A look at Capital Punishment Jameson Hedin Criminal Justice 1010 (SS DV) Professor Ellis

A look at Capital Punishment 2 Capital punishment is a very hotly debated subject in our country. When asked to research a topic in the Criminal Justice system, it was easy for me to decide on a topic with such controversy and passion on both sides of the issue. For this particular paper I decided to focus largely on three of the main arguments on both sides of the capital punishment debate. In the first section, I will take a look at the reasons the majority of the citizens of our nation are in support of capital punishment. In researching the pros of the death penalty, the three most commonly used arguments in support are first; people that commit crimes of a heinous nature, and murder to be more specific, should not be allowed to live. This is called the eye for an eye argument. Second; the idea that once a person has killed, they will then forever have the propensity to kill again, this particular argument is based on preventing the recurrence of the same crime by the same criminal. Third, I will look at the idea that Capital Punishment serves as a deterrent. This means that the threat of execution stops the criminal before they committing the crime. In the second section, I will be looking at the side of the argument that is opposed to the existence of capital punishment. I will focus first on the argument that as long as the death penalty is law in this country, there exists the chance that an innocent person could be executed. Second, I will discuss the position that the Capital Punishment system in our country is unnecessary and expensive; and third, I will discuss the side that says that criminals are in fact not deterred at all by the threat of being put to death after committing a heinous murder.

A look at Capital Punishment 3 Section I The Retribution motive is captured by the idea of revenge or eye for an eye; the concern here is with extracting justice through punishments that are as commensurate as possible with crimes. In the case of murder, then, it is those with strong retribution beliefs who are expected to support capital punishment. (Sidanius, 2006) The key word for the eye for an eye argument is retribution. This means that the punishment received is morally right and deserved. Many people believe that the

punishment for a crime should be equal in severity to the crime itself. The phrase eye for an eye comes from the Old Testament. Opponents to the argument say that it is old fashioned and even archaic. There are many parts of the Old Testament that are in direct contrast to the eye for an eye philosophy, and still more parts that would have us putting people to death for much less than murder. In looking at retribution, it is important for one to decide if we, as a people are providing morally just retribution to a criminal, or if we are exacting vengeance upon a person out of anger. The question raises many more inquiries into human rights, and our role as the protectors of each other. Recurrence is the word for the second pro Capital Punishment camp. There is the thought that a person that has killed before, has developed a certain propensity, or has obtained the kind of attitude that they have killed once, and are now more prone to do so again. There is a fear that if people are not put to death by law, they will, in certain cases, be paroled and kill again. The same fear exists for possible escapees. The most common argument for both sides of the death penalty debate is deterrence. Those that are proponents of capital punishment believe that potential

A look at Capital Punishment 4 criminals are deterred by the possible punishment of execution. The question here is simple. If we abolish the death penalty, are we creating a culture that causes an increase in future murder victims? Proponents of the death penalty contend that we are. Roy Adler and Mark Summers are two of these proponents who argue that the murder rate in the United States is directly related to how many executions were performed the year prior. In a chart recording their findings from 1979-2004, they show that as Capital Punishment became more popular through the 80s and 90s, the murder rate was in steady decline (Adler, 2004). Section II The most passionate arguments in opposing the death penalty are arguments surrounding the issue of putting innocent people to death. It is not possible to have a legal system that functions perfectly. Human interpretation of laws, the fallibility of human nature, and the impossibility of obtaining perfect information in each and every case are reasons why. If we concede that point, then isnt it a certainty that we will sentence innocent people to death, and eventually execute an innocent person? Is this acceptable? Is sentencing an innocent person occasionally acceptable if it allows the system as a whole to operate nearly flawlessly? There were 98 executions in the U.S. in 1999. . . There were 52 in 2009. . . There were 254 post-capital conviction exonerations between 1992 and 2009 from the advent and evolution of DNA testing (Thorburgh, 2009). Without DNA testing, a large percentage of that population, many of which were released back into the population due to their innocence, would have been put to death. In Illinois alone, in the 90s after the state reinstated the death penalty there were 9 inmates set free from death row after being proven innocent (Henderson, 1997). This, to

A look at Capital Punishment 5 many, raises major questions as to the fairness of the trials in our country, and the quality of law enforcement. There are a number of cases in which questions arose regarding the case of a person that had already been executed, one of which involved Cameron Todd Willingham. Willingham was executed in February 2004 for the murder of three small children who died in a fire. He was executed in the face of very strong DNA evidence, and the testimony of an arson investigator that many believed proved his innocence (Ryan, 2012). Detractors from capital punishment also argue as to its necessity. Most of the people on death row would surely receive an alternative sentence of life in prison without parole if they were not sentenced to death. These cases are the worst of the worst, and the likelihood that any of them would be paroled in minimal. Because of this, many would argue that even debating the topic of ethics in regards to the death penalty is moot. If there is an alternative that is equally as effective, should we not be using that rather than killing people as a people? The issue of cost also comes in to play. With an expensive and time-consuming appeals system, inmates stay on death row for a significant amount of time. Because of court fees and attorneys fees, among other costs, the process of sentencing someone to death can end up costing significantly more than giving someone a life without parole sentence. Many ask if we are paying the high costs for our capital punishment system at the expense of putting more law enforcement officers on the street, or improving the system in other ways. Even in states where prosecutors infrequently seek capital punishment the price can be $2-$4 million more than a conviction of life without parole. Florida spent between $25 and $50 million more per year on capital cases than if the same cases had received life without parole (Fagan,

A look at Capital Punishment 6 2006). This begs the question; if the cost of a capital punishment case is significantly higher to taxpayers, and there is an alternative that is equally effective, should we not go with the lower cost alternative? People that contest the side that say that there is clear deterrence from capital punishment would point to countries that do not allow for the government execution of prisoners, and their significantly lower murder rates. Examples of these countries are Australia and Great Britain. If our capital punishment system is working so well, then why is our murder rate one of the highest in the world despite the fact that we have the fifth highest execution rate as of April 2013 following only China, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (Manning, 2013)? Some argue that deterrence should be thrown out as an argument on either side of the issue. Because of the lack of data, and because there is no evidence that capital punishment serves as a stronger deterrent than life in prison without parole, many people say it is inhumane to consider capital punishment on the basis of deterrence toward future murder. In other words, if the evil of capital punishment is greater than the evil of life in prison; or if the difference between the two is significant, then the proof that the difference in deterrence between the two must also be significant to justify taking a human life (Reitan, 1993). If there isnt enough data, or we cant prove that people are deterred from committing murder due to the possibility of death, then should it be used as a reason for its existence? In most murders, which involve passion, and human emotion in the spur of the moment, are people really thinking about the possibility of being executed? If they cannot control their emotions enough to not end someones life, then do they have the capacity to think about murders consequences?

A look at Capital Punishment 7 In addition to these arguments, there is the notion that executing the person that has caused a significant amount of emotional pain and hardship on a family brings solace. I cant pretend to know what it feels like to lose someone at the hands of a heinous crime. By the same token, I cannot pretend to know what it feels like to have the killer of a family member executed, but it is hard for me to grasp the concept that killing someone would help anything at all. It does not bring loved ones back, and it does not change the act that was committed. Is revenge really a justifiable reason to kill a human being? What kind of human rights are we violating by deciding as a people to execute prisoners? After a terrible act like the murder of a family member has been committed, I dont believe there is anything that can help that situation. In my mind, two wrongs dont make a right. Capital Punishment will surely be a controversial issue for as long as it is an active policy. The two sides of the argument are very passionate and opinionated. I have presented three stances in support of the death penalty, and three stances against. While this does not evaluate every possible angle or argument, it is surely an accurate view of how complicated of a topic capital punishment is. When it comes to criminal justice in our country, every law that is passed affects each of us in different ways; it is no different with the laws regarding the death penalty. They affect us as a people emotionally, maybe more than any other issue. Murder and the punishment of murderers seem to touch each of us very personally, and in a way that breeds passion, and emotion. As long as we are repulsed by murder, and as long as we are stirred at the thought of a human taking another humans life, we will be in disagreement with each other over the treatment of killers.

Works Cited Adler, R., Summers, M. (2011) Econometric Estimates of Deterrence of the Death Penalty: Facts or Ideology? Kyklos Vol. 64, August 2011 No. 3 p. 449.

Fagan, J.A. (2006) Capital Punishment: Deterrent Effects & Capital Costs. Columbia Law School www.law.columbia.edu/law_school/communications/report/summer06/capitalpu.

Henderson, K. (1997) How Many Innocent Inmates are Executed? Human Rights Fall 97, Vol.24, Issue 4, p. 10-11.

Manning, A. (2013) 5 Surprising Facts About the Death Penalty Worldwide. National Geographic News.

Reitan, E. (1993) Why the Deterrence Argument for Capital Punishment Fails. Criminal Justice Ethics Vol. 12, Issue 1.

Ryan, M.J. (2012) Remedying Wrongful Execution. University Journal of Law Reform Vol. 45, no. 2, p. 261.

Sidanius, J., Mitchell, M., Haley, H., Navarette, C.D. (2006) Support for Harsh Criminal Sanctions and Criminal Justice Beliefs: A Social Dominance Perspective. Social Justice Research Vol. 19, p. 434.

Thorburgh, N. (2009) Resumed Innocent. Time Vol. 175, Issue 21.