electrocution and gas chambers to lethal injection, which was initially praised to erase cruelty, the public still expresses dissatisfaction on the current lethal mode. Some inmates deaths can be characterized as painful and cruel for torture on their bodies, flesh burnings, screams and violent movements hitting their heads against structures behind them, and busting of the veins while still alive, as experienced in some executions. According to the ACLU (2012), the 1983 execution of Mr. Evans in Alabama was characterized by a stench of burnt flesh and clothing, while still alive and slamming is body against the straps in electric chair that held him, the 1992 Don Harding, gas chamber execution in Arizona showed his bulging veins and convulsing body that had turned red and racked with spasms, 8 minutes before his death; the lethal mode, Rommel Broom in Ohio had gone through 18 attempts of accessing the veins for lethal injection that took 2 hours with failure to conduct the execution, while Clark screamed in his 2006 execution for the pain and torture experienced while searching for a vein. With these methods being practiced, inmates have a risk of being subjected to such cruel forms of death, if the process does not occur as expected. Possibility of innocent lives being executed. It is definite that the risk of execution and wrongful condemnations undermine the death penalty. More so, there has been a big difference in passing of judgments to persons who committed the crime together; while some appearing to be more guilty are not sentenced to death, some accomplices have been severely punished without sufficient evidence. This is about risking the lives of criminals or society members, innocent from the crime being charged. Americans have witnessed about 69 people being released from the death row as from 1973, and 21 more condemned inmates as from 1993, thanks to the scientific methods of investigation and experts (DPIC, 1997). Although an encouraging trend, it indicates that some of those executed earlier with doubt of guilt and evidence could have suffered innocent deaths, without proper proofs of their guilt. With respect to the new results of investigations, before and after executions of some people, their actual guilt still remains questionable, and especially if they are unable to hire their own legal representation, who can lend capable level of skills to represent the accused. Successes of the Policy Consideration of mental ill offenders. Were it not for the revision of the legislatures that has been occurring since 1976, more questionable deaths would be experienced for insane persons. At least, though not at ago, the US federal government and different states have prohibited the execution of mentally ill persons, because they are unaware of the punishment they would receive, and could not even understand why they would be subjected to suffer from it (ACLU, 2012). Insane persons are considered to have committed the crime unaware of the effect and its severity. Similarly, the prohibition is critical to assist the offenders from going through unfair capitally trials when incompetent. As such the evidence of insanity can probe the proceedings of the trials as non capitals and serve justice fairly. The criminal justice system on capital punishment can therefore prevent chances of exposing the mentally ill criminals to external pressures, such as the police interrogations and being tried while unfit for the purpose of getting a confession. With the changes on the capital punishment policy, mentally disadvantaged people can successfully be prevented from incriminating themselves (from interrogations and trials) and future wrongful executions. Prohibition of executions for crimes committed by those less than 18 years of age. Past statistics on execution and offenders on death row involved the minors that had committed capital crimes when underage. The earlier existing laws (states/ federal) had not set a minimum age for execution of the offenders, and were therefore treated as criminal adults in trials and execution. The old legislature was challenged to prohibit underage executions because it acted cruel and was a very unusual punishment to them, especially after considering that these minors were still in development stage (psychologically) that would have influenced their earlier decisions in crimes (ACLU, 2012). The argument brings an image of comparing the minors to mentally retarded persons, and deserved a more justified punishment for rehabilitation and to correct their ways of life. Every now and then the policy is revising its protocols, rules, and factors addressed in trials before death sentence is granted. It has managed to preserve human right by preventing executions of pregnant women, limiting death penalty to most serious crimes, while improving the conditions to death row with respect to human rights and international standards. Other factors that now stand out are the application of fair trial standards, and allowing stays of executions to prevent the indictment of innocent men. Reference List ACLU. (2012, December 11). The Case against the Death Penalty. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty Dezhbakhsh, H., and Shepherd, J. M. (2003, July). The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a Judicial Experiment. Retrieved from citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi...pdf - United States DPIC. (1997, July). Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/523 DPIC. (2013). History of the Death penalty. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/history-death-penalty Finckenauer, J. O. (1987). Public Support for the Death Penalty: Retribution as Just Deserts or Retribution as Revenge? Justice Quarterly 5(1) 81-100. Retrieved from http://hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Public_Support_for_the_Death_Penalty__Retribution_as_Just_Deserts_or_Retribution_as_Revenge.pdf Hodgkinson, P., and Schabas, W. A. (Eds.). (2004). Capital Punishment: Strategies for Abolition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Latzer, B., and McCord, D. (2011). Death Penalty Cases: Leading U.S. Supreme Court Cases on Capital Punishment. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Mandery, E. (Eds.). (2012). Capital Punishment in America: A Balanced Examination. Sudbury: MA: Jones & Barlett learning. Pojman, L. (2004). The Defense of the Death Penalty. Retrieved from http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1200/Pojman.pdf Schultz, J. D., West, J. G., and MacLean, I. S. (Eds.). (1999). Encyclopedia of Religion in American Politics. Arizona: Oryx Press.       Read More