The Death Penalty and Criminal Justice - Term Paper Example

The death penalty The death penalty In criminal justice, the death penalty is one of the topics that have generated intense discussions. The discussions on capital punishment has attracted wide array of experts and individuals such as economists, health care professionals, politicians, and law specialists. Capital punishment raises discussion for the reason that human life is a priceless commodity that is irreplaceable. This has created two rifts of ideologies as pertains to the death penalty debate. While some argue that certain types of offenders deserve the death penalty, others view the death penalty as undeserving for human beings. The inherent argument for the death penalty lies in retribution. In this sense, an individual attains punishment for a given wrongdoing. Death penalty, in this sense, is seen as any other type of punishment, but is meant for heavier crimes. It is essential to highlight the basic arguments behind retribution. To begin with, a guilty person deserves punishment. Furthermore, only a guilty person should receive punishment. The argument behind retribution proposes that an individual deserves punishment that is commensurate to severity of crime committed. In essence, this argument proposes that true justice should make people suffer for their wrongdoing. Win addition, a criminal should acquire punishment that their crime deserves. In close relation to the former argument, the death penalty is represented as a will of the people. It is essential to note that each society has a set of norms that it ensures its members follow, such norms, therefore, are assumed to reflect the will of every member of the community. A society consequently develops to bear particular stance against what it considers as deviation from the norm. In popular terms, deviation from norms is crime. In addition, the society develops clusters for crime and enlists others as undeserving of mercy against the individual who commits the same. The society deems such types of crime as acts that any sane individual should not commit. On committing such types of crime, therefore, the society enacts harsh punishment on the criminal. This mode of argument sanitizes capital punishment as reflective of a society’s will against certain types of behavior. Capital punishment, in this frame, manifests the society abhorrence for given forms of crime. A common disagreement about this mode of argument pertains to the idea that a society’s judgment is always subjective. Subjectivity creates significant room for bias that vilifies the lives of people who are different from the rest (Cliff, 2003). Michel Foucault argues about the society’s constant urge to suppress unique individuals for creation of social order. In turn, the society executes individuals who do not conform to social prescriptions. The world has recently projected a great stance against capital punishment. Opponents of the death penalty, view it as arbitrary, retrogressive to human dignity, and regressive to criminal justice. This creates a diversity of arguments that help oppose the concept of capital punishment as hindering societal progression. To begin with, opponents of the death penalty highlight the entitlement to life as the foundation of constitutions and democracy. Thomas Jefferson revolutionized the world by stating that every human being possesses a right to life, happiness, and liberty (Hodgkinson & Schabas, 2009). This clause is the precept of modern law and defines the larger scope of viewing human life. In this frame, the death penalty violates the wellbeing of an individual and despises the core of every constitution in the world. Other schools of thought, however, assert that the society has a right to withdraw the rights of a person in certain cases. For instance, the society has a right to terminate the life of a murderer. Philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, in spite of emphasizing on the right to life, argued that the society reserves the right to execute individuals that it deems as dangerous in order to retain the common good (Mandery & Mandery, 2011). A society, just as individuals, is concerned about its welfare in the future. The act of terminating the life of a dangerous individual helps society preserve the wellbeing of individuals. In a subtle sense, the society makes by executing an individual, of whom it deems as having the potential to cause further damage. This subscribes to the common argument that a society can preserve the life of many people by killing one person. In spite of this strong argument, most individuals feel the society has the responsibility of protecting the life of a person at all costs. This suggests that existence of the individual precedes the existence of the society. The society simply exists to ensure the welfare of the individual thereby heralding its existence as secondary to that of the individual. The human liberty concept stems from Stuart Mill’s argument, which promotes the perception of an individual’s life in exclusivity. A person’s life, therefore, is essential in its own existence without attaching it to the life of the society. In this context, criminal justice is only sound if it examines its usefulness from an individual’s level (Wilson, 2013). Besides, labeling other people as dangerous interferes with their right to life and liberty. Stuart Mill, however, still proposes limits to an individual’s entitlements by stating that an individual exercise one’s entitlements with responsibility. An individual, therefore, has a right to satisfy oneself as long as one’s process of satisfaction does not constrain the welfare of others. Institutions opposing the death penalty commonly highlight improper and inadequate counsel as a great hindrance to justice in death penalty situations. The value of counsel significantly predicts the kind of judgment a convicted person attains. It is crucial to emphasize that all criminal defendants have an entitlement for effective counsel and representation. Unfortunately, limited resources, shoddy legal representation, and inadequate time constrain the means of attaining effective justice. This is contentious in the context of the death penalty since such sentences are irrevocable. In turn, it eliminates the chances of an individual benefitting from evolving and uncovered pieces of evidence. Besides, the law has limited capacity to uncover flaws in its own process since such a pursuit is not its primary aim. Consequently, many innocent people may end up dying out of death penalty verdicts that arise from flawed processes. Other arguments assert that the death penalty violates the law’s stance against cruel punishment. The common use of lethal injection in the US is a subject of controversy as individuals think that the guarantee of no pain is questionable. Such a process is subject to significant problems that cannot be easily assessed because the victims are dead. Many people feel that such processes subject a lot of pain to individuals who do not have the ability to report on their experiences. Other methods of execution include hanging, which causes strangulation in cases of short drops. During electrocution, the executioners tie the legs and hands of prisoners with electrodes. The body jerks as light smoke emanates from the head. Currently, there is limited research that shows how long prisoners retain consciousness on lethal injection and electrocution since places of execution are mostly inaccessible to the public. Other schools of argument are concerned about the effectiveness of the death penalty in criminal justice. This is because deterrence to crime is one of the main concerns of the criminal justice systems. Certain criminologists assert that the death penalty is ineffective in deterring people from crime. Although there is a direct relationship between the fear of arrest and the likelihood of arrests, there is no established relationship between the fear of engaging in crime and capital punishment (Bedau, 2004). This is contrary to the popular opinion that holds death as the ultimate fear-striking tool against potential criminals. Instead, such scholars argue that the death penalty brutalizes a society because individuals feel defenseless against a system that is capable of executing them. Aggression emanates from the feeling of helplessness against a state that the individual views as brutal. The criminal justice’s contribution towards suppression is a touchy issue in the US context. This concerns with how capital punishment is a political tool for conferring advantages to the powerful classes while suppressing the minority and powerless groups. Certain reports show that a person’s race is a significant determinant of whether a prisoner faces execution. For instance, a black person who murders a white is highly likely to face the death penalty than a white person who murders a black. A common counterargument against this mode of perception relates to the fact that the likelihood of going to jail is determined by socio-economic dispositions rather than race itself. In this sense, it is essential to note that black Americans’ high participation in crime is defined by the high likelihood of low income in their areas of residence. Economic alienation makes such minority groups participate in crime in order to survive. The capital punishment discussion is a difficult one because it entails many perspectives. It is important to recognize that the society has a right to protect the lives of individuals. In this context, it reserves the right to execute the lives of people it deems as dangerous to the welfare and lives of others. This explains why the criminal justice system executes individuals who murder others. On the other hand, some arguments purport for the viewership of human life in its exclusivity. This means that the human life is valuable in all circumstances. In addition, some criminologists argue that capital punishment is an ineffective tool against crime deterrence. In spite of such arguments, the society still faces dilemma over deterring certain forms of crime such as brutal murders. References Bedau, H.A (2004). Killing as Punishment: reflections on the death penalty in America. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 2004. Print. Cliff, C. (2003). Capital punishment: A bibliography with indexes. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Hodgkinson, P., & Schabas, W. (2009). Capital punishment: Strategies for abolition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mandery, E. J., & Mandery, E. J. (2011). Capital punishment in America: a balanced examination. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Wilson, R. (2013). Capital punishment. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Read More