The Debate on Capital Punishment

The Debate on Capital Punishment

The Debate on Capital Punishment
INTRODUCTION:
Capital Punishment has been used for centuries, however, that does not mean that this form of punishment is universally accepted. Capital punishment has a long history of debate at least as long as the punishment itself. This debate is not resolved. To this day, it is a hot topic for most, even though 65 percent of adult Americans have indicated that they support this form of punishment. Additionally, this support does drop to 50 percent when life without parole is offered keeping this debate a hot topic (Baker, Lambert, & Jenkins, 2005). The United States is one of a few developed societies in the world that have retained capital punishment (Baumer, Messner, & Rosenfeld, 2003)..
When discussing the use of capital punishment there are some arguments that always are on the front of discussion. Arguments like retribution, deterrence, and just punishment are used the most. However, very seldom do we hear about the crime itself or how the victims have been brutalized. Although in our current legal system there are people that do hear these voices of the victims. We have a prosecutor who speaks for the victims. Plus there is a jury who has been selected to be impartial to the facts. And they are the ones who decide if the defendant is actually guilty of capital murder and if the death penalty is justified in this case (Cassell, 2008).
Historically, religious value has maintained that it is justified to take an “eye for an eye” and a life for a life. The New Testament states “let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment…If you do wrong, be afraid for [the authority] does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoers” (Romans 13:1-4). So, according to the Bible, the authority to punish, which presumably includes the death penalty, comes from God (Unknown, 2000).
The argument that needs to be addressed is the victim’s families. Retribution, justice, closure and incapacitation are all topics that have surfaced when interviewing the families of victims who have been murdered. The first argument is closure for the families of victims of murder.
SUPPORTING POINT 1: The Journal of Violence and Victims has an article that states the death penalty is often touted as a punishment providing the only way to truly serve justice and offer closure for co-victims. (Defined as family members or friends of murder victims’) (Vollum & Longmire, 2007). Families of murder victims often face grief, anger and pain that murder leaves in its wake. To some degree grieving must unfold in the criminal justice system the families rarely grieve in private. This usually involves a public trial and media scrutiny (Bandes, 2009). Healing and closure is another view that must be taken when thinking of victims families. In a strong majority of cases of co-victims, 72% stated healing and closure was their major focal point. Another 41% of co-victims stated that the actual execution brought them healing and closure. Twenty-two percent of co-victims indicated that the execution was a form of a conclusion to a difficult and traumatizing time in their lives. One father states that the execution of his daughter’s killer was the end of a long road. Others said that this would be a beginning to a new phase in their lives and know that their family member is resting in peace. With others saying maybe they could be happy again and they are glad that this part was finally over. Eight percent of the co-victims were glad that there would be no more trials, hearings and appeals (Vollum & Longmire, 2007). The second, most common focus among the co-victims was satisfaction with the execution. Out of 66% of cases where co-victims gave a statement 41% were satisfied with the execution (Vollum & Longmire, 2007). The only logical conclusion of this argument is capital punishment provides closure. Any delays of the execution deprive the family of closure. (Bandes, 2009).
SUPPORTING POINT 2: The paramount moral purpose of punishment is retributive justice (Haag, 2003). When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Society will succumb to the rules of violence, unless that balance is restored. Only the taking of the murderer’s life can restore that balance. This will show society that murder is an intolerable crime, which the punishment will be returned in kind (Unknown, 2000). Retributive arguments emphasize that the only response that is moral for the offender of their worse offense. Which is the death penalty. In recent years, the most significant argument for the death penalty is the revival of retribution, as the leading theory of punishment (Steiker & Steiker, 2010). Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that it is proper to take an “eye for an eye” and a life for a life (Unknown, 2000). Another argument has said retribution is not retaliation or “an eye for an eye” a few societies have tried to imply this though. Societies that are more primal have tried to impose pain and humiliation upon its criminals. Organized communities would have to be prepared, logistically as well as morally, to do anything that their most worse-offenders have done. Therefore, retribution cannot be revenge (Bradley, 2003). Anger, hatred and other emotions do not drive retribution; it is completely distinct from community outrage. Most of the time crime does not cause any kind of outrage; it is instead part of an inescapable landscape. Retribution has very little to do with the “intrinsic value” of inflicting suffering on wrongdoers. Retribution is not the source of criminal law it is only a theory of punishment. We should have respect for the basic human right, the right not to be physically harmed or murdered by anyone (Bradley, 2003). Society has deemed certain crimes as cruel and heinous and when those crimes are committed, the death penalty should be handed down. Offenders of those crimes deserve the worse punishment under our system of law, and that is death. Any punishment less than that would undermine the value society has place on protecting lives (Unknown, 2000). By adopting retribution as a philosophical basis for punishment, it will provide a powerful multi-faceted justification far beyond that proffered by the alternatives (Bradley, 2003). Although the victims and their families cannot be restored to the status before, the murder took place. At least the execution will bring closure and insure that the murderer will not have any more victims (Unknown, 2000). Retribution has elements of deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. However, it does ensure the guilty will be punished and the innocent will be protected. In addition, it will restore balance that has been disrupted by the crime. Therefore, retribution is the only appropriate moral justification for punishment (Bradley, 2003).
SUPPORTING POINT 3: My final supporting argument for the death penalty is incapacitation. Incapacitation involves disabling an offender from engaging in any further activity (Sigler, 2003). According to an article in the National Review, Professor Paul G. Cassel told the House Judiciary Committee in 1993. That in 1984 there were roughly 52,000 inmates serving time for murder. Out of those 52,000 810 have previously been convicted of murder. The 810 who have previously been convicted killed an additional 821 people following these convictions. If these inmates would have received the death penalty for their first murder conviction these 821 people who were killed would have been saved. Moreover, since some murderers kill again in prison, by executing these people we could even save more lives (O 'Sullivan, 2000). Research into incapacitation has shown that those who are actively involved in crime in any one year are much more likely than others to be active in the following year. With this research criminologists could predict which would become high-rate offenders and be confident that these predictions, although not precisely accurate, would be far better than chance (Cook, 1986). Studies reveal that jurors in some capital cases support the death penalty. Jurors believe that non-capital sentences for murderers are short and will permit the offender to return to the community, and commit the same offenses again. These offenders are still a danger to their community (Simon, 2006). The final goal of the death penalty is incapacitation it is not like neither retribution nor deterrence. According to Justice Scalia “The Court conveniently ignores the third social purpose of the death penalty and that is incapacitation of dangerous criminals and the consequent prevention of crimes that they may otherwise commit in the future”. He goes on to say that incapacitation simply says, “Death finally forecloses the possibility that a prisoner will commit further crimes, whereas life imprisonment does not” (Romano, 2003).
COUNTER-ARGUMENT 1:
An argument that an opponent of capital punishment would make is what if the defendant is found to be innocent. Maybe someone who is on death row would be cleared of their crime by DNA evidence. Maybe other evidence could be found and exonerate the person on death row.
In a Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, there was an article called Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003. This article talks about a study done of exonerations in the United States. Out of 96% of defendants exonerated 60% were for murders. Out of that number 22% were on death row (Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005).
An Article in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics states that the emergence of Post-conviction DNA testing has had a profound effect on the American criminal justice system. The extensive media coverage of wrongful convictions means that the public as well as some judges are well aware of people who were on death row that was exonerated. Opponents of capital punishment say this is disturbing because some people who were innocent could have been executed. Because of this reason, support for the death penalty is diminishing (Berger, 2006).
Another point that needs looking at is there have been a lot of convictions for non-capital murder from pleas. Pleas, which were obtained from negations, which had the death penalty on the table. It has also been pointed out that some of these pleas later resulted in exoneration of the defendant from DNA (Risinger, 2007). The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, there is nothing that can be done to reverse the mistake. There has been a considerable amount of evidence that mistakes have been made. Since 1973, at least 88 people have been released from death row after some sort of evidence emerged. During this time, 650 people have been executed. For every seven people executed research has found that at least one person on death row that should never have been convicted (Unknown, 2000).
The most successful part of this argument occurred in Illinois in January of 2000. Governor Ryan who is a known supporter of the death penalty, called a moratorium on executions. With this statement, “I have grave concerns about our state’s shameful record of convicting innocent people, and putting them on death row” (Goldman, 2002).
COUNTER-ARGUMENT 2: Another argument that people who are against the death penalty use is deterrence. The concept of deterrence is simple it is the omission of a criminal act because of the fear of sanction or punishment (Paternoster, 2010). The most common argument for capital punishment is no offender wants to die. Therefore, the threat of execution will deter murder; this may seem like common sense however, it is anything but sensible. No credible study of capital punishment has ever found it to be a deterrent effect (Potter, 2003). Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of offenders who have committed murder bears the burden of proof that the death penalty is actually a deterrent (Unknown, 2000). For decades, criminologists have been interested in the question of whether the death penalty is more effective as a deterrent to murder vs. long-term imprisonment (Radelet & Lacock, 2009). There are states, which have chosen not to have the death penalty when the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutionally permissible in 1976. Those states have not had higher murder rates than states that have the death penalty (Bonner & fessenden, 2003). The same is true with other countries that have the death penalty; they have a higher murder rate than those who do not have the death penalty (Unknown, 2000). The high expectations that society has about legal punishment and criminal justice policies about inhibiting crime, there is no evidence that is very solid or credible that deterrence works very well (Paternoster, 2010). Only 10% or less of criminologists believes that research studies support the deterrence justification for capital punishment (Radelet & Lacock, 2009). Former Governor of Michigan John Engler has stated that Michigan abolished capital punishment and has resisted all the attempts to reinstate it. He goes on to say, “We’re pretty proud of the fact that we do not have the death penalty”. The delegates at Michigan’s 1961 constitutional convention heard arguments that capital punishment was not a deterrent (Bonner & fessenden, 2003). Evidence shows that capital punishment is no more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder it may even entice criminal violence (Unknown, 2000).
If severe punishment can deter crime then long-term prison sentences should be severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime (Unknown, 2000).In Michigan, 2,572 inmates were serving life without parole in 2000. These inmates caused fewer problems that the general prison inmates have (Bonner & fessenden, 2003). Once violent criminals are in prison serving life sentences they settle into a routine and are less of a threat than other prisoners are (Unknown, 2000).
Finally in 2008 there was a survey done of 94 distinguished scholars, the survey sent questionnaires to this group. There was an 84% response rate, of the people who did the survey that believed the results would have been the same even if they had a higher response. The survey indicates that the world’s top criminologists believe that the deterrence hypothesis is a myth. What this is saying there is a consensus among criminologists that capital punishment does not add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment (Radelet & Lacock, 2009).
CONCLUSION:
In closing, the arguments that were presented were closure for the victims’ families, retributive justice for the victim and their families, and finally incapacitation the only true way to ensure that the murderer does not commit any more killings. Just a reminder of what these are. First closure has come to stand for feelings of peace, relief, a sense of justice, and the ability to move on. It might involve a verdict and imposition of a sentence that might require the verdict to be death (Bandes, 2009). In the healing process this is one step required for families to move on and start living life again. The second argument is retributive justice. Retribution is not about vengeance it is not driven by anger or any other emotion as such. Retribution has very little to do about inflicting suffering on to wrongdoers. Retribution is not the source for law but a theory of punishment (Bradley, 2003). The argument about retributive justice is that the victim had a right to live instead of being murdered so it is only right for the families to have their retribution and the killer face the death penalty. The final supporting argument is incapacitation. People believe that if you commit murder and receive a non-capital offense there is the possibility the killer would return to society and kill again (Simon, 2006). Society has a right to protect itself from wrongdoers, especially the ones who are the most dangerous. Even, though the death penalty is the extreme form of incapacitation (Sigler, 2003). Earnest Van den Haag says it best by putting a robber in prison you prevent him from robbing the streets. Therefore, by executing vicious murderers you prevent them from killing again (Unknown, 2000). Even though there are arguments against capital punishment like it is not a deterrence against murder. Alternatively, the other argument what if the defendant was innocent and the state executed the wrong person. These are important counter arguments against the death penalty. However, the supporting arguments are stronger and people believe that murderers need to be removed from our streets and put to death. This is not only justice for the victims but it is also justice for the victims’ families. In addition, this is would bring closure for so many people and help them move on with their lives.

Bibliography
Baker, D. N., Lambert, E. G., & Jenkins, M. (2005). Racial Differences in Death Penalty Support and Opposition a Preliminary Study of White and Black College students. Journal of Black Studies, 35(4), 201-224.
Bandes, S. A. (2009). Victims, "Closure," and the Sociology of Emotion. Law and Contemporary Problems, 72(1), 1-26.
Baumer, E. P., Messner, s. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2003). Explaining Spatial Variations in Support for Capital Punishment: A multilevel Analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 108(4), 844-875.
Berger, M. A. (2006). The Impact of DNA Exonerations on the Criminal Justice System. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 320-327.
Bonner, R., & fessenden, F. (2003). Capital Punishment Does Not Reduce Murder Rates. In R. Espejo, Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? (pp. 14-20). Farmington Hill: Greenhaven Press.
Bradley, G. V. ( 2003). Retribution: The Central Aim of Punishment. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 27(1), 19-31.
Cassell, P. (2008). In Defense of the Death Penalty. The Prosecutor, 10-27.
Cook, P. J. (1986). Retrieved from popcenter.org: http://www.popcenter.org/library/reading/PDFs/reasoningCriminal/13_cook.pdf
Goldman, R. (2002). Capital Punishment. (pp.90-101). Washington: CQ Press A Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc.
Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States 1989 Through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 95(2), 523-560.
Haag, E. v. (2003). Capital Punishment Saves Innocent Lives. In R. Espejo, Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? (pp. 21-31). Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press.
O 'Sullivan, J. (2000, July 17). A Logical and Just Practice. Retrieved from Academic one file: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA63173678&v=2.1&v=1om_dow&it=AONE&sw=w
Paternoster, R. (2010). How Much Do We Really Know About Criminal Deterence? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3), 765-823.
Potter, G. W. (2003). Capital Punishment is an Ineffective Crime Control Policy. In R. Espejo, Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime (pp. 53-62). Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press.
Radelet, M. L., & Lacock, T. L. (2009). Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates?: The Views of Leading Criminologists. Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 99(2), 489-508.
Risinger, M. D. (2007). Innocents Convicted: An Emprically Justified Factual Wrongful Conviction Rate. The Journal Of Criminal Law& Criminology, 97(3), 761-806.
Romano, J. F. (2003). Kinder, Gentler, and More Capricious: The Death Penalty After Atkins V. Virginia. St. Johns Law Review, 77(1), 123-155.
Sigler, M. (2003). Contradiction, coherence, and guided discretion in the supreme court 's capital sentencing jurisprudence. The American Criminal Law review, 40(3), 1151-1194.
Simon, J. (2006). Positively Punitive: How the Inventor of Scientific Criminology Who Died at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century Continues to Haunt American Crime Control at the Beginning of the Tenty-first. Texas Law Review, 84(7), 2135-2172.
Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2010). I. Crimes and Punishments Capital Punishment: A Century of Disscountinuous Debate. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 101(3), 643-689.
Unknown. (2000). Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty. Retrieved from Michigan state University: deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/.../arguments/arguments.PDF
Vollum, S. P., & Longmire, D. R. (2007). Covictims of Capital Murder: Statements of Victims’ Family Members and Friends Made at the Time of Execution. Violence and Victims, 22(5), 601-619.

Bibliography: Baker, D. N., Lambert, E. G., & Jenkins, M. (2005). Racial Differences in Death Penalty Support and Opposition a Preliminary Study of White and Black College students. Journal of Black Studies, 35(4), 201-224. Bandes, S. A. (2009). Victims, "Closure," and the Sociology of Emotion. Law and Contemporary Problems, 72(1), 1-26. Baumer, E. P., Messner, s. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2003). Explaining Spatial Variations in Support for Capital Punishment: A multilevel Analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 108(4), 844-875. Berger, M. A. (2006). The Impact of DNA Exonerations on the Criminal Justice System. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 320-327. Bonner, R., & fessenden, F. (2003). Capital Punishment Does Not Reduce Murder Rates. In R. Espejo, Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? (pp. 14-20). Farmington Hill: Greenhaven Press. Bradley, G. V. ( 2003). Retribution: The Central Aim of Punishment. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 27(1), 19-31. Cassell, P. (2008). In Defense of the Death Penalty. The Prosecutor, 10-27. Cook, P. J. (1986). Retrieved from popcenter.org: http://www.popcenter.org/library/reading/PDFs/reasoningCriminal/13_cook.pdf Goldman, R Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States 1989 Through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 95(2), 523-560. Haag, E. v. (2003). Capital Punishment Saves Innocent Lives. In R. Espejo, Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? (pp. 21-31). Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press. O 'Sullivan, J. (2000, July 17). A Logical and Just Practice. Retrieved from Academic one file: http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA63173678&v=2.1&v=1om_dow&it=AONE&sw=w Paternoster, R Potter, G. W. (2003). Capital Punishment is an Ineffective Crime Control Policy. In R. Espejo, Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime (pp. 53-62). Farmington Hills: Greenhaven Press. Radelet, M. L., & Lacock, T. L. (2009). Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates?: The Views of Leading Criminologists. Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 99(2), 489-508. Risinger, M. D. (2007). Innocents Convicted: An Emprically Justified Factual Wrongful Conviction Rate. The Journal Of Criminal Law& Criminology, 97(3), 761-806. Romano, J. F. (2003). Kinder, Gentler, and More Capricious: The Death Penalty After Atkins V. Virginia. St. Johns Law Review, 77(1), 123-155. Sigler, M. (2003). Contradiction, coherence, and guided discretion in the supreme court 's capital sentencing jurisprudence. The American Criminal Law review, 40(3), 1151-1194. Simon, J. (2006). Positively Punitive: How the Inventor of Scientific Criminology Who Died at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century Continues to Haunt American Crime Control at the Beginning of the Tenty-first. Texas Law Review, 84(7), 2135-2172. Steiker, C. S., & Steiker, J. M. (2010). I. Crimes and Punishments Capital Punishment: A Century of Disscountinuous Debate. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 101(3), 643-689. Unknown. (2000). Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty. Retrieved from Michigan state University: deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/.../arguments/arguments.PDF Vollum, S