Capital Punishment: Injustice of Society Looking out for the state of the publics satisfaction in the scheme of capitalsentencing does not constitute serving justice. Todays system of capital punishment isfrought with inequalities and injustices.
The commonly offered arguments for the deathpenalty are filled with holes. It was a deterrent. It removed killers. It was the ultimatepunishment. It is biblical.
It satisfied the publics need for retribution. It relieved theanguish of the victims family. (Grisham 120) Realistically, imposing the death penalty isexpensive and time consuming. Retroactively, it has yet to be proven as a deterrent. Morally, it is a continuation of the cycle of violence and .
. . degrades all who are involvedin its enforcement, as well as its victim. (Stewart 1) Perhaps the most frequent argumentfor capital punishment is that of deterrence.
The prevailing thought is that imposition ofthe death penalty will act to dissuade other criminals from committing violent acts. Numerous studies have been created attempting to prove this belief; however, all theevidence taken together makes it hard to be confident that capital punishment deters morethan long prison terms do. (Cavanagh 4) Going ever farther, Bryan Stevenson, theexecutive director of the Montgomery based Equal Justice Initiative, has stated thatpeople are increasingly realizing that the more we resort to killing as a legitimateresponse to our frustration and anger with violence, the more violent our societybecomesWe could execute all three thousand people on death row, and most peoplewould not feel any safer tomorrow. (Frame 51) In addition, with the growinghumanitarianism of modern society, the number of inmates actually put to death issubstantially lower than 50 years ago.
This decline creates a situation in which the deathpenalty ceases to be a deterrent when the populace begins to think that one can get awaywith a crime and go unpunished. Also, the less that the death sentence is used, the more itbecomes unusual, thus coming in conflict with the eighth amendment. This is essentiallya paradox, in which the less the death penalty is used, the less society can legally use it. The end result is a punishment that ceases to deter any crime at all. The key part of thedeath penalty is that it involves death — something which is rather permanent for humans,due to the concept of mortality.
This creates a major problem when there continue tobe many instances of innocent people being sentenced to death. (Tabak 38) In our legalsystem, there exist numerous ways in which justice might be poorly served for a recipientof the death sentence. Foremost is in the handling of his own defense counsel. In theevent that a defendant is without counsel, a lawyer will be provided. Attorneysappointed to represent indigent capital defendants frequently lack the qualities necessaryto provide a competent defense and sometimes have exhibited such poor character thatthey have subsequently been disbarred.
(Tabak 37). With payment caps or courtdetermined sums of, for example, $5 an hour, there is not much incentive for a lawyer tospend a great deal of time representing a capital defendant. When you compare this to theprosecution, aided by the police, other law enforcement agencies, crime labs, statemental hospitals, various other scientific resources, prosecutors experienced insuccessfully handling capital cases, compulsory process, and grand juries(Tabak 37),the defense that the court appointed counsel can offer is puny. If, in fact, a defendant hasa valid case to offer, what chance has he to offer it and have it properly recognized.
Furthermore, why should he be punished for a misjustice that was created by the courtitself when it appointed the incapable lawyer. Even if a defendant has proper legalcounsel, there is still the matter of impartiality of judges. The Supreme Court hassteadily reduced the availability of habeas corpus review of capital convictions, placingits confidence in the notion that state judges, who take the same oath of office as federaljudges to uphold the Constitution, can be trusted to enforce it. (Bright 768) This makesfor the biased trying of a defendants appeals, given the overwhelming pressure onelected state judges to heed, and perhaps even lead to, the popular cries for the death ofcriminal defendants. (Bright 769) Thirty two of the states that impose the death penaltyalso employ the popular election of judges, and several of these even have judges runwith party affiliations. This creates a deeply political justice system — the words alone area paradox.
Can society simply brush off mistaken execution as an incidental cost in thegreater scheme of putting a criminal to death? Revenge is an unworthy motive for oursociety to pursue. (Whittier 1) In our society, there is a great expectation placed on thefamily of a victim to pursue vengeance to the highest degree — the death penalty. PatBane, executive director of the Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation (MVFR),stated, One parent told me that people made her feel like she was betraying her sonbecause she did not want to kill the person who murdered him. (Frame 50) This creates adilemma of morality. If anything, by forcing families to seek the death penalty, their ownconsciences will be burdened by the death of the killer. Furthermore, killing him willnot bring back your sons.
(Grisham 402). At some point, man must stop the violence. Seeking temporary gratification is not a logical basis for whether the death penalty shouldbe imposed. Granted, revenge is easily confused with retribution, and most would agreethat the punishment should fit the crime, but can society really justify murdering someoneelse simply on the basis that they deserved it? Government has the right and duty toprotect the greater good against people who jeopardize the welfare of society, but a killercan be sentenced to 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 savessociety the costs of keeping inmates imprisoned for long periods. In the act of preservingdue process of justice, the court appeals involved with the death penalty becomes a long,drawn-out and very expensive process.
The average time between sentencing andexecution for the 31 prisoners put on death row in 1992 was 114 months, or nine and ahalf years. (Stewart 50) Criminal justice process expenses, trial court costs, appellateand post-conviction costs, and prison costs perhaps including years served on death rowawaiting execution. . .
all told, the extra costs per death penalty imposed in over a quartermillion dollars, and per execution exceeds $2 million. (Cavanagh 4) When you comparethis to the average costs for a twenty year prison term for first degree murder (roughly$330 thousand), the cost of putting someone away for life is a deal. Is it really worth thehassle and money to kill a criminal, when we can put them away for life for less moneywith a great deal more ease? In earlier times–where capital punishment was common, thevalue of life was less, and societies were more barbaric–capital punishment was probablyquite acceptable. However, in todays society, which is becoming ever more increasinglyhumanitarian, and individual rights and due process of justice are held in high accord, thedeath penalty is becoming an unrealistic form of punishment. Also, with the ever presentpossibility of mistaken execution, there will remain the question of innocence of those putto death.
Finally, man is not a divine being. He does not have the right to inflict mortalpunishment in the name of societys welfare, when there are suitable substitutes thatrequire fewer resources. I ask society, . . . why dont we stop the killing?(Grisham 404)Bibliography Bright, 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. BostonUniversity Law Review 75 (1995): 768-69. Cavanagh, Suzanne, and David Teasley. Capital Punishment: A Brief Overview.
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): 50 Tabak,Ronald J. Report: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Lack of Due Process in DeathPenalty Cases. Human Rights 22. Winter (1995): 36 Whittier, Charles H. MoralArguments For and Against Capital Punishment. CRS Report For Congress (1996): 1 Bibliography:
