Death Penalty in the United States - Essay Example

03 June 2007 Death Penalty in the United s At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the position of the United States on the law and practice of capital punishment is singular. Alone among the Western democracies, state governments in the United States authorize and conduct executions as criminal punishment and show no clear indication of a willingness to stop doing so. Alone among nations with strong traditions of due process in criminal procedure, criminal justice systems in the United States attempt to merge a system of extensive procedures and review with execution as a legal outcome. Thesis Capital punishment is essential in our legal system because the government needs to protect the safety of the citizens, deter others from committing similar offences and finally, to have some form of punishment for the offender. Capital punishment is essential in the legal system because punishment should be proportioned to the evil of the offense. Retribution becomes a moral obligation. The offender is to be killed by the state only because he brings death upon himself; but this dead man with a beating heart is to be treated decently right up to the point of gentle termination because he also remains a person, a rational agent of free will. Murderers had previously agreed to submit to the rule of civil authority and partake of its privileges and its responsibilities by engaging with society. Those who violate the laws have broken a trust with the citizenry, which, by exacting a penalty, seeks compensation for an act considered an affront to the purpose for which submission to civil authority was commenced (Bigel 46). The very high ratio of condemned prisoners to executions in many states-200 to 1 rather than the 40 to 1 in many northern jurisdictions- has meant that there is no longer a clear and proximate relationship between death sentences and executions. More than seven out of ten respondents regard the removal of the threat that "the killer might kill again" as an important benefit of the death penalty, but 68 percent regret that the current system results in "mistaken executions." More than six of ten respondents are concerned about the jurisdictional differences in death sentences and executions, but six of ten also think the system provides "closure" (Colson 27). This set of profoundly mixed feelings about the death penalty suggests that public responses to death penalty surveys might vary importantly by the context and the wording of questions. By contrast, the abolitionists see the impact of executions as a statement of pervasive importance about the relationship between the government and the individual. Abolitionists in the United States view capital punishment as a fundamental political issue; proponents usually assert that the question is neither fundamental nor political. From a Biblical view, Charles W. Colson, author of the essay The Death Penalty is Morally Just, notes that to be punished "is to be treated with dignity as human beings created in the Image of God" (Colson 62). The death penalty, as a punishment for murder, reaffirms a criminal's humanity by taking on responsibility for their actions. It is contrary to the idea that execution degrades a convict sentenced to death. According to van den Haag (1994), "[P]hilosophers, such as Immanuel Kant and G.F.W. Hegel have insisted that, when deserved, execution, far from degrading the executed convict, affirms his humanity by affirming his rationality and his responsibility for his actions"( 257). In spite of benefits and advantages of death penalty, there is a social pressure against this punishment. Still, the death penalty had become an exceptional punishment in all Western democracies by the start of the twentieth century, reserved for only the most serious of offenses, rarely imposed, and regarded as particularly problematic. In all the developed nations, other methods of punishment had replaced the executioner as the principal punishment for serious offenses. Executions remained a symbolically important extreme punishment, available for crimes of the order of treason and murder, but they had become rare and troublesome events in the conduct of criminal justice in developed democracies (Colson 38). Anti-death penalty movement supposes that there is no evidence at present that the fear of capital punishment makes criminals think twice about killing, but that is only because the risk of actually being executed is so low. Criminals know that they are unlikely to wind up in the execution chamber even if they are caught and convicted. But if capital punishment were imposed on a larger scale, it would, in fact, produce a deterrent effect. The ability of death penalty opponents to respond to this change is important, because they are frequently held responsible for the delays and loopholes that make executions rare events. As things now stand, hundreds if not thousands of murders occur in death penalty states every year that could be made into death penalty cases if prosecuting attorneys elected to do so. "Although life and death requests might be indistinguishable from the perspective of individual decedents, prosecutorial deference to the latter raises significant constitutional concern" (Logan 41). The only way costs have been kept from reaching truly outrageous levels is by seeking the death penalty in only a very small percentage of those cases. Another argument against capital punishment is a risk executing an innocent. Innocent lives may have been lost to erroneous convictions leading to the death penalty but, as Stephen Markman said in his essay, Innocent People Have Not Been Executed, "through a combination of deterrence, incapacitation, and the imposition of just punishment, the death penalty serves to protect a vastly greater number of innocent lives" (Markman 84). Points that advocates of the death penalty constantly argue are based on their belief that when murderers aren't executed, innocent people suffer because the odds are that a killer will eventually be released and there is a fair chance that he or she will kill again. They want it to be so that these felons, once convicted of their crimes, are never given another opportunity to put American citizens' lives in danger. These people also do not want to see these criminals kill time in prison and wait for a more humane death, in contrast to the cruel and unusual ways they murdered innocent men, women, and children. To refute this argument, critics say that the real issue is whether the death penalty is so superior as a means of incapacitating killers that it is an absolutely necessary part of anticrime solutions. Abolitionists usually contend that society can control truly dangerous convicts well enough by simply incarcerating them, but prison cannot provide absolute assurance that violent convicts are neutralized. They may be released too soon. Cottrol argues (2004): "The dramatic decline in the 1960s was partly the result of the Warren Court's increased concern with state administration of criminal justice. Throughout the 1960s federal courts were giving increased scrutiny to death penalty appeals" (1641). Therefore, advocates believe that these criminals should not enjoy this luxury of time, something their victims ran out of the moment their paths crossed, and as consequence should be sentenced to death as soon as possible. "The death penalty remains the most precise form of punishment and remains the "most secure form of incapacitation, meaning that executed murders do not harm and murder again" (Sharp 38 cited Markman 47). Anti death penalty activists state that the movement should be more focused on the needs of the innocent than those of the guilty, but as things now stand, the loyalties of death penalty opponents are widely perceived as misplaced. It is thought that anyone who is against the death penalty sees murderers merely as victims of poverty, racism, and a brutal law enforcement system, and is blind to the carnage those criminals have caused. Some abolitionists are guilty of these things. The 5th Amendment of the constitution allows the death penalty as long as due process has been given. Enormous effort has been made over the years through trials, pre-trials, writs, and appeals to minimize the risk of executing innocent victims (Colson 98). One of the most significant points that opponents of the death penalty attempt to emphasize is the amount of innocent people that have been sentenced to death. They argue that the death penalty process is an incredibly inaccurate way in handling cases of such extremity, and that whether a perpetrator is found guilty or innocent is not conducted in a definitive method. Statistics have shown that some people that were later proven innocent have been sentenced to death (Sharp 70 cited Markman 49). However, in this day and age of biological and technological advancement, it's becoming less and less likely for criminals to be wrongfully convicted. Capital punishment is constitutional used as an effective deterrent. The effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent is still under debate. The truth of the matter is that there has not been any conclusive evidence submitted that proves or disproves its effectiveness as a deterrent. However, the possibility that even one murder could have been prevented because of the threat of the death penalty is well worth all the trouble and supposed ineffectiveness. The possibility that one more life could have been saved from the execution of a serial killer is enough validation. Arlen Specter in his essay A Swifter Death Penalty Would be a Better Deterrent writes about one specific case where the death penalty did deter murder. Three young men were conspiring to rob Philadelphia pharmacy when two of the conspirators, Cater, 19, and Rivers, 18, noticed that their co-conspirator, Williams, 20, was carrying a revolver. They, then, refused to carry out their plan if their accomplice was carrying a gun. Williams put the revolver in a drawer and Cater and Rivers proceeded out the door of their apartment. Williams however, snuck the revolver back into his pocket and, later, shot and killed pharmacist Jacob Viner during the robbery. "Williams was sentenced to death while Cater and Rivers were sentenced to life imprisonment due to the extenuating circumstances" (Bigel 34). Regardless of Jacob Viner's death, capital punishment did deter Cater and Rivers from committing murder. In spite of opportunities of sentencing system a rapid change in the system will cause many problems for police and correction services. It requires additional spending on administrative system. This situation will need to create additional work places and increase government spending on welfare. In general, those who place a timeless will at the center of freedom, responsibility, and punishment are inclined to assert a confidence in their ability to ascertain the right proportion between offense and penalty in the practice of retribution; and those who elevate social causality above attributions of willful responsibility express a corresponding confidence in the ability to devise disciplinary systems geared to the degree of protection, deterrence and reform needed. The primary goals of capital punishment are to reduce number of repeat crimes and protect citizens from possible threats. References 1. Bigel, Alan J. William J. Breannan, Jr. and Thurgood Marshall on Capital Punishment. New York: University Press of America, Inc., 1997. 2. Colson, Charles W. The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. David Bender & Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press., 1997. 3. Cottrol, R.J. The Death Penalty: An American History. Stanford Law Review, 56, (2004): 1641. 4. van den Haag, E. The Ultimate Punishment: A Defence. Understanding Argument: A Text with Readings. Ed. Dorothy U. Seyler. New York: McGraw Hill, 1994, pp. 255-260. 5. Logan, W.A. Declaring Life at the Crossroads of Death: Victims' Anti-Death Penalty Views and Prosecutors' Charging Decisions. Criminal Justice Ethics, 18, (1999): 41. 6. Markman, S. The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. David Bender & Bruno Leone. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Read More