Capital Punishment in Criminal Justice System - Essay Example

29 January Capital Punishment Nations across the globe follow criminal justice systems to punish offenders, based on the seriousness of the crimes they commit. Capital punishment is the award of death penalty to the perpetrators of heinous crimes such as premeditated homicide, rape and murder etc. While many people including sociologists believe that grave offences such as murder need to be punished with death penalty, others uphold the view that awarding the capital punishment is against the laws of nature and instead advocate imprisonment for offenders. Thus, the issue of awarding the capital punishment remains a highly controversial topic across the world. In the US many states award death penalty to offenders who commit premeditated homicide while some others do not have capital punishment. Killing a human being intentionally is a heinous crime and offenders who commit premeditated homicide need to be punished with capital punishment to deter others from engaging in such criminal activities. Criminal justice system awards punishment to the criminals with a view to prevent the recurrence of crimes. The society considers that every criminal offender needs to be awarded a punishment appropriate to the crime he or she commits. Thus, the advocates of death penalty contend that when capital punishment is awarded to a person who commits murder, “potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life” (The Death Penalty: Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty 1). Evidence also points to an analysis by the criminologist Isaac Ehrlich, which shows that “for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared” as other perpetrators become deterred from committing similar crimes (1). This source concedes to the fact that studies relating to deterrence are sometimes “inconclusive” but it attributes this to the rare use of death penalty and the delay in its execution (1). Thus, it can be construed that death penalty acts as a deterrent to crime, which is a “practical justification” for the award of capital punishment (2). Criminal justice system relies on the basic tenet that every crime deserves a proportionate punishment for meeting the objectives of natural justice. Therefore, it appears natural that the person who perpetrates a premeditated murder of another person should be punished with death so that the victim and his or her family receive justice. Thus, the principle evolves that criminal justice must consider the extent of “harm caused by the criminal” and award a punishment that is “proportionate” to the crime (Bidinotto 20). However, the opponents of capital punishment hold the view that punitive measures derive from the concept of vengeance and the “vindictive notion of an eye for an eye” (23). Refuting this theory, Bidinotto argues that justice does not rely on the notion of vengeance but, on the other hand, is “based on retribution” (23). He further contends that showing mercy to murderers amounts to “negation of simple justice” and will actually act as an encouragement for criminals as they can “gain more from crimes than any costs they will have to bear” (23). Thus, it becomes evident that a punishment proportionate to the crime is only moral and, therefore, the award of capital punishment to a murderer is justified. Deliberate murder is a crime that destabilizes the society and, therefore, when such crimes occur the community has a responsibility to respond. The death penalty can be considered as a “uniquely powerful” response to such a crime due to its being a “permanent” solution that cannot be “retracted or overturned” (Gelernter 26). Thus, by awarding death penalty to criminals who commit the offence of premeditated homicide, society makes a proclamation that such crimes are “absolutely evil and absolutely intolerable” (26). Therefore, it will dissuade criminals from engaging in such crimes and reduce murders. Though the opponents of death penalty are of the opinion that capital punishment does not reduce murders, their view is refuted by the findings of a research study. The results of this study indicate that the legal changes that allowed death penalty “beginning in 1977 has been associated with significant reductions in homicide (Dezhbakhsh et al 32). Thus, in the present day, where terrorism and mass murders of innocents have become common events, the award of death penalty is essential to dissuade the criminals who perpetrate such crimes. One valid reservation, however, seems to exist against the imposition of death penalty to people accused of murders. Sometimes, there is a chance of the innocent being punished due to certain inconsistencies in the trial. In this context, the report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights becomes relevant. It states that the “execution of a death sentence that failed to offer an adequate right to defense would constitute an arbitrary deprivation of life” (The Death Penalty in the Inter-American Human Rights System: From Restrictions to Abolition 13). Thus, it becomes the onus of the criminal justice system, law enforcement agencies and trial courts to ensure that a fair trial is made available to the accused. The criminal justice system in the US as well as other countries across the world always strive to ensure that justice is imparted to the citizens and no innocents ever receive a punishment. On the other hand, it must also be the endeavor of the criminal justice to ensure that appropriate punishment is awarded to the guilty so that such punitive measures set examples for others to avoid the commission of crimes. Thus, it only becomes justifiable that a person who takes the life of a fellow human being must pay with his or her life. The punishment of death penalty is a matter of hot debate in nations across the world. The proponents of death penalty mainly argue that this method of punishment is a deterrent to potential criminals who intend to commit such crimes. They also argue that the award of capital punishment is a moral and reasonable way of punishing persons who commit premeditated killings. The opponents of death penalty, on the other hand, argue that the awarding of capital punishment to murderers do not have any deterrent effect. However, research evidence suggests that crimes of killings have decreased since the introduction of death penalty and related rules in the late seventies in the US. Another argument that the opponents of death penalty make is that death penalty is not a moral act and it is not reasonable. This contention seems to lack merits on the grounds of natural justice. The criminal justice system is mainly found on the premise that the people who commit crimes need to be punished based on the extent of harm caused to the society or other humans. Thus, it falls on the gambit of morality that a person who inflicts harm on another human being receives a proportionate punishment for his or her crime. Therefore, it is only a moral act to punish one who perpetrates a deliberate murder, by awarding the death penalty on such individual. However, it becomes incumbent on the criminal justice system, including the law enforcement agencies and judiciary to ensure that innocent people does not become scapegoats to the flaws in the trials. Works Cited Bidinotto, Robert James. Capital Punishment is Moral: Capital Punishment. Marie E Williams (Ed). 2004. Web. 28 January 2013. Dezhbakhsh, Hashem et al. Does Capital Punishment have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Post-moratorium Panel Data. n.d. Web. 28 January 2013. Gelernter, David. Capital Punishment is Reasonable: Capital Punishment. Marie E Williams (Ed). 2004. Web. 28 January 2013. The Death Penalty: Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty. Michigan State University and Death Penalty Information Center, 2000. Web. 28 January 2013. The Death Penalty in the Inter-American Human Rights System: From Restrictions to Abolition. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 2011. Web. 28 January 2013. Read More