Therefore, doing justice or deterring others is the ends of the criminal justice systems endeavors. Use of the capital punishment is hence among the means of reaching these ends. This therefore gives a challenge to the opponents of the death penalty to prove that it does not fulfill its responsibly to the system (Cottrol, p. 34).
This paper seeks to support the abolishment of the death penalty by offering arguments in support of the fact that it is unethical, ineffective and unjust.
Capital punishment is so troubling to any person who values human life. This is the reason why American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) is tying to work on suspension to pending executions and to put a stop to state-sanctioned executions in the United States. This argument is based on moral reasons. Life is the most precious and supreme gift that any human being has (Dieter p. 12).The right to decide whether a person should die or live should not be given to fellow human beings. The argument on this is that there is no 100 positive ways to know that a person has really committed a capital offence and therefore taking a way such life can be termed as immoral, and unethical. Research done by Hugo Adam Bedau and Michael L. Radelet, writers of the book, Miscarriages of Justice, illustrates that 350 individuals accused of felony in the United States between 1900 and 1985 were all innocent (Bedau Cassell, p. 45). According to Death Penalty Facts and Uniform Crime Reports, 23 of these innocent lives were executed. In April 2002, Ray Krone was set free from death row in the state of Arizona. This was after DNA evidence found him innocent of the killing of a bartender in 1991 in Phoenix. Krone was the 100th person to be set free from death row since 1973 after fresh evidence proven him not guilty. He had wasted 11 years waiting for death for a crime he was innocent of. This man could have been executed if the evidence had not appeared. There are many more such people waiting for death in state prisons (Bedau Cassell, p. 45).
One of the major arguments for punishment by death is that it deters more murders from being committed. However some criminologist argue that they have empirical evidence to prove that after an execution is publicized, more killings happen in that day and weeks that follow. The best example to show this is the Linberg kidnapping (Dieter p. 12). Many of the states agreed to employ death penalty as punishment for crimes like this, but statistics show that the rate of kidnapping went up after this. It is evident that publicity might increase criminal activities instead of deterring it. The United States registers the highest rate of execution, yet it has failed to have low rate of homicide. According to statistics obtained form the Death Penalty Information Center in the United States, the average rate of murder in the 1990s was 9.3 people per 100,000, with 15 states being over this average. According to William J, Bowers, who was the author of Legal Homicide, all the 15 states allowed the death penalty. The reasoning behind this is that the way executions have been done in the past in the United States has done nothing in trying to deter killings from being committed. In fact it seems to have led to a slight but significant increase of homicides (Cottrol, p. 26).
Death penalty can lead to death of innocent people (Dieter p. 13). This can happen in case poor evidence is presented in court or as a result of discrimination which is in existence even today. Discrimination is likely to play a factor in the determination of a case, especially if the jury is prejudiced. In their book Death and Discrimination, Samuel Gross and Robert Mauro argues that it is not a minor comment in the society that there is open and conscious tolerating of a system where the race normally determines who is to be executed and who should be spared. Since 1976, almost 40 of the deaths by execution have occurred to African-Americans although they only account for 13 of the total population (Mauro Gross, p. 26). In cases where complete evidence to prove someones innocent is not presented, the accused can die for a crime he knows nothing about. Where conviction of the innocent occurs, death makes a miscarriage of justice irreversible. In the states of Maine and Rhode Island, capital punishment was put to an end as a result of public shame and remorse after the discovery that they had executed innocent people (Mauro Gross, p. 26).
Death penalty denies the accused a chance to reform and pay his debts to the society. This is because the punishment fails to rehabilitate. Common sense also denies the public from realizing that most killings are committed in the heat of the moment. Such crimes are not premeditated and the chance of the accused to commit another murder is very minimal. Such people should be rehabilitated and given a chance to be good citizens. The penalty also denies people who could have changed and become better people the chance to do so (Schabas, p. 27).
Many supporters of the death penalty argue that it is more expensive to the state to detain a person for life for crimes that are punishable by death. In a criminal justice system investigation in the state of Texas, the results showed that on average, execution of an individual in that state costs approximately 2.3 million dollars. The state of Florida uses approximately 3.2 million dollars on individual execution, while North Carolina spends over 2.2 million dollars for each person sentenced to death. Yet, the average amount spent on incarcerating a person in a maximum security prison for an average of 80 years, which is longer than most people live, is approximately 1.5 million dollars. This statistics prove that it is more expensive to end peoples life through death penalty than it would be to incarcerate them for life (Cottrol, p. 17).
Arguments in support of the death penalty
Frank Carrington argues that common sense supports the conclusion that it may be true that if the threat of the execution decreases, murder rates might increase. Justice Stewart argued in the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia that even if some of the researches suggest that capital punishment may not work as a considerably greater deterrent than lesser penalties, there is not empirical evidence to convincingly support or refute the view. Nevertheless, it may be argued that there are killings like the ones of passion, that the threat of death has no deterrent effect. But for many other murders the death penalty is a considerable deterrent. For some contemplated killings like murder for hire, the threat of death penalty can cause a cold calculus preceding the decision to act (Bedau Cassell, p. 45).
Without the death penalty there will be a lot of criminals who will have the chance to escape the well deserved punishment. The relatives of the victim require justice for their loved ones whose lives are taken by the criminals. There is need to have the capital punishment for the crime victims to receive the full measure of justice. The criminal on death row has the chance to prepare for his death, while his victim never had. They violate the victims their right to life, freedom and pursuit of happiness (Schabas, p. 27). When the criminal is apprehended, he has the freedom of the judicial process and has his rights being protected by the constitution, while their victims did not. The criminal may receive sympathy from the investigating officers, relatives and the public. They may at times have the public on their side as if they are the victims. The criminal might end up being protected, without any care at all for the victim or the relatives. The attention is drawn to the accused and the victim is forgotten. For the sake of the victim to receive justice, capital punishment should remain (Cottrol, p. 11).
In my opinion, when all is said and done, the fact remains that the death penalty is immoral, unfair, and ineffective and violates human right to life. It raises the number of murders in the country it is unjust because of prejudice, and sometimes it causes the innocent to be executed. Every human being has a right to life and the government should not support what it opposes, that is violation of human right to life. The justice system should not sink to the level of murderers in the name of punishing. The death penalty should be completely abolished (Mauro Gross, p. 26).
The justice system should completely do away with death penalty. The public should join hands in protesting the course of death penalty. Human rights movements should also work hard in ensuring that the death penalty is completely done away with. For the public to help the course, they should vote for politicians who are advocating for the abolishment.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment