Capital Punishment Essay Research Paper Capital PunishmentInjustice

Free Essay Database Online

Capital Punishment Essay Research Paper Capital PunishmentInjustice

Capital Punishment Essay, Research Paper

Capital Punishment: Injustice of Society Looking out for the province of the public s satisfaction in the strategy ofcapital sentencing does non represent functioning justness. Today s system ofcapital penalty is frought with inequalities and unfairnesss. The commonlyoffered statements for the decease punishment are filled with holes. It was adeterrent. It removed slayers. It was the ultimate penalty. It isbiblical. It satisfied the public s need for requital. It relieved theanguish of the victim s household. ( Grisham 120 ) Realistically, enforcing thedeath punishment is expensive and clip consuming. Retroactively, it has yet tobe proven as a hindrance. Morally, it is a continuance of the rhythm ofviolence and & # 8230 ; degrades all who are involved in its enforcement, every bit good asits victim. ( Stewart 1 ) Possibly the most frequent statement for capital penalty is that ofdeterrence. The prevailing idea is that infliction of the decease penaltywill act to deter other felons from perpetrating violent Acts of the Apostless. Numerousstudies have been created trying to turn out this belief ; nevertheless, [ a ] llthe grounds taken together makes it difficult to be confident that capitalpunishment deters more than long prison footings do. ( Cavanagh 4 ) Traveling everfarther, Bryan Stevenson, the executive manager of the Montgomery basedEqual Justice Initiative, has stated that people are progressively realizingthat the more we resort to killing as a legitimate response to ourfrustration and choler with force, the more violent our society becomes Wecould put to death all three thousand people on decease row, and most people wouldnot experience any safer tomorrow. ( Frame 51 ) In add-on, with the growinghumanitarianism of modern society, the figure of inmates really put todeath is well lower than 50 old ages ago. This diminution creates asituation in which the decease punishment ceases to be a hindrance when thepopulace begins to believe that one can acquire off with a offense and gounpunished. Besides, the lupus erythematosus that the decease sentence is used, the more itbecomes unusual, therefore coming in struggle with the 8th amendment. This isessentially a paradox, in which the less the decease punishment is used, the lesssociety can lawfully utilize it. The terminal consequence is a penalty that ceases todeter any offense at all. The cardinal portion of the decease punishment is that it involves decease & # 8212 ; somethingwhich is instead lasting for worlds, due to the construct of mortality. Thiscreates a major job when there continue to be many cases ofinnocent people being sentenced to decease. ( Tabak 38 ) In our legal system, there exist legion ways in which justness might be ill served for arecipient of the decease sentence. Foremost is in the handling of his owndefense advocate. In the event that a suspect is without advocate, a lawyerwill be provided. Attorney s appointed to stand for destitute capitaldefendants often lack the qualities necessary to supply a competentdefense and sometimes hold exhibited such hapless character that they havesubsequently been disbarred. ( Tabak 37 ) . With payment caps or courtdetermined amounts of, for illustration, $ 5 an hr, there is non much inducement fora attorney to pass a great trade of clip stand foring a capital suspect. When you compare this to the prosecution, aided by the constabulary, other lawenforcement bureaus, offense labs, province mental infirmaries, assorted otherscientific resources, prosecuting officers experienced in successfully handlingcapital instances, compulsory procedure, and expansive juries ( Tabak 37 ) , the defensethat the tribunal appointed advocate can offer is puny. If, in fact, a defendanthas a valid instance to offer, what opportunity has he to offer it and hold itproperly recognized. Furthermore, why should he be punished for a misjusticethat was created by the tribunal itself when it appointed the incapable attorney. Even if a suspect has proper legal advocate, there is still the affair ofimpartiality of Judgess. The Supreme Court has steadily reduced theavailability of habeas principal reappraisal of capital strong beliefs, puting itsconfidence in the impression that province Judgess, who take the same curse of officeas federal Judgess to continue the Constitution, can be trusted to enforceit. ( Bright 768 ) This makes for the colored seeking of a suspect s entreaties, given the overpowering force per unit area on elective province Judgess to mind, and

perhaps even lead to, the popular cries for the death of criminaldefendants. (Bright 769) Thirty two of the states that impose the deathpenalty also employ the popular election of judges, and several of these evenhave judges run with party affiliations. This creates a deeply politicaljustice system — the words alone are a paradox. Can society simply brushoff mistaken execution as an incidental cost in the greater scheme of puttinga criminal to death? Revenge is an unworthy motive for our society to pursue. (Whittier 1) Inour society, there is a great expectation placed on the family of a victimto pursue vengeance to the highest degree — the death penalty. Pat Bane,executive director of the Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation (MVFR),stated, One parent told me that people made her feel like she was betrayingher son because she did not want to kill the person who murdered him. (Frame 50) This creates a dilemma of morality. If anything, by forcing familiesto seek the death penalty, their own consciences will be burdened by thedeath of the killer. Furthermore, [k]illing him will not bring back yourson[s]. (Grisham 402). At some point, man must stop the violence. Seekingtemporary gratification is not a logical basis for whether the death penaltyshould be imposed. Granted, revenge is easily confused with retribution, andmost would agree that the punishment should fit the crime, but can societyreally justify murdering someone else simply on the basis that they deservedit? Government has the right and duty to protect the greater good againstpeople who jeopardize the welfare of society, but a killer can be sentencedto life without chance of parole, and society will be just as safe as if hehad been executed. A vast misconception concerning the death penalty is that it saves societythe costs of keeping inmates imprisoned for long periods. In the act ofpreserving due process of justice, the court appeals involved with the deathpenalty becomes a long, drawn-out and very expensive process. The averagetime between sentencing and execution for the 31 prisoners put on death rowin 1992 was 114 months, or nine and a half years. (Stewart 50) Criminaljustice process expenses, trial court costs, appellate and post-convictioncosts, and prison costs perhaps including years served on death row awaitingexecution… all told, the extra costs per death penalty imposed in over aquarter million dollars, and per execution exceeds $2 million. (Cavanagh 4) When you compare this to the average costs for a twenty year prison term forfirst degree murder (roughly $330 thousand), the cost of putting someone awayfor life is a deal. Is it really worth the hassle and money to kill acriminal, when we can put them away for life for less money with a great dealmore ease? In earlier times–where capital punishment was common, the value of life wasless, and societies were more barbaric–capital punishment was probably quiteacceptable. However, in today s society, which is becoming ever moreincreasingly humanitarian, and individual rights and due process of justiceare held in high accord, the death penalty is becoming an unrealistic form ofpunishment. Also, with the ever present possibility of mistaken execution,there will remain the question of innocence of those put to death. Finally,man is not a divine being. He does not have the right to inflict mortalpunishment in the name of society s welfare, when there are suitablesubstitutes that require fewer resources. I ask society, …why don t westop the killing? (Grisham 404)BibliographyBright, Steven B., and Patrick J. Keenan. Judges and the Politics of Death: Deciding Between the Bill of Rights and the Next Election in Capital Cases. Boston University Law Review 75 (1995): 768-69. Cavanagh, Suzanne, and David Teasley. Capital Punishment: A BriefOverview. CRS Report For Congress 95-505GOV (1995): 4. Frame, Randy. A Matter Of Life and Death. Christianity Today 14 Aug. 1995: 50Grisham, John. The Chamber. New York: Island Books, 1994. Stewart, David O. Dealing with Death. American Bar Association Journal 80.11 (1994): 50Tabak, Ronald J. Report: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Lack of DueProcess in Death Penalty Cases. Human Rights 22.Winter (1995): 36Whittier, Charles H. Moral Arguments For and Against Capital Punishment. CRS Report For Congress (1996): 1