Argumentative paper against having capital punishment
Introduction
Capital punishment is a practice where criminals are put to death as a way of punishment for crime. Since the implementation of this practice in colonial times, many offenders have faced capital punishment, but in 20th and 21st century the rate of death from capital punishment has reduced as many States such as Washington, Kansas, Missouri and others have raised concern on this issue. Focusing on historical perspective, dealth penalty was applied to capital crimes such as murder, Sodomy, rebellion, idolatry among many. In 1987, it was found that States were using proportionality review in applying death penalty. In addition, research has found that death penalty is costly compared with life without parole, it is not the effective method of deterring crime but rather leads to brutalizing effect. In addition, death penalty is a costly process and various errors are encountered as juries and judges lack evidence on whether the offender is guilty or not. Generally, death penalty does not deter crime, it is costly and the probability of executing offenders who do not deserve death is high.
According to Marzill, capital punishment is not the best approach in deterring crime. In his argument, the author employs the brutalization theory which states that capital punishment increases the crime rate (Marzill, 37). For example, Bowers and Pierce conducted a study of homicide rate which happens prior to year 1980 in New York and found that the rate of execution was high and after execution was done, the State could experience a high rate of homicide. This indicates that the act of devaluing human life motivates society members to kill. Marzil adds a point by arguing the end of punishment matters in deterring crime. In other word, death penalty is not the best approach as it only provides the ‘satisfaction of justice’. For example in 19th century, death penalty was common in Europe and America but the scene of violence created a negative impression and caused antideterrence. Note that people learn that killing is a form of behavior and public execution promotes imitation (Marzill, 39).
According to Brasswell and McCarthy, the argument against death penalty is supported by philosophical and judicial aspects. Philosophical aspects are supported by religious beliefs while judicial aspects are supported by justice and equity. In philosophical view, death penalty should not be in the category of severe penalties. In other words, severe penalties should involve life without parole, lengthy imprisonment and more to (Brasswell and McCarthy, 28). Despite the fact that proponents argue that capital punishment is associated with deterrence, the point is that many offender are influenced by social situations. For example, offenders may commit murder in robber situation without a logical reason on the outcome of the action. The author borrows evidence from 1970s deterrence program known as Scared Straight programs. The purpose of the program was to inform imprisoned youths the possible consequences they will face if they commit further crimes. One of the actions that could be taken was death penalty but the study concluded that the rate of crime did not decrease despite the creation of such a program. The point is the there should be penalties for murder but other types of punishment such as lengthy sentence would work best (Brasswell and McCarthy, 37).
On the point of incapacitation, proponents argue that death penalties adheres to the utilitarian approach of maximizing happiness while minimize unhappiness (Brasswell and McCarthy, 13). However, the reality is that other punishment like life without parole will ensure that an offender gets an opportunity to change behaviors and can become an important person in life. The author also argue that if an offender can stay in the prison for 10-20 years, the probability of committing crime when he goes back in the society is low. Evidence is taken from the Furman cases where offenders were subjected to death penalty but later the system was changed to parole-eligible status. The new system that offered offender with parole experienced a positive change in that offenders presented positive behaviors in the community (Brasswell and McCarthy, 34). Rather than addressing cases using death penalty, paroled murderers change their behaviors and become important people in the society. On the same note, it is important to use the peacemaking perspective when deciding whether to employ death penalty or not. The importance of peace king perspective is that caring and mindfulness as vital elements are considered. In his book, Finding freedom, Jarvis Masters states that offenders either in life with or without parole gains an opportunity to question their behaviors and turn way from doing evil. Apart from the offenders’ benefits in changing behaviors, it is important to consider the family members and how they feel when a loved one is subjected to death penalty (Brasswell and McCarthy, 37).
Nathanson argues that juries and judges make errors when employing death penalty. The problem which is caused by death penalty is known as the arbitrary imposition which means that offenders who are executed should face death but offenders who are not guilty and do not deserve death are executed (Nathanson, 60). The reality is that juries and judges provide unjust punishment simply because of prejudice and discrimination. The point is that the death penalty system does not adhere to equal justice and so they end up undermining just treatment. The interesting thing is that both proponents and opponents believe that death penalty is a severe punishment. However, the best argument is that death penalty violates human rights and denies them opportunities for appeal. In death penalty, juries and judges make big mistakes rooted from inaccurate eyewitness, poor defense representation and more. A study conducted in 2000 by Liebman et al, showed that prejudicial errors were 68%. In addition, various studies have shown that death penalty cause racial bias in that in 2013, the rate of African Americans on death row was 42 % (Nathanson, 69). The reality is that the legal system cannot offer 100% correct judgment on who is guilty or note. In other words, the death penalty system does not adhere to justice but rather it tends to rest on racial and prejudice.
McLaughlin’s article state that the anti-death penalty movement has raised important argument against death penalty not only in moral grounds but also on economic rationales. Capital punishment is a process which requires a lot of money and resources and the conclusion is that the opportunity cost is high (McLaughlin, 676). In fact, States such as Maryland has introduced the penalty bill to abolish death penalty. On issues of death penalty, it is important to argue against using the ‘interest-convergence’ which was introduced by Derrick Bell (McLaughlin, 679). According to the theory, during the era of Cold War, the U.S Supreme Court used desegregation and enforced equal doctrine between Black and Whites. Desegregation was associated with positive results in that it led to international reputation and industrialization. Today, in addressing racial or law issues, interest-convergence theory helps in applying affirmative action (McLaughlin, 676). In relating the interest-convergence theory with death penalty, it is important to focus on the cost of capital punishment and the cost incurred in life imprisonment. Referring to the Furman case, the cost of executing is higher than the cost of life imprisonment. Reports in death penalty costs from newspapers reporters in different States affirm that the cost of death penalty is high. For example, in 1988, the cost of death penalty in one States was $3.2 million while the cost of life imprisonment was $600,000(McLaughlin, 689). Other reports for Texas, Norn Carolina among other States showed a high costs associated with death penalty than capital punishment. The conclusion made from these reports is that resources are wasted on death penalty despite the fact that some cases need imprisonment. The point to note is that rather than using death pen laity, it is important to employ other approaches like life imprisonment and the system will save a large amount of money. A point to note is that the high costs is not as a result of the process of execution but rather the costs is contributed by lengthy trails, pretrial motions, investigation, technical appeal process and more (McLaughlin, 690).
According to Shetty, it is important to consider International Standards in employing death penalty. In this case, International Standards means international human rights and the need to view the act of death penalty as a way of violating human right especially on mentally disabled people (Shetty, 42). In arguing against death penalty, it is worthy saying that the act is a human right issue and in this case, it is important to review the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ which states that people should have a fundamental freedom regardless of race or sex (Shetty, 49). In human rights, it is important to consider the right to life since the death penalty system employs death penalty to minority than Whites. In a human rights perspective, death penalty violates the rights of people and in particular the right to life. Even if the injustices, the racial bias and the higher cost are avoided, death penalty is an inhuman act as it violets human rights. Thus, the criminal justice system and the international community should protect the right through respect and protection (Shetty, 53). Lenta adds that even though lex talionis adheres to capital punishment as the best approach in deterring crime, it should not be imposed to all crimes. The point is that lex talionis can also be fulfilled through through life imprisonment without parole. In considering lex talionis, it is important to value working-making features or else the properties of the offense before employing death penalty (Lenta, 45). After identifying the wrong-making features, it is important to make generalization using personal sense on why the offense of wrong. Note that the features of the offense will allow to put other alternative such as imprisonment.
Conclusion
Death penalty is an inhuman act that violates the rights of human beings. The process violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that affirms that human beings are entitled to fundamental rights and they should not suffer from torture. It is important to value the human rights and provide other punishment such as life imprisonment without parole. Even if the some proponents argue for Lex Talionis or punishment with respect to the degree of the offense, not all offenses should be addressed through the notion of ‘an eye for an eye’. However, there are other approaches such as life imprisonment without parole which could allow the offenders to have a positive experience. Other studies show that life imprisonment with parole could also allow the offender to enter in the society and become an important person. Apart from violating the human right, death penalty is costly and its does not deter crime. Costly is incurred due to lengthy trial and other processes thus, rather than imposing death penalty to offenders, it is important to imprisonment and this is a way respecting their rights and minimizing the cost spent
Work cited
Nathanson, Stephen. An Eye for an Eye: The Immorality of Punishing by Death. Lanham: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2001. Print.
Marzilli, Alan. Point/counterpoint: Capital Punishment (2nd Edition). New York: Facts On File, 2008.
Internet resource.
Brawell C. Micheal, McCarthy R. Belinda & McCarthy J. Bernard. Justice, Crime, and Ethics.
Routledge, 2014
McLaughlin, Jolie. "The Price of Justice: Interest-Convergence, Cost, and the Anti-Death Penalty
Movement." Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 108, no. 2, Winter2014, pp. 675-710. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=96185056&site=ehost-live.
Lenta, Patrick. "The Lex Talionis , the Purgative Rationale, and the Death Penalty." Criminal Justice
Ethics, vol. 34, no. 1, Apr. 2015, pp. 42-63. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/0731129X.2015.1029733.
SHETTY, SALIL. "The Value of International Standards in the Campaign for Abolition of the Death
Penalty." Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. 21, no. 1, Fall/Winter2014, pp. 41-56. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=100868745&site=ehost-live.
