Death Penalty Should Not Be Allowed - Term Paper Example

Death Penalty Should Not Be Allowed Article 5 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) prohibits the subjection of any individual to punishment that is cruel, inhuman or degrading (United Nations 1). The office further makes it clear that the universal declaration of human rights is a document drafted by representatives from different legal and cultural backgrounds. Civilized humanity thus views the universal declaration of human rights as the gold standard in terms of how humans should relate with each other. Therefore, if the UDHR lays down universally agreed standards on which humans should treat each other, does the death penalty has a place in the 21st century? Is capital punishment a contravention of the global declaration on human rights? Are there instances in which the death penalty is justified? Does capital punishment teach anything to the condemned? Does it deter potential offenders from committing crime? Further, prison administrators are constantly reminding the public that the goal of the 21st century prison system is to change the behavior of the offender; the phrase “correctional facility” perhaps best explains their goal. Concerning the existence of the death penalty, this line of thinking thus lays the basis for a fundamental question: is the establishment of the justice system borne out of a need for rehabilitation or out of a need for retribution? In an attempt at answering these and many other questions in as far as the death sentence is concerned, this essay will present an examination of the death penalty; it seeks to further the argument that the death penalty should not be allowed. However, arguments posed by supporters of the death penalty will also be discussed. First, supporters of the death penalty argue that a death sentence is the ultimate punishment for an individual who has taken another’s life. Pointing out the execution by lethal injection, they insist that modern execution methods are humane and thus offer the condemned a quick and painless death. However, the death penalty ought to be abolished because, apart from appearing to pay more attention to the concept of revenge rather than justice, it creates a never ending circle of killings; in the same way the condemned individual shows disrespect to the sanctity of human life by killing, so does the government, by executing the condemned. The American Civil Liberties Union- ACLU 1) insists that apart from the pain endured by condemned prisoners from botched execution attempts, all the execution means employed by the American prison system violate constitutional provisions banning cruel and unusual punishment. Lethal injection, one of the most common methods of enforcing the death penalty, faces persistent attacks from abolitionists over its continued use. The U.S Court of Appeal in Chaney versus Heckler (1983) noted of the presence of “substantial and uncontroverted evidence” to the effect that even the slightest of errors in the administration of lethal injection dosage creates the probability of a cruel and slow death (ACLU 1). This source, by quoting the US court of appeal (an institution of the American judiciary thus bearing strong extrinsic ethos) attempts to use logos to persuade the audience, through testimony and authority, that lethal injection is not as painless as is portrayed to be. An incident that President Barrack Obama has described as bearing a disturbing nature (Baker 1), the poorly carried out execution of Clayton Lockett clearly depicts the cruelty of lethal injection as a means of punishing death row inmates. The incident clearly shows that the death penalty has no place in civilized society and thus should not be allowed. On April 29, 2014, after failing to locate a suitable vein elsewhere, Oklahoma prison officials deemed it wise to insert lethal drugs into Clayton’s groin (BBC 1). Taking 51 minutes to identify a suitable vein, they never realized the collapse of the one they had chosen on the groin (BBC 1). The execution was halted when the discovery was made (BBC 1). However, Clayton, writhing and mumbling, possibly in pain, died of a heart attack 10 minutes after the halting of the execution. In an attempt at persuading the audience that lethal injection is a cruel and inhuman punishment, and thus should not be allowed, the BBC employs the use of words such as “writhing” and “mumbling”. This shows the use of pathos in an attempt at leading the audience to associate with the feeling of excruciating torture possibly experienced by the inmate at the hands of a degrading form of punishment. Hence, describing the cruel death experienced by Clayton this source attempts to persuade the audience that this form of punishment is barbaric and should thus be banned. Further, by connecting the gruesome death of Clayton to a botched execution, this source attempts to use logos through the technique of cause and consequence. Deborah Denno, law professor at Fordham law school and expert on lethal injection, describes the Clayton case as one of the worst botched executions ever (Death Policy Information Center 1). She further argues that lethal injection is extremely problematic and potentially unconstitutional. The comments from Deborah Denno, a professor of law thus bearing strong extrinsic ethos, the Death Policy Information Center, uses testimony and authority in an attempt at creating logical appeal to the audience. On the other hand, supporters of the death sentence would argue that Clayton- on death row for shooting a 19 year old woman and standing by as his two accomplices buried her alive- deserved the experience he got. They insist that, for persons such as Clayton, guilty of committing heinous crimes, death is the most appropriate penalty. However, such an argument strikes a keen observer as hypocritical in the sense that society condemns the practice of murder while at the same time applauding government efforts at killing murder convicts. Though Clayton was a murderer, his experience at the hands of the criminal justice system was in clear contravention of the expressly laid down principles of the universal declaration of human rights. There is yet to emerge concrete evidence as to the correlation between the administration of the death sentence and declining murder rates. Life sentences without parole for murder convicts would ensure they never get the opportunity to commit such acts on the public. Proponents of the death penalty argue that apart from the death sentence the only other punishment available for a murderer is a life sentence without parole. They note that life without parole is more expensive because most of the time, the convict will keep on appealing court decisions through never-ending habeas corpus petitions thus causing as many expenses as an inmate under the death penalty (Procon.org 1). They argue that if the various layers of appeal in capital punishment cases were to be carried out in a fiscally responsible manner, executing a murderer is far much cheaper than having to provide him with clothes, shelter and medical care for the rest of his life (Procon.org 1). By arguing that the never-ending habeas corpus petitions will be because of the handing a life sentence, the source attempts to use logos, through cause and consequence to persuade the audience as to the demerits of life sentences for murderers. On the other hand, opponents of the death sentence believe it should be repealed because; in fact, the cost of capital punishment is much higher than life imprisonment. According to BBC (1), various studies have suggested that the death penalty leads to the government accruing more expenses than punishment through life imprisonment. This is attributed to the costs associated with multiple appeals and the provision of defense counsel for death row inmates. For example, to fund its capital punishment structure, California has spent an estimated $4 billion since 1978, yet it has executed 13 prisoners only (BBC 1). Such statistics gives this source a strong extrinsic ethos coming from the BBC- a trusted news source for many. Further, by quoting such a towering figure being spent on such a low number of executions, this source employs pathos in an effort at creating astonishment on the audience thus persuade them on the wasteful nature of the capital punishment structure. The use of logos in this source is seen in the attempt at creating logical appeal. This occurs by creating a connection between the multiple appeals and petitions made by death row inmates and the cost burden on the state. The costs of imprisoning an inmate for life vary from state to state, it is thus impossible to give a uniform figure as being representative of the cost of life imprisonment. However, in its comparison of the amount of money spent on a death penalty trial and the cost of housing inmates, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice notes that the state accrues expenses involving an extra $117 million yearly on capital punishment. About half of this figure is on expenses that exceed the normal costs of housing inmates (ProCon.org 1). The third reason given by supporters of the death sentence is that by killing an individual who has committed the act of murder, it metes out equal justice- that an individual who kills deserves to be killed regardless of their racial or socioeconomic background. However, the death sentence should be banned because far from illustrating equal justice various studies have shown instances of racial bias in issuing death sentences. In an article on the death penalty based on the experience of the US armed forces from 1984 to 2005, Baldus et al (2), identify racial disparities in court decisions involving similarly situated offenders eligible for the death sentence. They argue that the impact of “race effect” is eminent in the administration of the death penalty, in the United States armed forces. Presenting evidence of racial discrimination in the administration of capital punishment, they argue that capital-sentencing decisions are executed in a more punitive manner in cases that involve one or more white victims than they are in cases bearing similar characteristics but with no white victims. Could one then argue that the criminal justice system, through its administration of the death penalty, aids, to a certain extent, in enforcing common racial stereotypes? An answer in the affirmative, though seemingly far fetched, would not be entirely off the mark. Byron White, justice of the Supreme Court, hypothesizes that, in capital punishment-eligible murder cases, the highest risk of racial prejudice appears in “highly aggravated minority accused/white victim cases” (Baldus et al 2). The rhetor in this source, by quoting justice of the Supreme Court (thus having strong extrinsic ethos based on his position in the judiciary) uses logos through testimony and authority in an attempt at persuading the audience that racism may hinder the administration of justice in death penalty cases. Baldus’ research is thus crucial in that it illustrates the presence of racial prejudice in handing out death penalties. However, Koch (1), disagreeing with the claim that allegations of racism in the meting out of the death penalty, argues that whites commit fewer murders than blacks and Hispanics, yet in proportion to the general population, they receive capital punishment in greater numbers. Use of pathos is shown by Koch’s attempt at arousing feelings of disbelief among the audience. The pathos occurs by stating the high number of death sentences issued to whites yet they commit fewer murders. Fourth, capital punishment supporters argue that an individual who has been proven guilty of murder has no appreciation for the meaning of life. He, therefore, ought not to be given the pleasure of enjoying his. In contrast, death penalty abolitionists point out that the death sentence ought to be banned because it creates the possibility of innocent people losing their lives for crimes they did not commit. American legal history is littered with incidences of law-abiding citizens spending years on death row for crimes they never committed. This may be because of shoddy police investigations or simply because of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Before the advent of DNA testing, the possibility of innocent people being sent to the gallows was even greater. The case of Roy Krone, the 100th death row inmate in America to receive freedom based on his innocence (Evans 1), best illustrates the torment experienced by innocent individuals on death row. After spending 10 years and 8 months on death row for a crime committed by someone else, Roy was lucky to be released after the emergence of exculpatory DNA evidence previously not available. The DNA evidence exonerated him from accusations of having been behind the murder of a barmaid at a local bar he frequented (Evans 1). Evans, an author of books on the death sentence, bears strong extrinsic ethos. The use of pathos in this source is seen through an attempt at appealing to the audience’s feeling of pity on the basis that Roy suffered at the hands of the justice system for no particular reason. In the source, ‘Roy’s release was caused by the emergence of exculpatory evidence’- this is an attempt at the use of logos to illustrate cause or consequence. The seriousness of the situation is magnified by the realization that had Roy been living in an era preceding the discovery of DNA testing. He surely would have had the experience of meeting death courtesy of the toxic fumes of a gas chamber, the gallows (where if the drop were too short, he would embrace death by being strangled in slow, agonizing fashion. If too long, his head would most likely be torn off. In counter argument, supporters of the death penalty point out that just because some defendants or convicts on death row end up being proven innocent is no basis for not punishing the guilty ones (Jonah 1). They argue that allowing people such as Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma city bomber responsible for the loss of 168 lives or Ted Bundy, the American serial killer and rapist, to continue enjoying the gift of life, even under solitary confinement in the harshest of prison conditions, is equivalent to failure by the court to provide justice to the victims. They also argue that the execution of a murderer provides a sense of closure to the loved ones of the victim (Jonah 1). Further, supporters of the capital punishment note that whereas opponents of the death penalty are always eager to point out the demerits of capital punishment when DNA evidence proves a defendant’s innocence, they rarely show such eagerness for debate when DNA confirms the defendant’s guilt (Jonah 1). Arguing that the death sentence has a deterrent effect on potential offenders, Jonah(1), points that though it would be unethical to kill a human being with the intention of simply sending a message to others who are yet to commit a crime, it is perfectly ethical to execute an individual who deserves to be executed. Anti-death penalty advocates, on the other hand, state that no human being deserves to be executed. Further, if the main goal of the justice system in rehabilitation, then execution teaches the individual being executed nothing. Finally, proponents of the death penalty insist that by handing out death sentences, the society celebrates and honors the sanctity and dignity of lives terminated by the defendant’s animosity (Procon.org 1). The society, through the judiciary arm of government, is showing its moral outrage at heinous crimes. In this source, words such as “sanctity” and “dignity” show use of pathos in an attempt at making the audience develop feelings of attachment to the gift of life thus making them appreciate the need for capital punishment to anyone who attempts to take away this gift. On the other hand, those in opposition of the death penalty argue that it fosters a culture of violence. They also argue that it perpetrates the notion that violence is an appropriate way of settling scores even to the extent of taking another human being’s life. This is because it proposes killing, sometimes violently as in the case of execution by firing squad, as the appropriate way of to punish a murderer. Young children may thus grow up with the mentality that revenge killings are justified means of solving murder cases. The American Civil Liberties Union (1) (the ACLU being a respected civil society member, gives this source strong extrinsic ethos) points out that the penalty for rape is not rape, or for arson, the setting ablaze of the arsonist’s house. Therefore, a murderer should not be punished with death. The ACLU, uses logos by introducing the reasoning behind the punishment of rape and arson, in an attempt at illustrating the absurdity of punishing murder with murder. Overall, cases such as Roy and Clayton’s clearly call for a policy review on executions. In the wake of the Oklahoma botched execution, the Obama administration, while reiterating support for the death penalty in certain instances, has shown signs of ordering a review on how the execution process is conducted. To anti-death penalty advocates, this is not enough. The way forward should involve an assessment of the entire system (Baker 1). Of note, however, is the fact that there is a general decline in the use of the death penalty in the U.S. Further, six states have abolished the death sentence over the last seven years while others are considering legislation to ban it or have imposed moratoriums. According to a Gallup poll, a staggering 60% of Americans still support capital punishment for those convicted of murder, though support is at its lowest level in more than 40 years (Baker 1). Overall, recent polls show that support for the death penalty among Americans is on the decline. As a reflection of the gradual shift in public opinion, more states are beginning to consider legislation to repeal the death penalty. Overseas, the British Broadcasting Corporation reports that U.S states that allow for capital punishment are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain drugs for lethal injections from their European suppliers. The death penalty is no longer part of the European criminal punishment system. The European pharmaceutical companies have placed an embargo on the sale of drugs to U.S states for the purposes of capital punishment as they are uneasy with the notion of supplying their drugs for the purpose of the killing people overseas. Some states, such as Missouri, have been alleged being unable to acquire drugs easily for lethal injection as were in the past. The future of the death penalty in America is on its deathbed. The death sentence ought to be abolished for the simple reason that its negative consequences outweigh the positive ones. The criminal justice system ought to focus on rehabilitation. Works cited American Civil Liberties Union. “Execution Methods”. Aclu.org. Web. 05 May 2014. < https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/execution-methods.> Baker, Peter. “Obama Orders Policy Review on Executions” The New York Times. 03 May 2014. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 05 May 2014.< http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.cyclib.nocccd.edu/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=News&limiter=&u=cypressc&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE|A366879542.> Baldus, David, C., Grosso, Catherine, M., Woodworth, George, Newell, Richard. “Racial Discrimination in the Administration of the Death Penalty: The Experience of the United States Armed Forces (1984-2005)”. Journal of criminal law and criminology 101.4 (2011): 1227-1335. Web. < http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.cyclib.nocccd.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=47919517-db68-41a2-af1f-354091f6f78f%40sessionmgr4004&vid=2&hid=4201.> BBC News- US & Canada. “US president Obama Calls for Death Penalty Review”. Bbc.com. 02 May 2014. Web. 05 May 2014. < http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27265443.> Death Policy Information Center. “Oklahoma Botches Execution of Clayton Locket”. Deathpenaltyinfo.org, 30 April 2014. Web. 05 May 2014. < http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/.> Evans, Masters.“Capital Punishment Should be Abolished”. Capital punishment: cruel and unusual? Detroit: Gale, 2012. Opposing viewpoints in context. Web. 05 May 2014.< http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.cyclib.nocccd.edu/ic/ovic/PrimarySourcesDetailsPage/PrimarySourcesDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=PrimarySources&limiter=&u=cypressc&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE|EJ4189200316.> Goldberg, Jonah. “Why Death-penalty Opponents Can’t Win” Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 05 May 2014 < http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.cyclib.nocccd.edu/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&u=cypressc&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010124292>. Koch, Edward.”Justice is Served with the Death Penalty.” Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 05 May 2014. < http://ic.galegroup.com.ezproxy.cyclib.nocccd.edu/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&prodId=OVIC&windowstate=normal&co>ntentModules=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Viewpoints&limiter=&u=cypressc&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=OVIC&action=e&catId=&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE|EJ3010124274.> Lewis, Aidan.”Lethal Injection: Secretive US States Resort to Untested Drugs”. Bbc.com. BBC News magazine. 15 November 2013. Web. 05 May 2014 < http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-2493586.> ProCon.org. “Does the Death Penalty Cost Less Than Life in Prison without Parole? Death Penalty. Web. 06 may 2014. < http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000. United Nations. ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” un.org. Web. 05 May 2014.< http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.> Read More