Essay #3

Josh Sedlmeyer

Baker College

Introduction

Capital punishment refers to the practice of inflicting death on an individual as a punishment for a crime committed. Capital punishment is usually carried out after a proper legal trial. It can be carried out through lethal injection, firing squad, gas chamber, hanging and electrocution. There is still a sizeable number of countries that use this mode of punishment. In the United States, the practice is currently lawful in 32 states. Capital punishment is mostly used as punishment for serious types of murder crimes. However, regardless of the severity of the crimes committed, this practice raises various ethical and moral concerns. The ineffectiveness of this practice by far outweigh its applicability.

Factors against capital punishment

a) The right to human life

Each and every human being has an irrefutable right to life. This is true even for those who have committed murder. Sentencing someone to death and then executing them is therefore a violation of this right, irrespective of the crime they have committed. Melusky and Pesto (2011) assert that the value of someone’s life is permanent and that not even the bad conduct of an individual can destroy this value. In addition, the very action of executing someone causes too much anguish to the condemned individual. This amounts to torture. Even with the adoption of the lethal injection that is said to be less inhumane, Berlatsky (2010) notes that post mortem findings of executed felons indicate that the levels of anesthesia used permitted wakefulness and the ability to experience pain.

b) Unfair application of capital punishment

According to recent statistics, a large number of capital punishment sentences are usually flawed, arbitrary, discriminatory and unfair (Scherdin, 2014). In his book, Marzilli (2008) observes that minorities and the poor are more susceptible to capital punishment. He also acknowledges the results of a study that was conducted in 1983 by Professor David Baldus on the issue of capital punishment in Georgia. The figures of this study indicated that murderers whose victims were white were eleven times more likely to be convicted to death than their counterparts whose victims were black. Carrying out capital punishments therefore raises the risk of convicting and executing innocent individuals. Marzilli (2008) also notes that the justice system does not always provide the accused poor persons with apt lawyers, capable of swaying the capital punishment convictions that await them.

In addition, it is possible for jurors and key witnesses to make mistakes. If this occurs, it is more than possible for innocent people to be sentenced to death for a crime they did not really commit. This is coupled by the fact that the legal system is greatly flawed. The U.S jurors for a majority of capital punishment cases are required to be death eligible. This is to mean that the potential juror should be willing to convict an accused person with the full knowledge that a death penalty is a real possibility in the case. This factor leads to the high possibility of a jury that is biased, in relation to death penalty. This requirement does not therefore permit the admission of jurors who are opposed to the death penalty (Sullivan, 2014). In this sense, death sentences are not reached in a transparent manner.

c) The Cost Of Capital Punishments

Capital punishments are an expensive affair in the U.S.A. The conviction and execution costs for Oklahoma City Bombing convict Timothy McVeigh cost approximately $13 million. In the state of California, the present legal system takes a whopping $137 million in a year. The California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice opines that a system without death penalties would only cost the state $11.5million (Wolf & Sarat, 1997). A majority of these costs are incurred during the trial and in the period prior to the trial. In the event that a case does not result into a death penalty, tax payers have to pay for pretrial, trial and retrial procedures as well as the costs of holding the accused for life in case they are charged with life imprisonment. This is mostly because death penalty trials usually require more investigation. This practice therefore derails important resources that would be paramount for other sectors of the economy. If the death penalty system was abolished, more resources would be channeled towards prevention of crime, emergency services, and rehabilitation and treatment programs. Crimes such as domestic violence and child abuse would therefore be given more attention.

Refutation of the opposition’s claims

a) Retribution

Individuals who advocate for capital punishment argue that the death penalty offers retribution. They hold that the guilty deserve to be punished, in a proportionate measure to the extent of their crime. In upholding this argument, an individual who murders another can only be punished adequately by being subjected to death himself. According to them, the measure of punishment should be served on the basis of the criminal’s conduct and the vulnerability of the victim at the time of the crime. However, this argument does not hold water because capital punishment is more of a vengeance act as opposed to retribution. Criminals are sometimes subjected to worse punishments than they initially committed. In addition, the criminal goes through immense anticipatory suffering before he is finally put to death because the death row may take a long time to materialize. This punishment is by far much more than just snuffing out the life of the criminal.

b) Deterrence

Pro capital punishments also argue that by executing criminals through death penalties, potential offenders are deterred from committing the same crime. Scherdin (2014) strongly argues that there are no conclusive findings to propagate this argument. He further states that recent studies have also not shown a correlation between homicide cases and capital punishment. Contrary to the reasoning of the propagators of this school of thought, capital punishment does not also provide deterrence because in some cases, the offender cannot be deterred due to the existence of a mental defect or illness. Subjecting such an individual to death is therefore an ineffective mode of punishment.

In addition, a majority of the crimes leading to death penalty usually result from a state of heightened emotion whereby the individual does not think through the consequences of his actions at that time(Wolf and Sarat, 1997). In addition, there exists no proof to show that death penalty serves the purpose of deterrence more than the one served by life imprisonment. Deterrence cannot also be used to justify capital punishments because it is mostly effective if it is carried out immediately after the occurrence of the crime. However, this is not usually the case because most capital crimes drag on for years. The deterrence effect is therefore very dilute by the time the trial is being completed.

c) Closure

People often argue that capital punishment provides closure and vindication to the family and friends of the victim. Nonetheless, this cannot excuse cannot be used to solely justify the cutting off of life from another human being (Berlatsky, 2010). Different people grieve differently. Some people may not find any closure from the mere death of another individual. This reasoning cannot therefore provide sufficient justification for carrying out capital punishment.

d) Prevention of Re-offence

Some people feel that putting an offender to death is the only way to prevent him from committing the offense again. However, Marzilli (2008) contends that this is not a solid reason to put a person to death. He argues that there are other ways to prevent an offender from committing a crime again. He proposes measures such as imprisonment without parole. Even though some criminals have been known to escape from prison, this number is on the minority.

Conclusion

As much as some people may feel offended and robbed of their loved ones, subjecting any individual to death for a capital crime is disproportionate and inhumane. At the end of the day, no one really gains from the death of the propagator. In any case, the loss will still be imminent even after the execution of the offender. Human life is precious and as such, it should be guarded by all means possible. However, justice should continue to be carried out on propagators through other more long term means, capital punishment should be abolished.

References

Berlatsky, N. (2010). Capital punishment. Detroit, Mich: Greenhaven Press/Gale, Cengage Learning.

Marzilli, A. (2008). Capital punishment. New York: Chelsea House.

Melusky, J. A., & Pesto, K. A. (2011). Capital punishment. Santa Barbara, Calif: Greenwood.