The+Morality+of+the+Death+Penalty

THE CRITICAL FAILINGS OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT



THE HISTORY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN MISSISSIPPI: An Overview / Mississippi History Now

Justice is a universal right that should be provided to each according to the legal provisions defined in law. All citizens within a legal society are obliged to live according to certain laws, and anyone who breaks them is accountable for prosecution and sentencing based on the same law. The purpose of incarceration is to rehabilitate criminal elements in society so that they can correct their ways and become law abiding citizens. The death penalty in the United States is the highest level of a court judgment, and it is given to those who have equally committed the highest level of injustice such as murder. However, is the death penalty a method of rehabilitating criminal elements in society or a way to eliminate them? From a common understanding, the morale behind capital punishment is to kill people who kill others so as to prove to society that killing is wrong; this creates a significant moral and ethical problem that should be used as the knockout punch against the administration of the death penalty. Different authors have shared their ideas on this topic, and they form the main idea of the literature for this discussion. Manning Will and Jacqueline Trader in their article, ‘Rethinking the Death Penalty' have highlighted the reduced public support for the death penalty based on the various ethical and moral controversies. They have brought out the inhumane nature of the death penalty which has made many Americans change their perception against this fatal legal instrument. Marcus Paul in his article, ‘Capital Punishment in the United States, and beyond’ has provided additional insight by introducing a train of thought that links the death penalty to being part of the problem rather than a remedy. His assertions have been made through the view provided by religious institutions such as the Catholic Church who have repeatedly called for the dissolution of the death penalty. The group argues that taking away human life because another human life was taken is not justice but retribution. From the two literature sources, the death penalty has been presented as an immoral application of the law.



Another report by Bureau of Criminal Justice, demonstrates that when the rates of execution were high, generally there were less murders. Also this can be seen during 1960's and 1980's, the point at which capital punishment was not used and murders were skyrocked (1Lynch 223).

From my personal perspective, capital punishment is a false application of social justice that tries to attain judicial equity through retributive action rather than correctional procedures. The purpose of jail terms and incarceration is to separate negative criminal elements in society so that they no longer pose a threat. Inmates are separated from their family and friends and daily routine and are denied their liberty as an effort to help them rehabilitate and have a change of heart. However, this has not been 100% successful owing to the numerous cases of repeat offenders. Depending on the nature of the crime committed, the present laws and statutes provide a specified jail term for a sentenced criminal. Legal structures such as parole and appeals can reduce the prison term together with a presidential clemency that can end a jail term. These factors point to the fact that the length of the jail term does not necessarily influence rehabilitation on the part of the inmate. An effective judicial system is one that separates negative elements from the society to promote peace and stability. However, capital punishment eliminates the negative elements in a society based on the fact that these elements played a role in the elimination of certain individuals in the same society. In essence, the death penalty is a game of numbers that tries to balance the equation by taking a life for a life already taken. Its main goal is retribution rather than correction.

Rate of Hom icide as the function of the quantity of executions slacked by one year, 1976– 1997 (2Fagan).

Factual evidence from multiple studies provides solid evidence from my position. The studies have presented the facts that showcase the genitive failing of capital punishment. Lamperti John in his article, ‘Does Capital Punishment Deter Murder?' has provided a detailed analysis of the numerous studies conducted in this area. The different researchers took statistics from states that have the death penalty, and they compared data on the number of death penalty executions against the number of new homicides. The results of these studies show an impartial relationship between death penalty rates and homicide rates. In states where the death penalty is allowed, the rates of murder and homicide did not reduce. The data studied was compiled for several years with eth range from 10 to 20 years. The researchers such as Thorsten Sellin who did his analysis from 1920 to 1958 concluded that capital punishment had no effect at reducing criminal activities that resulted in the murder of innocent citizens in various societies (**3**Lamperti 4). Further results show that in states that do not have the death penalty, the cases of homicides were lower compared to states with the death penalty (4Sellin). In a complete diversion to the intended purpose of carrying out capital punishment executions, the number of homicide cases increases after several high-profile death penalty executions were done. This statistic was collected by Robert Dan in the state of Philadelphia in 1935 and 1955 the same study was done by Leonard Savitz, and the same results were recorded (**3**Lamperti 5). From the studies it is clear from an evidentiary point of view that the death penalty does nothing to deter further crime, in fact, it acts as a launching pad for additional crime.



Figure 03: The graph prepared by Sellin shows the comparison of homicide rates per 100,000 populations in California, New York and Texas. From 1982 till 2002, Texas had executed almost 239 prisoners, California almost ten, and New York none (4Sellin).

For capital punishment to be a common legal precedence in most states it has to receive the backing of a fair amount of its citizenry. I strongly believe that support for the death penalty comes from a few individuals inside the legal and political system who are not willing to bow to the current social change. The common majority share a contrasting view point from the controlling minority. The status quo is the hindrance to the social change that is required in areas such as judicial understanding administration. It is important to realize that most people are not interested in the use of capital punishment as a deterrence to crime. There has been a sharp decline in public support with about a 60% disapproval rating (**5**Marcus 847). These statistics have been presented by Marcus Paul in his article, ‘Capital Punishment in the United States, and beyond’ when he presents the reasons that have shaped public opinion on capital punishment. In some US states, public pressure has led to the abolishment of the death penalty such as New Jersey in 2007 (**5**Marcus 848). This follows a growing trend amongst many states to repeal the legal statute by it being unethical and against the common moral code in society. The lack of effectiveness of capital punishment to deter crime is also a leading factor for public disapproval against it. The voice of the common people has been heard, and their opposition to the death penalty shows its fundamental failings from its drafting to its execution. My viewpoint on capital punishment as a preserve of a few and not the wishes of the many has been backed up by strong evidence from the available statistics.

Another issue with capital punishment is the large costs to the state. The expense of capital punishment trials and the subsequent appeals is much higher than that of high security imprisonment. The defense costs alone for capital punishment trials are an average of about $400,000 per case, whilst the defense costs of similar cases where capital punishment is not sought is an average of $100,000. These costs vary depending on the states as well, with states such as Florida having each execution cost them $24 million. This means that the death penalty has cost the Florida $2 billion since 1976, even with them only having executed 44 people. Although these costs do vary depending on the state, it is a fact that capital punishment is always more expensive than any other alternative throughout the United States.

There have also been large problems with the implementation of capital punishment. There is always a huge racial bias in determining who gets the death penalty. Multiple studies conducted show that a large factor that plays a role in sentencing of the death penalty is the race of the victim. States such as Louisiana had a 97% higher chance of sentencing death if the victim was white, while other states such as North Carolina would be 3.5 times more likely to sentence death if the victim was white (**6**Facts about the Death Penalty). The race of the defendant has also been linked to the odds of receiving a death sentence. Prosecutors “sought death against 5.6% of eligible minority defendants compared to 1.1% of eligible white defendants” (**7**Beardsley 444). These numbers vary all across different states, with states such as Washington being three times more likely to sentence death to a black defendant than a white defendant with similar cases.

There is also a very real risk of killing an innocent person with capital punishment. The moral costs of killing one innocent person heavily outweigh the justice in killing 99 highly dangerous criminal offenders. It is also not possible to avoid these scenarios, as the justice system is not perfect and it will end up hurting innocent people. In fact, a new studies indicate that 1 in 25 death row inmates would be exonerated if they were allowed to stay on death row indefinitely (**8**Gross). There have been multiple reported cases of these such incidents, with one example being of Cameron Willingham. Willingham was sentenced to death for the supposed murder of his three daughters. While on death row, Willingham provided the court with evidence exonerating him of the crime, but this evidence was ignored and Willingham was executed. Years later, the state accepted the evidence and released an order granting Willingham clemency. At this point, all the state can do is grant Willingham a clemency, because of the decision they made to execute him. The clemency obviously does not make up for the fact that the state has murdered an innocent man. This is a large problem with the argument of people seeing justice in the death penalty.

Even in cases with the the death row inmate actually being guilty, there is no justice with capital punishment. Capital punishment supporters argue that killing the person responsible for the crimes against an innocent victim allows for that victim's family to receive justice. However, this argument fails to take into account the innocent members of the criminal's family. When you kill someone, you not only affect them but also their family. This is also the case for the criminal's family when their family member is killed, even if it is for a crime that they committed. The use of other forms of punishment such as life without parole would remove the collateral damage to the criminal's family, whilst still providing the victim's family the justice they seek.

One argument for the justification of capital punishment is that it is allowed in the Constitution. However, the Eighth Amendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment to those convicted, while the Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law. Although Fifth amendment does state that no person can be killed without due process of the law, it does not mean that it “somehow nullifies other constitutional prohibitions—most importantly, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment” (**9**Blocher 277). In addition, just because the framers of the Constitution might not have considered the death penalty a cruel and unusual punishment at the time, it does not mean that it is not one now. The Constitution has amendments so that it can adapt to the changing times. Justice Breyer has even stated that “the death penalty, in and of itself, now likely constitutes a legally prohibited ‘cruel and unusual punishment” (**9**Blocher 276).

Capital punishment has been within the confines of the traditional law in most US states. However, times have changed, and the reasons used to back up the legal practice no longer hold water. This calls for a further debate on the complete abolition of the death penalty from all states. For a long time the argument has been on which side has more solid facts, but now the conversation has changed to identifying the fundamental problems associated with capital punishment and the rallying cry to come up with a final objective to scarp it from existing law. This discussion has chosen to highlight using statistical evidence of the negative failing of the death penalty, and it is my firm position that with additional public support and sensitization capital punishment will be a thing of the past.

> 3 Lamperti, John. “Does Capital Punishment Deter Murder?” Dartmouth College. (2010). PrinT.
 * 1) Lynch, Mona. "Capital punishment as moral imperative Pro-death-penalty discourse on the Internet." // **Punishment & Society** // **4.2 (2002): 213-236**
 * 2) Fagan, Jeffrey. "Death and Deterrence Redux: Science, Law and Casual Reasoning on Capital Punishment." //Ohio St. J. Crim. L.// 4 (2006): 255

4 Sellin, T. (1965). Capital punishment. //Crim. LQ//, //8//, 36.

5 Marcus, Paul. "Capital Punishment in the United States and Beyond." Melbourne University Law Review. 31.3 (2007): 837-872. Print.

6 "Facts about the Death Penalty." Facts about the Death Penalt Information Center. N.p., 20 Mar. 2017. Web. 7 Apr. 2017.

7 Beardsley, Meg, et al. "Disquieting Discretion: Race, Geography & the Colorado Death pp. 151-187.

8 Gross, S. R., B. O'brien, C. Hu, and E. H. Kennedy. "Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111.20 (2014): 7230-235. Web.

9 Blocher, Joseph. "The Death Penalty and the Fifth Amendment." Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 111, no. 1, 15 Nov. 2016, pp. 275- 293.

No-intext endnotes.

 * Manning, Will, and Jacqueline Rhoden-Trader. "Rethinking the Death Penalty." Corrections Today. 62.6 (2000). Print.


 * Sween, Gretchen. "Texas Ain't Tuscany: How a Truism Might Further Invigorate Contemporary "Cost Arguments" for Death-Penalty Abolition." American Journal of Criminal Law, vol. 41, no. 2, Spring2014, pp. 151-187.

> Order Exonerating Todd Willingham. 299th District Court of Texas. 14 Oct. 2010. Web.


 * Marcus, Paul. "Capital Punishment in the United States and Beyond." Melbourne University Law Review. 31.3 (2007): 837-872. Print.


 * Arguments" for Death-Penalty Abolition." American Journal of Criminal Law, vol. 41, no. 2, Spring2014.

The Lethal Injection is a form of physician-assisted suicide, and you can view the ethics of that topic here

View the wordpress page here

Politics

Home