Anti-Death Penalty - Research Paper Example

Anti-Death Penalty Essay Ever since the beginning of humankind, the death penalty has been used as a manner by which wrongdoers are punished for their crimes against society. The oft-quoted Biblical saying, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” captures succinctly this notion of retributive justice. A man, for instance, who has been adjudged guilty of murdering another man, will be sentenced to death. The manner of death is another issue altogether. Many imaginative and cruel ways of implementing the death penalty have been witnessed through time – from the guillotine to the garrote to firing squads to gas chambers to electric chairs -- before the more “humane” lethal injection has been made the manner of choice in countries that consider themselves civilized. However, there still are some countries in the world that use cruel ways of implementing capital punishment. Worse, these are for crimes that in many jurisdictions would not warrant the death penalty, or in some cases, any punishment at all. In Sudan, for example, a married person found guilty of adultery is executed by stoning; an unmarried person receives 100 lashes. In Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, a woman and a man were stoned to death in public using palm-sized stones for non-marital sex. The man died within minutes but the woman had to be finished off by dropping a large chunk of stone over her head. This paper will argue that the death penalty should no longer be used as a form of punishment. Four main arguments will be forwarded. First, the irrevocability of the death penalty means that there is no hope of correcting an injustice committed against a convict later found to be innocent. Second, it violates the principle of restorative justice, which should replace the principle of retributive justice. Third, it has been proven by empirical evidence that it in no way deters crime or helps in crime prevention. Fourth, racial biases affect any objective application of the death penalty law. I. The Irrevocability of the death penalty Human errors and frailty, as well as the lack of adequate forensic facilities in some countries, have led to many convictions that later turn out to be wrong. In a situation where the maximum penalty that may be meted out is life imprisonment, the State may still be able to provide reparation for an innocent man wrongly convicted. He will be allowed to go free and will even be given damages. In a country where the death penalty is legal, the finality of the sentence of death renders any mistake in convictions irreversible. The problem is serious considering that, according to a death penalty information website, “since 1973, at least 121 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 982 people have been executed. Thus, for every eight people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted.” This issue has generated widespread public outrage and is perhaps one of the more compelling reasons as to why the anti-death penalty advocates are gaining ground. Says Haines (125): An analysis of newspaper coverage suggests that flawed convictions, in which possibly innocent persons either suffer or narrowly escape execution, are especially potent threats to public support for capital punishment. The injustice brought about by sending an innocent man to prison is magnified a thousandfold by the horrific idea that such an innocent man might be wrongly executed. There can be no recompense that may be provided to the dead. II. Restorative, not Retributive Justice In recent times, we have seen a paradigm shift from retributive justice, where a convict is made to pay for grievances to the community he belongs to, to restorative justice, wherein a recognition is made that a crime has been committed and a wrong has been done, but the convict is still a member of the community and is perceived as a human being with the capacity for reform. According to Braithwaite (563): Three types of restorative justice standards are articulated: limiting, maximizing, and enabling standards. They are developed as multidimensional criteria for evaluating restorative justice programmes. A way of summarizing the long list of standards is that they define ways of securing the republican freedom (dominion) of citizens through repair, transformation, empowerment with others and limiting the exercise of power over others. A defence of the list is also articulated in terms of values that can be found in consensus UN Human Rights agreements and from what we know empirically about what citizens seek from restorative justice. We must recognize that every person still has the capacity to reform, and having that capacity, must be given the chance to rebuild his life and work his way towards becoming an upright member of society once more. Death penalty denies him that opportunity. It is condemnatory and final and based on a simplistic formulation of “an eye for an eye” that should have no place and should not be endorsed in civilized society. III. Death Penalty is not a Deterrence Many have argued that the death penalty should be used to deter crimes. As stated by Passell (61), “Execution may be commonly viewed as a distasteful alternative to other forms of punishment, but an alternative that could be defended on pragmatic grounds, if the gains in crime prevention are sufficiently great.” The empirical evidence, however, militates to the contrary. For example, it has been established that states in the United States that do not have the death penalty in their record books generally have fewer murders than states that employ this particular type of punishment. Moreover, the U.S., with the death penalty, has more murders and more capital crimes committed yearly than the countries of the European Union, which have collectively decided to renounce abolish the death penalty as a demonstration of its commitment to human rights. Given that a great number of crimes committed are not premeditated, it is not difficult to see how the death penalty would not work as a deterrent. In fact, the former Texas attorney general himself, a state known for its great number of executions, Jim Mattox, was quoted as saying, “It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you'll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse." Indeed, certainty of capture, better law enforcement and a judicial process that is truly fair and impartial are more effective deterrents to crime. It is not the death penalty, for there is no evidence whatsoever to support the conclusion that capital punishment is an effective deterrent to crime. IV. Racial Issues The death penalty debate is in itself a very complicated and very emotional issue. It is made even more protracted when the racial dimension or angle is added into the picture. And yet, it cannot be denied that race is an important factor to be considered when discussing or mulling over the issue. While it may seem that it is only a matter of ascertaining a person’s guilt and imposing the appropriate penalties, there are invisible biases and historical prejudices at play and the statistics to corroborate this assertion are staggering. Says Wolfgang and Riedel (119), The record of executions in the United States has long shown that black defendants are disproportionately subjected to this sanction… Strong statistically significant differences in the proportions of blacks sentenced to death, compared to whites, when a variety of nonracial aggravating circumstances are considered, permit the conclusion that the sentencing differentials are the product of racial discrimination.” Conclusion While certainly we must always strive for justice and recognize the right of the victim to seek it from the person who has committed wrong and from society at large, there are more reasons to abolish the death penalty than to retain it. We must heed the call to balance justice with human rights, retribution with redemption. Works Cited Braithwaite, John. “Setting Standards for Restorative Justice.” The British Journal of Criminology Vol. 42. (2002) pp. 563-577. Haines, Herb. “Flawed Executions, the Anti-Death Penalty Movement, and the Politics of Capital Punishment.” Social Problems, Vol. 39, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 125-138. Passell, Peter. “The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty: A Statistical Test” Stanford Law Review, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Nov., 1975), pp. 61-80. Riedel, M. & Wolfgang, M. “Race, Judicial Discretion, and the Death Penalty.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 407, Blacks and the Law (May, 1973), pp. 119-133 Read More