Capital punishment is
the sentence of death, or practice of execution, handed down as punishment for
a criminal offence. It can only be used by a state, after a proper legal trial.
The United Nations in 2008 adopted a resolution (62/149) calling for a
moratorium on the use of the death penalty, however fifty-eight countries,
including the United States and China, still exercise the death penalty. As
such, the topic remains highly controversial. Abolitionist groups and
international organizations argue that it is cruel and inhumane, while
proponents claim that it is an effective and necessary deterrent for the most
heinous of crimes.
Pros
|
Cons
|
It helps the victims' families achieve closure. The death penalty
can also help provide closure for the victim's family and friends, who will
no longer have to fear the return of this criminal into society. They will
not have to worry about parole or the chance of escape, and will thus be able
to achieve a greater degree of closure.
Mary Heidcamp, a Chicago woman whose mother's killer faced the death
penalty before the State Governor commuted the sentences to life in prison,
stated 'we were looking forward to the death penalty. I'm just so
disappointed in the system'. Other victims' families deemed the decision a
'mockery', that 'justice is not done'.
|
Many victims' families oppose the death penalty. While some might take
comfort in knowing the guilty party has been executed, others might prefer to
know that the person is suffering in jail, or might not feel comfortable
knowing that the state killed another human being on behalf of the victim.
Furthermore, Stanford University psychiatrist David Spiegel believes
'witnessing executions not only fails to provide closure but often causes
symptoms of acute stress. Witness trauma is not far removed from experience
it'. Even if it was the case that capital punishment helped the victims'
families, sentencing is simply not about what the victims' families want.
Punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed, and not the
alleged preferences of victims' families.
|
The death penalty deters crime. The state has a
responsibility to protect the lives of innocent citizens, and enacting the
death penalty may save lives by reducing the rate of violent crime.
The reasoning here is simple- fear of execution can play a powerful
motivating role in convincing potential murderers not to carry out their
acts. While the prospect of life in prison may be frightening, surely death
is a more daunting prospect. Thus, the risk of execution can change the
cost-benefit calculus in the mind of murderers-to be so that the act is no
longer worthwhile for them.
Numerous studies support the deterrent effect of the death penalty. A
1985 study by Stephen K. Layson at the University of North Carolina showed
that a single execution deters 18 murders. Another influential study, which
looked at over 3,054 counties over two decades, further found support for the
claim that murder rates tend to fall as executions rise.
On top of this, there are ways to make the death penalty an even more
effective deterrent than it is today. For instance, reducing the wait time on
death row prior to execution can dramatically increase its deterrent effect
in the United States.
In short, the death penalty can- and does- save the lives of innocent
people.
|
There are many reasons to doubt the deterrent effect of the death
penalty. For one thing, many criminals may actually find the prospect of the
death penalty less daunting (and thus, less effective as a deterrent) than
spending the rest of their lives suffering in jail. Death by execution is
generally fairly quick, while a lifetime in prison can be seen as a much more
intensive punishment.
Moreover, even if criminals preferred life in prison to the death
penalty, it's not clear that a harsher punishment would effectively deter
murders. Heinous crimes often occur in the heat of the moment, with little
consideration for their legal repercussions.
Further, for a deterrent to be effective, it would have to be immediate
and certain. This is not the case with the death penalty cases, which often
involve prolonged appeals and sometimes end in acquittals.
Finally, the empirical evidence regarding the deterrence effect of the
death penalty is at best mixed. Many of the studies that purport to show the
deterrence effect are flawed, because the impact of capital punishment cannot
be disentangled from other factors such as broader social trends, economic
factors and demographic changes in a region.
Other studies have even suggested a correlation between the death penalty
and higher crime rates. States such as Texas and Oklahoma, which have very
high execution rates, also have higher crime rates than most states that do
not have the death penalty.
|
Execution prevents the accused from committing further crimes. The death penalty is
the only way to ensure that criminals do not escape back into society or
commit further crimes while in prison.
While in prison, it is not uncommon for those receiving life in jail
sentences to commit homicide, suicide, or other crimes while in jail, since
there is no worse punishment they can receive. Putting dangerous murderers in
prison endangers other prisoners and the guards who must watch them. The
other advantage of execution is that it prevents the possibly of an escape
from prison. Even the highest security detention facilities can have
escapees. Thus, the only way to be absolutely certain that a convicted murder
can no longer hurt others is to execute them.
|
Escapes from prison, though sensationalized by the media, are relatively
rare occurrences. In 1998, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
6,530 people escaped or were AWOL from state prisons. Given a total prison
population of 1,100,224 state prisoners, that figure represents just over
half a percent of the total prison population.
On top of this, it is not impossible for people to commit further crimes
while on death row. Those sentenced to death may be even more eager to escape
prior to their execution than those awaiting life in prison, so it is not
true that execution necessarily prevents further crimes.
|
The death penalty should apply as punishment for first-degree murder; an
eye for an eye. The worst crimes deserve
the most severe sanctions; first-degree murder involves the intentional
slaughter of another human being. There are crimes that are more visceral,
but there are none that are more deadly. Such a heinous crime can only be
punished, in a just and fair manner, with the death penalty.
As Time put it, 'there is a zero-sum symmetry to capital punishment that
is simple and satisfying enough to feel like human instinct: the worst
possible crime deserves no less than the worst possible
punishment'.Human life is sacred; there must be a deterrent mechanism in
place that ensures that those violating that fundamental precept are
punished. Capital punishment symbolizes the value and importance placed upon
the maintenance of the sanctity of human life. Any lesser sentence would fail
in this duty.
|
There is no fairness or consistency in an eye-for-an-eye attitude towards
justice. Justice should remain above the petty retributive justice that marks
street or community warfare, whereby the murder of one family member
justifies a revenge attack against the murderers' family.
Furthermore, it is inconsistent with other areas of the law. As New York
University Law Professor Anthony Amsterdam notes, 'we don't burn arsonists'
houses'1. Capital punishment 'attempts to vindicate one murder by committing
a second murder. And the second murder is more reprehensible because it is
officially sanctioned and done with great ceremony in the name of us all'.
The Christian logic of an eye for an eye is undermined not merely by the
Pope himself, who advocated 'clemency, or pardon, for those condemned to
death', but scripture itself, which preaches mercy just as vigorously as it
does retribution.
|
Execution helps alleviate the overcrowding of prisons. The death penalty can help ease the problem of overcrowded prisons in
many countries, where keeping people for life in prison contributes to
expensive and at times unconstitutional overcrowding.
In 2011, California prison overcrowding was so problematic that a
district court panel ordered authorities to release or transfer more than
33,000 inmates. This decision was held up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which
argued that the conditions in the overcrowded prisons are so overwhelming
that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Similarly, in the United
Kingdom two thirds of prisons in England and Wales have been deemed
overcrowded.
As such, the death penalty may be preferable to life in prison since it
helps alleviate a pressing problem in the criminal justice system. It is
better to execute those who deserve it than to be forced to release dangerous
offenders into society because prisons are overcrowded by people serving life
sentences.
|
Executions are rare enough that they do not have a significant impact on
prison populations, which are largely composed of people who would not be
eligible for the death penalty. Even if large numbers of people could be
executed instead of serving prisons, resources would not be saved due to the
expenses associated with death penalty cases.
Instead of execution, there are better, more humane solutions for
alleviating overcrowded prisons. One could increase community service
requirements, build more prisons, or target broader crime reduction programs.
Principally, whether or not a convict deserves to live or die should not
be contingent on factors as arbitrary as the availability of prison spots in
a given region. Justice is about the proportionality of punishment to crime,
not of prisoners to prisons, so it is not fair to use crowded prisons as a
justification for the death penalty.
|
A just state regularly abrogates people's rights when they intrude upon
the rights of others. By sentencing people to prison, for instance, the state
takes away rights to movement, association, and property rights from
convicted criminals. The right to life should be no different. When you
commit certain heinous crimes, you forgo your right to life. This does not
devalue life, but rather affirms the value of the innocent life taken by the
criminal. Certain crimes are so heinous that the only proportionate sentence
is execution.
As for the executioners themselves, there are methods of execution that
involve multiple executioners which might reduce the associated psychological
burdens. At any rate, no one is forced to become an executioner, and people
who choose to take on that role do so with full awareness of the risks
involved.
|
State-sanctioned killing is wrong. The state has no
right to take away the life of its citizens. By executing convicts, the
government is effectively condoning murder, and devaluing human life in the
process. Such acts violate the right to life as declared in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the right not to be subjected to cruel,
inhuman, or degrading punishment.
On top of this, the state forces executioners to actively participate in
the taking of a life, which can be unduly traumatizing and leave permanent
psychological scars. Thus, a humane state cannot be one that exercises the
death penalty.
|
Justice is priceless. Even if the death penalty is more expensive than
other punishments, that is not sufficient reason to ban it. Fair and
proportionate punishments should be independent of financial considerations.
Further, there are ways to make the death penalty less expensive than it
is today. Shortening the appeals process or changing the method of execution
could reduce its costs.
|
The death penalty is a financial burden on the state. Capital punishment imposes a very high cost on taxpayers, which far
outweighs the costs of alternative punishments such as life in prison.
A single capital litigation can cost over $1 million as a result of the
intensive jury selection, trials, and long appeals process that are required
by capital cases. The cost of death row presents an additional financial
burden associated with the death penalty.
Savings from abolishing the death penalty in Kansas, for example, are
estimated at $500,000 for every case in which the death penalty is not
sought.
In California, death row costs taxpayers $114 million a year beyond the
cost of imprisoning convicts for life.
This money could instead be better spent on measures that are of much
greater benefit to the criminal justice system- greater policing, education,
and other crime-preventing measures that are far more cost-effective.
|
Wrongful convictions are particularly rare in cases where the death
penalty is sentenced. The lengthy and thorough procedures associated with
death penalty cases offer sufficient protection against wrongful convictions.
If there is any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, they will not
receive the sentence.
Finally, even in cases where there is a wrongful conviction, there is
generally a lengthy appeals process for them to make their case. For example,
in 1993, Alex Hernandez was sentenced to death for the kidnapping, rape and
murder of a 10-year old girl in Chicago; he was released a number of years
later due to his lawyers proving both a paucity of evidence and the
confession of her actual killer. As a result, very few innocent people
receive the death penalty, and the legality of capital punishment does not
increase wrongful or prejudicial convictions.
|
Wrongful convictions are irreversible. There is an alarming number of wrongful convictions associated with the
death penalty. So far, more than 130 people who had been sentenced to death
have been exonerated. In many cases, unlike those who have been sentenced to
life in prison, it is impossible to compensate executed prisoners should they
later be proven innocent.
The state should not gamble with people's lives. The chance of wrongful
execution alone should be enough to prove the death penalty is not
justifiable.
|
The fact that juries are prone to several biases is not a flaw inherent
or unique to capital punishment.
If there are racial or prejudicial issues in sentencing, these are likely
to present themselves just as often in cases where the punishment is life in
prison. It is equally problematic for people to die or spend decades in jails
for crimes they did not commit. These errors suggest that the judicial
process may need some reform, not that the death penalty should be abolished.
Implementation errors that result in discrimination can and should be
corrected.
Moreover, there is little evidence that these biases are even present in
most death penalty cases. A study funded by the National Institute of Justice
in the US found that differences in sentencing for white and non-white
victims disappeared when the heinousness of the crimes were factored into the
study. Thus, factors relating to the crime, not the race, of the accused
accounted for some of the purported racial disparities that were found.
Finally, jurors must be "death- qualified" in such cases,
meaning that they are comfortable sentencing someone to death should the fact
indicate their guilt. Thus, it is unlikely that many jurors will abstain from
a guilty verdict because they are uncomfortable with the death penalty.
|
The death penalty can produce irreversible miscarriages of justice. Juries are imperfect, and increasing the stakes of the verdict can
pervert justice in a couple of ways. First, implementation of the death
penalty is often impacted by jury members' social, gender-based or racial
biases, disproportionately impacting certain victimized groups in society and
adding a certain arbitrariness to the justice system. A 2005 study found that
the death penalty was three to four times more common amongst those who
killed whites than those who killed African Americans or Latinos, while those
who kill women are three and a half times more likely to be executed than
those who kill men. Regional differences in attitudes towards the death
penalty can also introduce elements of randomness into sentencing. For instance,
in Illinois, a person is five times more likely to get a death sentence for
first-degree murder in a rural area than in Cook County.
Finally, the fear of wrongful execution can also pervert justice by
biasing juries towards returning an innocent verdict when they would
otherwise be deemed guilty. When they are told that the consequence of a
guilty verdict is death, they are likely to find some kind of reasonable
doubt to avoid being responsible for the death of that criminal. This means
that more criminals who would've otherwise been convicted do not get charged.
In this sense the death penalty can pervert the goals of justice and prolong
the difficult process for victims' families.
|
0 Comments