FOR A-PLUS WRITER ONLY

Running Head: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 12

Capital Punishment and How the Court Process Works

Capital punishments have raised several issues, and there is need to evaluate them in order to assess the practicality and effectiveness of the punishment. In this perspective, this research will be able to evaluate all the four aforementioned issues that relate to the problem of capital punishment in the courts. To this end, the pros and cons of the capital punishment will enable a recommendation in order to address the problem and issues. Critical analysis of all the factors raised will contribute to better investigation of all the listed factors bearing on the problem. Through the discussion of the various issues that affect the capital punishment way of dealing with an offender of heinous acts, the research paper will enable one to shed more light on the available courses of action other that capital punishment in the criminal justice system. Comment by Antonio: Input the word “a” after the word “is” Comment by Antonio: Remove the phrase “be able to”… The statement should read “will evaluate” Comment by Antonio: Delete all

Capital punishment in the United States of America’s criminal justice system is not only inconsistent with the available laws of rule of law and order in the country, but it is also in a great way contribute to violations by this same country that is an advocator for adherence of the laid down international laws. This raises one of the main controversies of the laws on capital punishments in some states in United States as it has great implications on the rule of law and international standards that the laws are founded on.

Capital punishment provides a rational way in which the criminal justice system deters recurrence of some high felony crimes such as rape, premeditated murder, torture, and any other serious crimes since the law aims at removing the offender from the society. These arguments provide that the law should guarantee a safety net in which the law minimizes the chances of the crimes being committed again by either the offender of the prospective criminals (Potter & Kappeler, 2002). In this perspective, the laws that encourage the rule of execution are supported by this school of thought that the offenders will be discouraged. However, there are issues of the applicability of the law in capital punishment and as a law that meets its agenda. Comment by Antonio: Great argument!

First and foremost, capital punishment is a great violation of the constitution and other laws that give human beings the right to life and international law based on the right of a human being. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 provides for the right of every human being to the right of life. By stating that no one has the authority or mandate to subject one to a torturous and inhuman punishment and treatment, the universal human rights by the united nations provides proof that capital punishment is a violation of human rights of any individual; a criminal offender or not. In this context, the capital punishment is a form of punishment that is found to violate this very basic form of international law that views capital punishment as a violation of human rights. In addition to this, the rights of a human being are violated against by the capital punishment as a result of the psychological implications that the decree on the punishment is given to an offender.(Peak, 2003). Comment by Antonio: Good transition Comment by Antonio: Excellent information/learning tool.

Since criminal justice system is a gradual process that involves assessment of information and evidence in order to reach the verdict, it is arguable that the capital punishment does not allow full application of the law. In some cases, there arises contradicting proof and evidence in the criminal justice system that may lead to an acquittal of the convict. The evidence in the case may arise in later years after the execution of an offender leading to an unnecessary contradiction of the law of fairness and justice in the administration of justice (Fields, 1999). In this perspective, it is logical to have other forms of punishment met on an offender as evaluation of the process and law is carried out more in the case. Application of fair and just justice system does not apply to the capital punishment since most of the offenders who are convicted and executed are mostly those who are less educated and have little information that they have regarding possibilities of detection and condemnation to presume the amount of costs and benefits of the capital punishment (Potter & Kappeler, 2002). Comment by Antonio: Re-read this part. You omitted a word. Comment by Antonio: Explain what happens when new evidence surface.

The other reasoning on the legal misapplication benefits of capital punishment lies in the costs and expenses that result from the capital punishment in relation to other forms of punishment that may be applied. In real sense, capital punishments requires a lot of costs in relation to attorney fees and the prosecution, public defenders, judges, legal framework, and the separation required to keep death row inmates away from the other inmates with other offences. In addition, there requires critical psychological help to the officers and other stakeholders in the process of executing the punishment in order to carry out the executions without the mental decadence and effects (Chelimsky & Shadish). In this sense, the legal expenses may not be implicated in the benefits that the criminal justice system gets the capital punishment. Comment by Antonio: You mentioned this within the previous statement. Comment by Antonio: Excellent Comment by Antonio: Good mental transition. The word “sense” give the reader the push to think critically.

Capital punishment is supposed to be effective enough to meet the threshold of reasons for punishment in the criminal justice system. In this context, punishment in the criminal justice system is a way of making the punishment an example to other offenders on the wrongness of their activities and deters such actions and inflicts relatively similar pain to the offender. In this view, the capital punishment by the courts does not make the offenders afraid of the consequences as revealed by researchers in the criminal corrections facilities. For instance, a recent research in 2000 showed that the number of murders in states that does not apply death penalties decreased while the half of the states that have death penalties showed rates that are higher. In this sense, the capital punishment does not serve the purpose of the law that is, being deterrent to the activities that literary result to this form of punishment (Hagan, 2000). Comment by Antonio: Awesome example

From the perspective of the laws that govern the criminal justice system, capital punishment acts as a controversial form of correction and is contradictory to other laws found in the constitution. The capital punishment is also against the international laws of human rights and does not seem to get the legal results that are required from the criminal justice system. Since the costs of applying this form of punishment do not serve justice to the victims of the criminal activities by the offenders, it is irrational to argue that the capital punishment will meet the required criminal justice system results. Thus, the capital punishment by the criminal justice system is not in any sense in line with the rule of law required in the criminal justice system (Peak, 2003). Comment by Antonio: Remove Comment by Antonio: Absolutely!

Many supporters of the death penalty have argued that the capital punishment is a great way of enhancing social morality and serving human rights to the lawful society by elimination of offenders of heinous acts in the society. In this view, the argument is that since offenders are eliminated from the society, chances of re-offending are eliminated as the people who commit the heinous acts usually have psychological tendencies to continue with the acts when released back to the society. In addition, capital punishment is viewed as a way of compensating the victims of the criminal activities by way of eliminating the person from the public domain and execution to prevent misery to the people. In this sense, there are arguments against capital punishment based on the same category of human rights of all people, morality in the society and the social justice that is aimed to be achieved in the criminal justice system (Houston & Parsons, 1998). Comment by Antonio: Remove, do not utilize the same transitional phrase repeatedly.

On one end, the religious beliefs of the society do not support any form of incarceration based on beliefs of people in the guilt of other people since all religions provides that their supreme being is the determiner of life and death and so, no one should take that mandate that is enshrined in holy books to take away life from another human being. Taking away life by way of capital punishment only creates another wrong that cannot be a reprieve or solution of the offence that was committed by the offender. It is only the supreme beings who are aware of the pain that is felt by an offender when sentenced to death since no proper technology or machinery can be able to assess the effects of death penalty on a human being. In this context, it is morally insufficient and wrong for another human being to take the life of a human in order to satisfy or compensate for an act that the person has committed. For a safe and moral society under the intuitions of the religious beliefs founded on the religions of most people in the society, reliance on other forms of punishment is better than capital punishment (Cole & Gertz, 2002). Comment by Antonio: Remove

The United nations have for many years raised issues of human rights relating to the issue of capital punishment that is met on offenders while still calling for the abolition of death penalties by member states. The rationale of this calling is that the capital punishment goes against the established human rights that provide for every human being to have the right to life and dignity in the public domain. It is, for this reason, inconsistent with the human rights principle to incarcerate a human being whether in the form of protection or application of justice. The capital punishment never satisfies all the parties in the criminal justice system. It is irrational to assume that when capital punishment is applied, it will be deterrent to re-offences and act as a fair justice to the victims of the activities of the offenders. In real sense, the trauma that follows the victims on the feeling of the fact that their pursuit of justice led to the death of other human beings does not result to fair justice (Mark, Henry, & Julnes, 2000). Comment by Antonio: Remove

Research into the take that people have regarding the capital punishment provides data that may be used to show how the capital punishment goes against the social justice that the punishment aims to satisfy. In real sense, most people in the society do not support capital punishment as the best way to punish an offender of heinous acts. In this context, the capital punishment does not result in social justice of the public as the goals of the punishment are not met. Social justice aims to prevent recurrence of offences through application of the rightful measures both to the offenders and the victims of capital punishment (Moore, 1994). Thus, capital punishment is unnecessary to serve justice. It is also an immoral practice not founded on logical argument. Comment by Antonio: Remove Comment by Antonio: Remove

The arguments based on morality, human rights, and the rule of law in capital punishment is based on the same principles of fairness of the criminal justice system. The offenders who are subjected to life sentences always end up being more served by justice than the capital punishment of the death of an inmate do not imply justice served to the victims. In this context, it is immoral both on religious grounds and on grounds of social, moral beliefs. This issue relating to the capital punishment raises issues of the practical sense under which countries around the world still continue to use capital punishment as a form of punishment to the offenders (Fields, 1999). Comment by Antonio: Again, great arguments! Comment by Antonio: Remove

There are provisions in the law that requires any punishment verdict that is reached on an offender to have relativity to the crimes committed. This allows the judges to assess the give a verdict that best serves as justice to the victims in order to inflict pain and suffering on the offender in commensuration of the crimes that they committed. Severe punishments are the verdicts of higher crimes while simpler sentences and paroles apply to the offenders who have committed mere offences. In this perspective, measurability of the punishments is crucial in helping the criminal justice system to have a clear way of getting to the verdicts. Additionally, the judges have systems that are concise and apply the rules of law in reaching a verdict for an offender. When an offender is not given a fair verdict, questions arise as to the fairness of justice system, and confidence in the system usually decreases with feelings of unfair treatment. To this end, there are proponents of criminal justice system supporting capital punishment like a good verdict for heinous crimes in the society. However, issues of its measurability in relation to the crimes are always a question that requires assessment (Houston & Parsons, 1998). Comment by Antonio: What are the provisions? Comment by Antonio: Revise this sentence. Comment by Antonio: Why? Comment by Antonio: What type of motions are filed in the Clerk’s Office? Comment by Antonio: Of course!

Capital punishment is a verdict that cannot be assessed as a good way of punishing the offenders of heinous acts both to the fairness to the victims and other prospective offenders. Psychiatrists and scientists have not yet come up with feelings that are inflicted on offenders as a result of death. Do the offenders have the same measurable pain that the victims feel as a result of the offences? This is question that the criminal justice systems have not yet answered in relation to capital punishments. In this context, the essence of people being subjected to death for crimes committed does not in any sense act as a fair justice to the victims since they will not be part of the new life of the offenders to see their suffering (HancocHorvath, 1999). In fact, it is better to have the offenders in prisons and hard labor as their verdict since they will feel the pain and anguish for their actions (Houston & Parsons, 1998). Comment by Antonio: You mentioned this statement in the previous paragraph. Comment by Antonio: Not a true statement. Quote the author that has such an opinion, Comment by Antonio: Revise Comment by Antonio: Remove

In addition to the fairness of the capital punishment to the victims, it is also a very unclear way of giving the offenders punishment for the offences they have committed. Measurements carried out in the psychology of a dead person or as a result of the actions that lead to the death of a person do not in any way provide the extent to which the person feels pain and the magnitude of the suffering of the person. In this perspective, there is no proof whether the magnitude of sufferings by the people who die from natural deaths and the ones who are incarcerated have the same suffering. Whether it inflicts more pain to have one person murdered, and less pain on another person is a question that has never found clear answers. Since such measurement cannot be articulated, the extent to which the different offences that are subjected to death sentences are applied to different people cannot be said to have the same or different results or suffering (Hagan, 2000). Comment by Antonio: Check punctuation Comment by Antonio: Check the spacing Comment by Antonio: Add an “S” Comment by Antonio: Check grammer

Death sentences usually result in pain and suffering resulting from trauma to the families of the victims and families of the offenders. Such suffering cannot be said to serve the right justice to a person as they go beyond the offender and the victim. Criminal justice system is supposed to result in deterrent results where the crimes may not be repeated since the other prospective criminals usually fear for the verdict. However, the capital punishment inflicts pain to the families of the offenders and has more suffering than the offender. A victim's family is also affected psychologically as they figure out that the pursuit of justice is the cause of suffering to another family. To this end, it is clear that the punishment is not a punishment to the offender but a larger extent, more to the families of the offender and victim (Cole & Gertz, 2002). Comment by Antonio: True in many cases. Comment by Antonio: Discard this sentence. Most offenders are very hurt.

Capital punishment is a very irrational way of getting a balance for both the victim and the offender since the extent to which the punishment reach is not measurable in magnitude and extent. There are more better punishments that will not go overboard other than punish the offenders and thus, the different forms of punishment that will not attract punishment to other people such as members of one’s family and victim as well may be better than death penalty. Since different offences attract different punishment, then it is arguable that the capital punishment should not be applied uniformly to similar offences as they happen in different circumstances and require different magnitude of punishments. To this end, the issue of measurability of capital question needs to be focused on in the debates that are around the world on capital punishments (Houston & Parsons, 1998). Comment by Antonio: Re-phrase this Comment by Antonio: Remove Comment by Antonio: Remove

There exist several issues of discrimination and disparity that may arise as a result of capital punishment in the criminal justice system. Issues arise from racial discrimination in the criminal justice system and the types of offences that result from the courts as a result of favoritism and other forms of discrimination. Literature and scientists find alarming disproportion of the number of people who are convicted of the death penalty and the relative number of those who have capital punishment being of minority groups. Issues arise as suggestions of the verdicts being skewed in a certain direction are rampant. There are also issues of prosecutors kicking jury members from minority groups out of the jury resulting in verdicts that best favor the interests of the whites in the courts. Such issues in the criminal justice system may affect the rationality of the verdicts that are reached by jury members (Cole & Gertz, 2002).

Investigation in the state of Philadelphia revealed the discrepancies and disparities in the course of justice of Black Americans who were subjected to death penalties. After a large sample of the murder cases that were eligible for death sentences between the years 1996 to 1998, researchers identified that blacks were more likely to get death sentences at a rate that is three times higher than their non-blacks counterparts who commits the same crimes. In this perspective, capital punishment may be used as a discriminative tool against a certain group of minority people in the society. Though there are several opposition to the idea of having discriminative courts system in the United States of America, it is clear that all the researches that are taken from the states that have execution laws, disparity in decrees of death sentences is much higher. In this perspective, it is irrational to continue allowing the capital punishment in the courts to act as a way of discriminating against some groups in the society since it is against the principles of fair justice. There are also some states in the country where convictions for capital punishment is controlled through use of the jury and jury selection methods whereby, members of the jury from the minority groups are discriminated against result to a jury bench that is uniformly from one major racial group giving it authority over the decision that will be reached. In so doing, the prosecution denies the defense a chance to be represented by fellow members of minority group that could otherwise view the capital punishment differently (Fuller & Hickey, 1999). Comment by Antonio: Wow! Comment by Antonio: True statement. Comment by Antonio: Remove Comment by Antonio: Remove Comment by Antonio: Change this transitional statement.

Further evidence of capital punishment being a tool of discrimination can be identified in the criminal justice system with the administration of federal death penalty since minority groups are usually overrepresented at every stage. Stereotypes and discrimination are also a complaint by many Islamists who argue that most of the terrorists' convicts to the death penalty are usually innocent, but subjected to stereotypes of having certain characteristics that similar to terrorist groups. In this perspective, it may not be service of justice to deal capital punishment to offenders as this may result to profiling since the defects in the criminal justice system may result in unfair application of justice (Fuller & Hickey, 1999). Comment by Antonio: Remove

Another issue regarding the fairness of the capital punishment as a form of punishment to offenders of the law relates to more information that arises after a verdict has been reached at. Law cases are never conclusive as more and more information may be available for the defendant to put a case and have a defense in the criminal justice system that may free him or her. In this scenario, the law that founded death penalty may become irreversible dealing a blow to the same system. If a person was convicted and executed, and after that information surface was making the verdict inapplicable in the new circumstances, it is usually irreversible and thus proper justice is not achieved. Under such circumstances, it is the rationale to show that the capital punishment is unfair to the defendant as the process cannot be redone. These cases have always arisen and make the criminal justice system to appear unfair and not achieve its intended results (Mark, Henry, & Julnes, 2000). Comment by Antonio: Remove Comment by Antonio: Remove

In disregard to the laid down measures that encourage countries to abolish capital punishment in the world, there are still countries that defend its use as a way of discouraging some forms of felony crimes in their society by continuing with the practice. The world’s largest country in population China have strict laws and regulations for certain forms of criminal activities that call for execution in order to deter such activities in their country. It is said that the country executes relatively more than several thousand souls every year through the use of different methods employed to kill offenders. United States of America on the other hand is another major country that has no strict federal laws that govern against the capital punishment is criminal justice system and as a result, the practice is still common in some of its states. In these views, regardless of the efforts that are employed by several world organizations to discourage the death penalty on individuals, it is still clear that the practice is yet to be fully abandoned.

Several research that have been carried out in the criminal justice system analyzing the resultant impact of the capital punishment as a form of punishment for offenders of heinous crimes does not focus much on the implications the sentences have on a broad range of issues in the society and thus, contributes to shallow recommendations to the body of knowledge. In addition, the United Nations have never passed a resolution that requires all member states to be part of the move to stop the capital punishments. In this view, there are concerns that the capital punishment may never be fully avoided in the modern world. People need to focus scientifically on the real system where there are supportive evidence indicating the unsuitability of capital punishment in criminal justice system under any circumstances in the human race. In this light, assessments of the various issues in the capital punishment are necessary in enabling stakeholders to focus on the topic and implement the necessary changes. Comment by Antonio: Revise this section Comment by Antonio: Remove

Capital punishment is always proposed and defended as the best way to deal an effective punishment to offenders of heinous crimes such as murder, rape, torture, and other violent offences. The proponents argue for the victims of the offences and find not enough form of punishment other than elimination of the offenders from the society in order to prevent recurrence of the offences and deter other criminals from making the same offences as a result of fear for the verdicts. However, several issues that affect the criminal justice system require that the criminal justice system is figured differently. It is clear that the capital punishments are not consistent with the laws of the rule of law and international laws that require unalienable right of life and dignity of every human being. In addition, moral issues and social justice is never achieved through capital punishment as well as the issue of measurability of the effects of the verdict on the offender and victim. In these perspectives, capital punishment is an ineffective way of getting justice in the criminal justice system and alternative steps, and courses of action should be sought in order to balance the offences and punishments to offenders. Comment by Antonio: Remove always Comment by Antonio: Revise Comment by Antonio: Remove Comment by Antonio: Remove

The ensuing analysis of the various issues that poses controversies in the criminal justice system and use of capital punishment as a way of punishing offenders in some of the heinous acts is a critical aspect of the criminal justice system that requires consistent debate in the global and regional legal arena in order to result to the necessary steps that will help in getting the rightful frame work and consultations. Such consultations are vital as they will continue to shape how people in the society will shape the laws of the country for posterity and prevent similar issues and contradictions of the law to continue to affect the delivery of free and fair legal processes. This research aims to form a basis of enabling such forums and consultations.