Death Sentence

The Death sentence

Introduction

The death penalty is applied to people who commit capital offences that warrant a serious sentence. Crimes carrying a death penalty include; murder, robbery with violence, some forms of sexual assault, and the jury is free to determine whether the death penalty is applicable or not, depending on the evidence presented the severity of the crime and whether the offender is a first-time or repeat offender. On the other hand, Primary and Remedial Rights are rights and freedoms that` arise when a person breaches his primary rights. For example, the family of a person who dies at work is entitled to compensation, court injunctions call for a specific action from a person, company towards the complainant. For example, the court may demand that a media house spreading unconfirmed rumors makes a public apology to those involved and desist from such behavior in future. It is known that people are unaware and uninformed about the Primary and remedial Rights, their applicability in the law and the process they go through before their award. Additionally, the death sentence is also an unpopular sentence that many countries refrain from awarding. The research will show the reasons for that. However, the death penalty is expensive and time consuming to carry out, and many countries have distanced themselves from it. Therefore, it is ineffective in stopping capital crimes.

Cohen-Cole, E., Durlauf, S., Fagan, J., & Nagin, D. (2009). Model uncertainty and the deterrent effect of capital punishment. American Law and Economics Review, 11(2), 335-369.

The article focuses on the fact that the capital sentence, such as the award of a death sentence is not always successful in deterring criminals from capital offences. That is because the criminals recognize the severity of their situation as well as the risk of the action but still choose to commit the crimes. Additionally, a majority of the people who commit such crimes are hardened criminals who have come within inches of losing their lives while at work. Some of the can be hired mercenaries willing to do just about anything for money, and therefore, will risk their lives for the right price. Additionally, there is also the fact a majority of these criminals are mentally incompetent and may receive psychological help problems such as drug use and bizarre behavior. Therefore, they may not recognize the impact of the sentence awarded to them. Some may even wish for the sentence and commit the necessary crimes so as to receive the punishment.

For the punishment to be effective, many clauses ought to be added. For the wronged, the death of the wrong-doer may bring closure, but it will not deter another person from committing the same crime. Therefore, before the award of such a sentence, it is necessary to enforce parameters in which the sentence can be carried out as well as other measures to ensure the effectiveness of the sentence. For instance, in the case of robbery with violence, the accused should compensate anyone he harms, pays for all legal and medical fees as well as other costs as determined by the court before the sentence is carried out.

Donohue, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2009). Estimating the impact of the death penalty on murder. American Law and Economics Review, ahp024.

The death penalty ought to deter people from committing capital crimes that are likely to result in death sentence as a punishment. Premeditated murder, for instance, may get a death sentence from the judge. However, there are concerns that the death sentence does not deter people from committing the crime as a majority of the criminals who murder others are certified as clinically insane; therefore, they are not in their normal human senses when committing such crimes. In countries where the death sentence is given, the murder and capital crime rates remain unaffected by the harsh punishment was given. The executions have to be planned in advance; however, the number of prisoners awaiting their execution remains high as new rulings are made. That is because the capital offenders are on the rise, meaning that the sentence is not a deterrent to would-be offenders. Therefore, something needs to be done to ensure that the sentence acts as the deterrent it was meant to be.

Additionally, Human Rights’ Activist groups are also condemning the sentence arguing that everyone has a right to life and at no one time, should be someone’s life be taken away by another. That is because taking away someone’s life leaves the family and relations in anguish and does not solve the problem it was meant to solve. Therefore, the sentence is ineffective and should not be in use in the current times.

Manski, C. F., & Pepper, J. V. (2013). Deterrence and the death penalty: partial identification analysis using repeated cross sections. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 123-141.

The author’s of the above article argued that the sentence was not a deterrent enough for capital violations, for example, murder and theft with viciousness. That is because the offenders are hardened and may not care much for their lives. When a person sets out to commit grave crimes such as the ones mentioned above, he realizes that anything can go wrong and he can be nabbed in the process or lose his life. Therefore, using the sentence to deter people from committing such crimes is ineffective as the criminals are already reconciled that they could lose their lives in the process, yet find it a risk worth taking. However, in some instances, the sentence has helped reduce the cases of homicides and capital crimes in a state. The correlation between the sentence and the number of crimes committed is strongest in states where the sentence is carried out alongside other harsh punishments. For instance, some years ago required families and associates of people that received the death sentence to watch while the guilty party was executed. That caused suffering to the families and acted as a deterrent to mentally sane people would not want their families and friends to witness such gruesome actions.

The article shows that a lot more needs to be done before the death penalty deters capital crime as it should. There are also concerns that the sentence is too weighty on the families of the offender but does not sufficiently keep would-be offenders from committing crimes. There is a need to ensure that the sentence deters people from the offences committing the offences it needs to prevent.

Conclusion

The death penalty is the harshest sentence that an offender can get because it takes away his life. It was meant to deter people from committing capital crimes, but it seems that it is insufficient as these crimes are on the increase in various parts of the world. Also, governments are unwilling to execute those that receive the sentence as Human Rights activists want the sentence done away with. There are concerns that the sentence harms the family of the offender and it does not give the offender a chance to rectify his behavior. Additionally, the sentence is ineffective as a majority of the capital offenders are mentally unstable; therefore, they don't welcome the reality of the sentence. Therefore it is ineffective in fulfilling its purpose.

References

Cohen-Cole, E., Durlauf, S., Fagan, J. & Nagin, D. (2009). Model uncertainty and the deterrent effect of capital punishment. American Law and Economics Review, 11(2), 335-369.

Donohue, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2009). Estimating the impact of the death penalty on murder. American Law and Economics Review, ahp024.

Manski, C. F., & Pepper, J. V. (2013). Deterrence and the death penalty: partial identification analysis using repeated cross sections. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 123-141.