Death Since Capital Punishment example essay topic

"It is the deed that teaches, not the name we give it. Murder and capital punishment are not opposites that cancel one another, but similars that breed their kind". George Bernard Shaw The overwhelming support for capital punishment in our country is puzzling to me. Poll after poll shows that over 80% of America is in favor of the death penalty (Hertzberg 49). We rave about freedom and the virtues of democracy, but then we give our government ultimate power over our lives.

Am I missing something? Are we a little confused, or just misinformed? After all, America is unique among other democratic nations in its use of the death penalty. Capital punishment is a useful tool for dictators and tyrannical countries; however, little by little the death penalty has been abolished in most countries except the United States. We stand proudly with countries such as Pakistan, Iran, China and Saudi Arabia on this issue. It wasn't always this way, however.

The United States was once in step with and even ahead of the international community on the issue of the abolition of the death penalty. In fact, from 1968 through 1976 there was not a single execution in America. In 1972, the Supreme Court in Furman vs. Georgia had declared capital punishment - "as then practiced", which proved to be a fatal loophole phrase - "cruel and unusual punishment" and therefore unconstitutional. Then in 1976, the death penalty was reinstated (Bedau 29). My question is why? What justification can there possibly be for this brutal and horrendous practice?

In this paper, I will analyze the flaws in the justifications commonly used in pro-capital punishment arguments, and I will conclude that the death penalty is ineffective, immoral, and inherently unjust. Let us begin in our analysis with one of the most commonly used arguments for capital punishment - deterrence. Pro-death penalty advocates argue that a rational person will avoid criminal behavior if the severity of the punishment outweighs the benefits of the illegal conduct. In other words, their theory suggests that anyone who might kill will be deterred from killing if his / her consequence is death. This seems reasonable.

After all, deterrence is usually the purpose of punishment, and in most cases, the outcome. For instance, when I was grounded for coming home past my curfew when I was sixteen, I learned to not do it again. After being caught speeding, I now slow down when approaching that intersection in fear of receiving another ticket. However, applying this theory to the issue of capital punishment is unique and problematic in several ways. The most problematic element of the deterrence theory lies with the killer's motivation. The deterrence argument requires that the killer has taken the time to consider the consequences of his actions.

Although it might be true that in some cases killers have taken the time to plan their attack, most murders occur in the heat of the moment. According to Eugene B. Block, "those who commit violent crimes often do so in moments of passion, rage and fear - times when irrationality reigns" (Block 107). The killer usually has no time to consider the consequences that might deter him or rationally decide that the crime might not be the best path for his future. Killers kill out of emotion, not reason.

I should note that I do not mention this to take away any kind of responsibility of the killer. My point is to show that in cases of homicides, the threat of the death penalty is not effective in deterring those who kill. This point is made clear after taking a closer look at the statistics of homicide rates since the death penalty was reinstated. Study after study has shown that capital punishment has shown no significant effect on homicide rates. In Hendrick Hertzberg's article "Premeditated Execution", he states that there is no evidence of a deterrence effect in the rate of murders in Texas.

His study concluded that the number of executions was unrelated to murder rates in general, and that the number of executions was unrelated to felony rates (Hertzberg 49). In addition, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that the South repeatedly has the highest murder rate and also accounts for 80% of executions. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest murder rate (Block 141). These statistics suggest that the death penalty has no deterrence effect in lowering murder rates where the death penalty is instated and raising the murder rates where it is not.

In addition, according to Block, : The abolition of the death penalty in Canada in 1976 has not led to increased homicide rates. Statistics Canada reports that the number of homicides in Canada in 2001 (554) was 23% lower than the number of homicides in 1975 (721), the year before the death penalty was abolished. In addition, homicide rates in Canada are generally three times lower than homicide rates in the U.S., which uses the death penalty. For example, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the homicide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 5.7 per 100,000 population and the rate in Canada was only 1.8. Canada currently sentences those convicted of murder to life sentences with parole eligibility. (Block 143).

The claim that deterrence of crime is an effect of the practice of capital punishment is simply statistically invalid. So if capital punishment does not deter crime, what is another justification for its implementation? Although not as popular as the former argument, some advocates would argue that putting the criminal to death is cheaper than the cost of alternatives. This is a common misconception.

"The death penalty is not now, nor has it ever been, a more economical alternative to life imprisonment", said Spangenberg and Walsh in an article in the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. A study by the NY State Defenders Association showed that the cost of a capital trial alone is more than double the cost of life imprisonment. In Maryland, a comparison of capital trial costs with and without the death penalty for the years 1979-1984 concluded that a death penalty case costs "approximately 42 percent more than a case resulting in a non-death sentence", according to the US Government Accounting Office. In 1988 and 1989 the Kansas legislature voted against reinstating the death penalty after it was informed that re introduction would involve a first-year cost of more than $11 million. And the Miami Herald reported that Florida, with one of the nation's largest death rows, has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or approximately six times the cost of a life-imprisonment sentence (Hertzberg 86-88). Now that we " ve established that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent of crime nor is it cheaper than alternatives, what is the next justification pro-death penalty advocates use?

Morality. This argument seems ironic as it is used by both sides of the debate. Advocates of capital punishment argue that it is immoral to take a life and should therefore be punished to the extreme. However, how is it morally permissible to punish killing by killing? What kind of message does this send? To tell others not to kill by killing someone is completely self-contradictory and makes a mockery of the message.

Some who propose that capital punishment is the moral thing to do use biblical references to justify their claim. The common phrase used is, "an eye for an eye". This justification is problematic in two ways. First, it is inconsistent with other punishments enforced by the government.

If a crime deserves equal punishment, then why do we not rape the rapist or burn the arsonist? The answer is simple - because a civilized society must be based on values and principles that are higher than those it condemns. The inequality of the crime to the punishment is even more obvious when recognizing that in some cases, the death penalty is suggested for rape and treasons, and there are certain instances when the death penalty is not sought after at all for murder cases. Such inconsistencies in application seem morally problematic in themselves.

Albert Camus said, What is capital punishment if not the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal act, no matter how calculated can compare? If there were to be real equivalence, the death penalty would have to be pronounced upon the criminal who had forewarned his victim of the very moment he would be put to death, and who, from that time on, had kept him confined at his own discretion for a period of months. It is not in private life that one meets such monsters. (Draper 9) The second problem this justification raises stems from the source.

The bible indeed states "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". However, it also states in the New Testament, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Mathew 5: 38-41). In the Ten Commandments, God instructs His people not to kill (Exodus 20: 13) and not to put ourselves into the position of God by judging whether others live or die (John 8: 7). The bible is inconsistent in its teachings in terms of punishment, and should therefore not be taken as a viable source for justification for capital punishment. The last and most problematic justification used in argument for the death penalty is that it is the only just way to punish criminals of this magnitude.

This argument produces significant flaws. The first issue to raise is the idea of justice itself. Foucault argued: "without the right to kill, would the judicial system be anything more than a public utility a bit less efficient than the post office? The right to kill is the last emblem of its supremacy" (Block 180). Foucault's insight was demonstrated clearly in the FBI bungling of the McVeigh evidence in the most high-profile capital trial in recent history. The FBI lost 4,400 documents, evidence that should have been turned over to the defense team.

If the judicial system can bungle such a case of this magnitude under an international media spotlight, imagine what happens with everyday prosecutions. How can justice prevail in a system with so many flaws and room for error? Foucault proposes his point that executions justify Justice - "they provide a satisfying sense of closure and cover for a shaky system that pretends to be infallible" (Block 180). In other words, capital punishment keeps society trusting the government. If we feel like something is being done, if we feel like justice has prevailed, then we feel protected - even if it's at the expense of others. The clearest example of the injustice of capital punishment is the risk of executing the innocent.

Northwestern University's Center for Wrongful Convictions has documented more than one hundred cases of men and women who were sentenced to death and then exonerated. In Illinois, 13 men in recent years have been freed from death row, and 12 have been executed since the United States reinstated capital punishment in 1976. One of these released men, Anthony Porter, came within 48 hours of being put to death; he had already ordered his last meal and been measured for his coffin (Hertzberg 49). How can a system even be implemented that risks taking an innocent life? What does that say about how our government values its citizens? If a democratic society executes criminals with the foreknowledge that some percentage of them are innocent, are all members of that society implicitly guilty of murder themselves?

Chicago prosecutor William K unkle who secured the death penalty for serial killer John Wayne Gay said, Sooner or later it's going to happen... It comes with the territory. It is not humanly possible to design a system that is perfect. And if people are not prepared for the eventuality that human institutions are going to make mistakes, then they shouldn't support the death penalty, and they shouldn't elect legislators who support it.

(Draper 25) A second contributing factor to the injustice of the death penalty is the selective process of those who are executed. Studies have shown that race and economic status play an important role in determining who is executed and who is not. For instance, of the 760 people put to death since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976, 44 percent have been minorities, when minorities are only 29 percent of the population. The picture is even bleaker for blacks: 35 percent of the people executed were black, when blacks are only 12 percent of the population. Race distorts other parts of the death penalty system as well. For example, 95 percent of all the prosecutors responsible for death penalty cases are white (Block 97).

This statistic is disturbing when considering the overwhelmingly white group of people holding the power and responsibility to decide the cases for death and at the other end a disproportionate number of people of color sentenced to death. This suggests an enormous window for error and racial discrimination in the selection process of who gets sentenced for death. Class plays an important role in the selection process as well. Middle and upper class people who can afford to hire skilled lawyers do not end up on death row. All of the whites on death row are working class and poor (Block 98). According to Stephen Bright, a death penalty lawyer, defendants get the death sentence "not for the worst crime but for the worst lawyer" (Hertzberg 50).

These inconsistencies in determining who is executed suggest that the selection process is arbitrary, completely biased and inherently unjust. Another issue that pertains to the injustice of capital punishment is the issue of "cruel and unusual punishment". Does the death penalty violate the Eighth Amendment which assures our right from cruel and unusual punishment from the government? Many would agree that it does, and therefore, is an obvious form of injustice. In fact, one of the reasons behind the abolition of the death penalty in 1972 was that it was deemed as "cruel and unusual punishment". How can it not be?

Some would say that executions are carried out in a humane and dignified way. Instead of the guillotine and public hangings, criminals are quietly put to sleep through lethal injection. This implies that not only do the executed feel no pain before they die, but that the deaths always run smoothly. However, there are several cited cases of botched executions.

The following is an example stated by an eyewitness to the execution of John Evans in Alabama: The first jolt of 1900 volts of electricity passed through Mr. Evans' body. It lasted thirty seconds. Sparks and flames erupted from the electrode tied to his leg. His body slammed against the straps holding him in the electric chair and his fist clenched permanently.

A large puff of grayish smoke and sparks poured out from under the hood that covered Mr. Evans' face. Two doctors examined Mr. Evans and declared that he was not dead. (Meltser 33) The more "humane" way of execution produces similar effects: The gas chamber was supposed to be a technological improvement... (however) some convulsed violently, thrashed and foamed at the mouth, and bashed their head against the back metal pole. Even lethal injections... are sometimes botched. Sometimes the technicians cannot find a good vein... sometimes the needle pops out under the pressure of execution spewing the toxic drugs and spraying the witnesses. Some prisoners heave and violently choke.

(Meltser 33) What kind of government performs these acts on their citizens? And more importantly, how is this not considered "cruel and unusual punishment?" I've heard of underdeveloped or tyrannical countries that torture individuals, but not until researching the botched executions would I have ever believed this sort of treatment took place in America. Capital punishment is inherently unjust in that it risks the lives of innocent people, uses an arbitrary system for selecting those who are executed, and can be argued as committing "cruel and unusual punishment" on its victims. The persistence of the death penalty defies logic and exceeds rational explanation. It is not an effective deterrent, it is extremely expensive, it is inconsistent and immoral, and it is inherently unjust.

The question that follows is why is there still such an overwhelming majority of the population in favor of capital punishment? When logic cannot uphold it, when it does not work, and when it is not cost-effective? Maybe it is adhered to for emotional purposes - revenge on the murderer to appease some sort of pay-back for the loss of a life. Maybe it is accepted because there are no acceptable alternatives that fit the magnitude of the crime. My opinion is that it is a combination of both. In any case, inflicting the death penalty is the least effective, most inhumane and unjust solution our system has imposed on our society.

Capital punishment cannot be justified, and it must be abolished. As Gandhi once said, "Violence can never bring an end to violence; all it can do is provoke more violence" (Block 1).

Bibliography

Bedau, Hugo Adam. The Death Penalty in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Block, Eugene B. When Men Play God: The Fallacy of Capital Punishment. San Francisco: Crament Publications, 1993.
Draper, Thomas. Capital Punishment. New York: H.W. Wilson, 1985.
Hertzberg, Hendrick. "Premeditated Execution". Time 18 May 1998: 49-51.
Meltser, Michael. Cruel and Unusual: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment. New York: Random House, 1973.
The Holy Bible. Revised Standard Version. New York: New American Library, 1962.