Supporters Of The Death Penalty example essay topic

America's Death Penalty AmericaAmerica's Death Penalty Essay, Research Paper America's Death Penalty Throughout the course of human history, the death penalty has been utilized by many societies as just punishment for a variety of crimes. In the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, a person was faced with death if they sold alcohol fraudulently. The laws of ancient Egypt made it a capital offense to disclose the locations of secret burial sites. The Draconian Code in Greece made any crime that was committed, punishable by death (Flanders 3). Should the death penalty still be used as a punishment in Americas Criminal Justice System. Supporters of the issue argue that the death penalty is just retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation for criminals.

Abolitionists respond to this, by stating that capital punishment does not deter crime at all, and is also more expensive, has proven to be discriminatory, and it holds the possibility of murdering an innocent person as well. Each state which has legalized the death penalty agrees, for the most part, on which crimes are capital offenses. First, any person convicted of murdering a person, intentionally or unintentionally, while in the act of committing a separate felony, may be put to death. In addition, any person convicted of first degree murder may suffer the death penalty.

Finally, treason is also a crime in which the death penalty may be sought. The death penalty has been inflicted in many ways that are now regarded as barbaric, and forbidden by law almost worldwide. Among these are crucifixion, boiling in oil, drawing and quartering, impalement, beheading, burning alive, crushing, stoning, and drowning are a several examples of such outlawed styles of execution. In the United States today, 30 states have the death penalty, yet there are currently only five methods of capital punishment that a state can employ. The first is hanging, which is the traditional method of execution throughout the English speaking world.

Electrocution, lethal injection, the gas chamber, and the firing squad are the remaining methods still utilized (Bedau 12). Even though the methods have changed, the outcome is still the same. Changing the methods of the act, does not make the punishment any more humane. The most common rationale for support of the death penalty is that of deterrence. Logically, a person who knows that they might be executed if they are convicted of a capital crime, will think twice before committing the offense. The fact of this matter, is that the majority of the people who do commit these crimes are not very logical at the time of the offense.

There are a great number of murder cases, in which the killer was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, psychologically distressed, in emotional turmoil, or in some way or another unable to control their own behavior (Clear & Cole 517). In cases such as these, the idea of capital punishment, let alone any other form of punishment at all, has not even entered the mind of the criminal. There have been numerous studies done to attempt to prove that the death penalty is actually a deterrent, however all of the evidence gathered on the subject makes it hard to be confident that this form of punishment deters any more than a life sentence in prison does (Cavanagh 4). In fact, a comparison of the murder rates in states with the death penalty and states without the death penalty, reveals that the states with capital punishment have murder rates twice as high. In addition, our society's growing humanitarianism has curbed the number of executions greatly over the past fifty years.

The decline in the use of this punishment creates a situation, in which the penalty ceases to be deterrent, because people believe that they can get away with the crime and go unpunished. Moreover, the less that the death sentenced is used, the more society views it as unusual. This view conflicts with the eighth amendment banning the practice of cruel and unusual punishments, which essentially leads to a paradox. The less society actually utilizes the death penalty, the less society can legally use it. The end result is a punishment which ceases to deter any crime at all (Sellin 35). The second reason that supporters of the death penalty claim, is that it is just retribution for someone who commits the heinous crime of murder.

The death penalty assures that the convicted murderer is being paid back for his or her wrongdoing, and revenge has been accomplished. If the state is interested in executing a convicted killers in order to teach them the high value that society holds for human life, doing so doesn t accomplish this. Killing a person to show him killing another is wrong is an injustice in itself (Zimring 76). The archaic view of "an eye for an eye' is expressed often by supporters of the death penalty, yet this view is not associated with any other crimes. A court would find it difficult to sentence a rapist to suffer a sentence of rape, as they would have trouble burning down the house of someone who was convicted of arson. These punishments would undoubtedly be considered as cruel and unusual, and would never be permitted in today's society.

The same views should be held regarding the death penalty. In addition, the executing of a killer to enact revenge, will never bring back the life of a victim. At some point, the violence must be stopped. Supporters argue that society must be protected by the dangerous individuals who commit capital offenses as well. Proponents of the death penalty believe that this form of permanent incapacitation, is necessary to protect the public (Van den Haag 17). The fact is that a sentence of life without the possibility of parole given to an individual, is really enough to safeguard the community against any further action the criminal could possibly take.

A vast misconception concerning the death penalty is that sentencing a convicted killer to death saves society more money than it does housing him in a maximum security prison for long periods of time. In the act of preserving due process of justice, the court appeals involved with the death penalty, becomes a long and drawn out, and very expensive process (Zimring 97). "The average time between sentencing and execution for the 31 prisoners put on death row in 1992 was 114 months, or nine and one half years' (Stewart 50). The expenses incurred during the criminal justice process, including trial court costs, appellate and post-conviction costs, prison costs, and perhaps years served on death row awaiting execution, adds up to well over $250,000.

Per execution, the amount exceeds over 2 million dollars (Brown 51). When comparing this to the average cost for a twenty year prison term for first degree murder, which is roughly $330,000 (Cavanagh 4), the cost of putting a criminal away for life is a deal. The fact is that the cost of a state killing, is up to three times that of the cost of life imprisonment (Long, 80). It really isn t worth the extra time and money to execute a criminal. The death penalty wastes valuable court and monetary resources, which could easily be avoided by simply locking the criminal up for the rest of his or her life. Another problem facing the death penalty is its apparent racism.

To illustrate, in Florida, out of 286 African Americans who killed white people, 48 were sentenced to death; of 111 Caucasian people who killed African Americans, none were sentenced to death. In the state of Texas, out of 344 African Americans who killed white people, 27 were sentenced to death; of 143 White people who killed African Americans, none were sentenced to death (Flanders 23). This pattern of inconsistently leads one to believe, that regardless of how much a judge instructs a jury not allow their prejudices to interfere with their deliberations, that it clearly does so. As of 1996, 41.4 percent of all persons on death row are African-Americans, where as they only represent about eight percent of the entire population in this country (Clear & Cole 528). In cases with white victims, black defendants were four to six times more likely to receive a death sentence, than that of white defendants, who shared similar criminal histories.

Studies have shown that the chance for the sentence of death, when a murder has involved a white victim, is five to ten times greater than when it involves an African-American victim (Flanders 25). Clearly, the statistics shown are a sign of unfair and unequal treatment in sentencing of capital crimes. It would seem that in the Criminal Justice System, the lives of Black people are not as precious as that of White peoples. If the sentencing of capital crimes is going to continue to be racist, and apply these double standards in its executions, than this is a blatant violation of minority's civil rights. The fact that the majority of death row inmates were or are being represented by court appointed public defenders has been addressed as well. Without a set amount of pay that the defender can receive for defending, for example an hourly wage, there does not seem to be any incentive for a court appointed attorney to spend much time representing the capital defendant (Tabak 37).

"Attorneys appointed to represent indigent capital defendants frequently lack the qualities necessary to provide a competent defense, and sometimes have exhibited such poor character that they have subsequently been disbarred' (38). When the capabilities of the defense are compared with that of the prosecution, the chances seem slim for the capital defendant. The prosecution is aided by law enforcement agencies, crime labs, state hospitals, and many other scientific resources which are not available to the defense. Moreover, the prosecution has undoubtedly much more experience in successfully handling capital offenses (Tabak 37). Why should a defendant, who is innocent until proven guilty, have the burden of being represented by a lawyer, who might have no experience or interest in defending the accused.

This injustice is created by the courts themselves, when they appointed such a lawyer. This evidence clearly shows that poor defendants, who are over represented on death row (Tabak 36), are not given equal opportunities and resources to prove their innocence, especially in capital crime. This country also continues to condemn mentally retarded individuals to death. In 1989, the Supreme Court held that the execution of mentally retarded people is not prohibited by the eighth amendment. According to the Southern Center for Human Rights, not less than ten percent of the inmates on death row are mentally retarded (Long 78). This is a grave injustice, simply because people who are mentally challenged not only have trouble defending themselves in court, but this type of execution holds no deterrent values whatsoever.

The fact that they are retarded, most likely contributed to the crime they committed in the first place (Long 79). Perhaps the strongest argument that abolitionists can make is that there is the possibility that an innocent person may be executed. This fact cannot be eliminated, because human beings, who have been known to make mistakes, are administering this sentence. The risk of errors is great, and have been well documented throughout history. Two cases illustrate this point rather well. The first case, is that of a man who was convicted of first degree murder in the slaying of a grocery store owner in Michigan.

He was completely cleared of all the charges against him after spending 30 years in prison. The key prosecution witness in the case, admitted 30 years after his conviction, that she only testified that the accused was the killer, because a police detective had told her that he was. So, 30 years later, the wrongly accused man was able to walk out of prison – but only because Michigan did not have capital punishment (Black 5). The second case is that of a black man named James Adams in 1974. He was convicted of killing a white rancher in Florida; ten years later he was executed. In the month before his execution, a skilled investigator thoroughly dismantled the states case.

Among the evidence uncovered was that a hair sample found clutched in the victims hand, which in all likelihood came from the assailant, was not a match with Adams's hair. Overlooking this new evidence, Governor Bob Graham would not even grant a short stay of execution, so the questions at hand could be looked into, and to this day, the ex-governor refuses to talk about the case (Black 32). According to a study done in 1987, between 1970 and 1985, 24 people who were convicted, sentenced to death, and then executed, where later freed from death row because about doubts of guilt, and one other, the case of James Adams, was killed despite such doubts (Long 79). Until human judgment becomes infallible, these mistakes will continue to occur. In counter to this argument, supporters have decided that the risk of committing "mistakes', is outweighed by the welfare of Americans. According to Senator Jeremiah Denton, of the state of Alabama,'s a ying that we should not have the death penalty because we may execute an innocent man, is like saying that we should not have automobiles because some innocent people might accidentally be killed in them ' (43).

This statement is completely unacceptable. In the situations which the Senator cited, the state is not the one who is voluntarily putting to death a person who may in fact be innocent. How is it possible that a man who was elected to make laws in our country, have such little respect for human life. When a man is sentenced to life imprison, and evidence is discovered which can set him free, he is released. It is very difficult to release the man who has already been executed. Abolishing the death penalty is important, even if it is only one life that is saved do to a wrongful conviction.

Human life is far too precious to take any chances at all when considering the death penalty. The death penalty will continue to be an issue for years to come. The arguments supporting this form of punishment are unfounded. It has never been proven that capital punishment is a deterrent.

For the most part, criminals act without ever realizing that they might in fact be caught, let alone punished in any way. The argument of incapacitation is outweighed by simply a life sentence without parole, which is lee expensive and more humane. Finally, the retribution claim has been found to be barbaric, because the legal killing of an individual will never bring back the victim. It has been presented that a death sentence has been discriminatory, not only against African-Americans, but against people of lower social-economic classes.

The fact that the criminal justice system also makes mistakes, and this form of punishment renders those mistakes irreversible has been explored. In earlier times, capital punishment was common because the value of human life was not as greatly appreciated. Societies were less humane, and this form of punishment was acceptable. However, in today's society is becoming more and more humanitarian, and individual rights and due process of justice are held in high accord.

Because of this, the death penalty is becoming an unrealistic form of punishment, one that should be completely abolished.

Bibliography

Bedau, Hugo Adam. Death Is Different. Northeastern, 1987 Black, Charles l.
Jr. Capital Punishment: The Inevitability of Caprice and Mistake. Norton, rev., 1982 Cavanagh, Suzanne.
Capital Punishment: A Brief Overview'. CRS Report For Congress 95-505 GOV (1995): 4.
Clear, Todd R., and Cole, George F., American Corrections (3rd Edition). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1994.
Flanders, Steven A. Capital Punishment. New York, NY: Facts on File, 1991.
Frame, Randy. ' A Matter of Life and Death. ' Christianity Today August 14, 1995: 50 Long, Robert.
Criminal Sentencing. New York, NY: H.W. Company: 1995.
Sellin, Thorsten. The Penalty of Death. Sage Publishing Co. : 1980.
Stewart, David. "Dealing With Death. ' American Bar Association Journal 80.11 (1994) Tabak, Ronald.
Report: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Lack of Due Process in Death Penalty Cases. ' Human Rights 22. Winter (1995) Van den Haag, Ernest.
Punishing Criminals. Basic, 1975.
Zimring, Franklin E. Capital Punishment and the American Agenda. Cambridge, 1987.