Capital punishment Narrative Essay Example

justice system - past, present, and future casualties. It is crucial to never forget these innocent victims in conversations about capital punishment. Many unjust killings have occurred with thousands losing their lives each year. According to Time Magazine's report (Toufexis 53), there are over 2 million assault victims in the United States alone annually resulting in 23,000 fatalities. Therefore, any debate on capital punishment should consider both the executed murderers and the forgotten victims.As Joseph Stalin famously stated (Lowe 6), "One death is a tragedy but a million deaths are statistics." Once apprehended and convicted for murder, it seems fair that murderers should be prevented from causing further harm.Unfortunately, our criminal justice system fails to achieve its objective.The shocking fact is that the average prison sentence for murder is less than six years (Jacobs 80), and a concerning statistic reveals that six percent of young adults released after being convicted of murder were arrested for another murder within the following six years ("Justice for All" 3). In other words, six percent of all murderers were caught, convicted, freed, and then committed murder again. According to crime statistics in North Carolina in 1995, there were 750 murders reported (Crime Statistics1). If those murderers had been executed, at least forty-five lives could have been saved - equivalent to six percent of these murders. This potential for saving lives through an effective form of the death penalty can be seen in a historical example from India during the 1800s. At that time, India faced a notorious gang known as the Thuggees who killed thousands of people and stole their money, particularly targeting foreigners. The Thuggee religion even required

each member to commit at least one murder every year. To combat this threat, British authorities promptly arrested and executed numerous Thuggees. Eventually, they captured and executed their leader, who was found guilty of murdering 931 individuals. By 1883, thanks to capital punishment,the British successfully eradicated the Thuggee issue (Lowe 3). This example clearly demonstrates the positive impact that effective implementation of the death penalty can have on society.Critics argue that certain criminals, like the Thuggees, are so dangerous and fearless that they would still commit murder regardless of punishment. However, it is important not to overlook how capital punishment can significantly impact society by eliminating brutal murderers who cannot be deterred by other forms of punishment. The elimination of the Thuggees saved countless lives and shows how an efficient death penalty system can benefit society as a whole.

Opponents claim that while repeat murderers are rare, it is important to prevent unnecessary deaths resulting from the government's failure to effectively address these killers. They argue that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent for murder. However, studies conducted by W. Bailey during 1967-68 confirmed a deterrent effect in 27 states ("Justice For All" 5). His subsequent study also validated a similar effect in 25 states ("Justice For All" 5). Additionally, when the United States imposed a moratorium on capital punishment, murder rates increased by 100% ("Justice For All" 5).

Further evidence comes from an investigation into 14 nations that abolished the death penalty; according to "Justice For All," murder rates increased by 7% when comparing the five years before abolition with the five years after.Harris County in Texas has had the highest number of

executions since 1990. Surprisingly, there has been a significant decrease in crime, especially homicides, with a drop of forty-eight percent between 1990 and 1995. The peak homicide rate in Harris County occurred in1981 just before Texas reinstated the death penalty. Multiple studies have demonstrated that implementing the death penalty is linked to a decrease in the homicide rate.

Stephen K. Layton's research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill reveals that each execution deters an average of eighteen murders.By increasing the use of capital punishment, many lives could potentially be saved.In Utah, there have been five executions since 1977, and after each one, there was a significant decline in the homicide rate.Moreover, criminologist Steven Stack found that a highly publicized execution resulted in a drop in the homicide rate, particularly among white individuals.Hyam Barshay compares the death penalty to a lighthouse warning ships of impending danger: "We hear about shipwrecks but we do not hear about ships safely guided on their way...We do not have proof of how many ships it saves but we do not tear down lighthouses."

Despite the deterrent effect of the death penalty, its effectiveness could be even greater if it were implemented more frequently and swiftly according to deterrence theory requirements.Despite the multiple appeals processes and delays involved in capital punishment cases, the swiftness of justice with severe consequences is lacking. On average, it takes individuals ten years on death row before they are executed (Jacobs 77). Moreover, only 0.055 percent of murders from 1977 until now have resulted in an execution (1995 World Almanac). This highlights the uncertainty surrounding the death penalty – for every 1800 murders committed, only

one person is executed. Most murderers can expect to avoid capital punishment due to this lack of certainty.

However, if the death penalty were made swift and certain, there would likely be a significant decrease in the homicide rate. The fear of instantaneous death would act as a deterrent for potential murderers. While achieving this scenario may be impossible, the government can enhance justice by implementing capital punishment more effectively through faster procedures and shorter appeals processes.

It is important to note that opponents argue against capital punishment due to the possibility of wrongly executing an innocent person despite its benefits in protecting potential victims' lives. They assert that imprisoning or fining an innocent individual has far more unjust consequences due to its finality and severity. However, similar risks are often overlooked. Although there is no concrete evidence of innocent individuals being executed, some studies suggest the possibility of wrongful executions ("Justice For All" 2).The Bedau-Radlet Study, which is often cited as a study on wrongfully executed men, identified twenty-two cases where defendants may have been wrongly executed. However, other studies such as Markman and Cassal criticized its flawed methodology and found substantial evidence of guilt in at least twelve of those cases with no evidence of innocence. In the remaining eleven instances, the jury's verdict was given little importance in the Bedau-Radlet study, and only questionable evidence was available to demonstrate the defendant's possible innocence ("Justice For All" 2).

It should be noted that our judicial system has numerous measures in place to protect the rights of innocent individuals. To understand this better requires considering the complex process involved in convicting someone for first-degree murder and imposing

a death sentence - from arrest to legal representation provided and presenting evidence beyond reasonable doubt establishing their guilt ("Justice For All" 2). Furthermore, it must also be demonstrated that the defendant was mentally sound at the time (source not mentioned).

Following a five to six week trial, a second trial is conducted to determine if the defendant should receive capital punishment. In this subsequent trial, the defense presents evidence arguing against imposing death on this murderer. After being sentenced to death, the case is automatically appealed to the state Supreme Court. During this stage, various appeals can be filed by the defendant.After a decade of exhausting all legal avenues and delay tactics, the murderer is finally executed. This lengthy process highlights the precautions taken to ensure that no innocent person faces capital punishment. The debate over whether executing an innocent person justifies abolishing the death penalty should also consider the lives saved through it - eliminating serial killers and deterring potential murderers. Both victims and defendants need to be considered in this discussion. Is it acceptable to sacrifice 45 innocent lives in order to prevent one innocent person from being executed? In a flawed world, citizens must take risks for relative safety, as eloquently stated by Wesley Lowe (Lowe 5). Just as society accepts the risk of car accidents for the convenience of using automobiles, it also deems it acceptable to risk wrongful executions in order to protect innocent lives. Capital punishment has faced criticism due to allegations of race discrimination within the justice system. Statistics reveal that approximately 82% of murder victims are white while only 13% are black, creating a ratio of about

6:1. Critics argue that this demonstrates a higher value placed on white lives compared to black lives within the justice system. However, interestingly enough, African Americans account for only 39% of those executed while Caucasians make up 55%, despite African Americans accounting for 49% of all murders and Caucasians accounting for 39%.The primary determinant for successful prosecution should be the crime's nature rather than the victim's race. In the case of McClesky v.Zant, it was concluded that there is no racial bias in applying the death penalty. Therefore, it can be inferred that capital punishment does not exhibit racism or violate any cruel or unusual punishment clause. If discriminatory practices exist, they should be addressed and rectified instead of abolishing punishment entirely. Ernest van den Haag argues that to correct discrimination, guilty white and black offenders should receive equal application of the death penalty. Discrimination itself must be abolished rather than just penalties; however, if this is not feasible, there is no valid reason for any murderer to escape punishment (Lowe 5). The current issue with the death penalty lies in its infrequent use, which creates a perception of arbitrariness. This paper proposes establishing the death penalty as the standard punishment for murder while eliminating any loopholes to ensure fair and non-discriminatory implementation. Opponents claim that executing someone is equivalent to murder and that using fire against fire makes the state no better than criminals. Nevertheless, this argument can be discredited through various analogies. Just as wars are at times necessary to protect a group's rights, the death penalty serves to safeguard the right to lifeSimilarly, the act of arresting an individual for committing a

crime should not be confused with kidnapping, just as taking someone's property to settle a debt should not be regarded as theft ("Justice For All" 1). In the past, certain crimes such as murder were automatically met with the death penalty. However, due to opposition and changes in legislation, juries began determining appropriate sentences and many offenses ceased to be considered capital crimes. Legislative modifications made it possible for first-degree murder cases to have the death penalty as an optional punishment. Initially, states did not have to specify factors for jury consideration when imposing the death penalty, and bifurcated trials were preferred but not obligatory. Nevertheless, in 1972's Furman v.Georgia case, this ruling was overturned. Consequently, there was a shift in responsibility from automatic sentencing to juries deciding on suitable sentences. Moreover, some crimes that were once eligible for capital punishment were removed from that category entirely. As a result of these changes and developments over time, first-degree murder cases now have the choice of receiving capital punishment or another form of penalty. The Supreme Court stated in the 1971 cases McGautha v.California and Crampton v.Ohio that specifying factors for juries and holding bifurcated trials were not required according to state statutes (McGautha v.California; Crampton v.Ohio).The decision to implement the death penalty in Georgia was declared unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia due to its unequal and unfair application, which relied on both the eighth and fourteenth amendments. The Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment as it was being carried out constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Following this case, states were required to establish consistent standards for determining when the death penalty should be used. Mandatory

death penalty laws for specific crimes were overturned in cases like Woodson v. North Carolina. As a result, several states passed new laws reinstating the death penalty by considering specific aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances justified imposing capital punishment while mitigating circumstances argued against it. Lockett v. Ohio confirmed that states cannot restrict the types of mitigating circumstances considered by juries. Consistent administration of the death penalty is crucial for realizing its benefits fully.
Considering these factors, there are several issues with the current implementation of the death penalty. One specific concern is the inadequate punishment for second-degree murder, which involves intentionally and unlawfully killing someone without reason or provocation. Currently, those convicted of second-degree murder may receive a prison sentence of fifteen years or less with mitigating circumstances. It is important to note that many criminals do not serve their full sentences. This leniency allows murderers to be released after only a few years, failing to prevent repeat offenses and deter potential murderers. Although murder is divided into two degrees, the act itself remains unchanged. The only distinction between first-degree and second-degree murder is that premeditation and deliberation must be proven for first-degree cases. However, it is challenging to see how proving premeditation and deliberation makes the crime worse if someone successfully intends to kill another person. Despite planning or lack thereof, the victim remains deceased and the perpetrator guilty. Establishing first-degree murder presents an additional challenge due to its difficulty in proving premeditation and deliberation as prerequisites for categorizing a murder as such.Understanding what needs to be proven in order to convict someone of first-degree murder is crucial. The main challenges in proving

premeditation and deliberation are related to determining the defendant's state of mind, complex definitions, and reliance on circumstantial evidence. Prosecutors also face additional obstacles when establishing first-degree murder. These include assessing the defendant's emotional state and judgment impairment, investigating if the killing happened during a dispute or struggle, examining prior hostile sentiments or past assaults, evaluating the severity and quantity of inflicted wounds, scrutinizing attempts to conceal or mistreat the victim's body, considering the level of brutality involved in the killing, determining if alcohol was consumed beforehand, and taking into account various other limiting factors. The trial for first-degree murder typically lasts about six weeks due to its intricate nature. Additionally, these trials are time-consuming and expensive. Furthermore, the appeals process is also lengthy and costly with capital cases often involving 3,000 to 5,000 pages of court records according to the Attorney General's Office. Both attorneys on opposing sides present these records during every appeal before the appeals court and judges involved. Due to the high number of pages involved, appeals in first-degree murder cases take significantly longer compared to second-degree murder cases.The death penalty process often results in murderers spending approximately ten years on death row before being executed, primarily due to the lengthy appeals process. Despite these challenges, the death penalty serves as an appropriate form of punishment, but adjustments are necessary to increase efficiency. This includes reducing court and confinement time for inmates to effectively fulfill its purpose. Prolonged incarceration leads to higher tax expenditure on inmate confinement. Therefore, it is crucial to prioritize efficient procedures and move away from sentimental notions for effective justice delivery. Selected Bibliography: - Bastiat, Frederic."The Law."

The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1853, pp.24-26.- "Crime statistics." North Carolina Attorney General's Office, 1995,p.1.- Duff Charles.A Handbook on Hanging.Boston: Hale,Cushman,and Flint 1929.- "Death Penalty Statistics," North Carolina Attorney General's Office 1997(2).- Garner,Bryan A.Black's Law Dictionary.St.Paul: West Publishing Company 1996 The following sources provide information about the death penalty and crime statistics in the United States: - "Death Penalty and Sentencing Information in the United States." Internet. - Lowe, Wesley."Wesley Lowe's Pro Death Penalty Webpage." Internet. - Nancy Jacobs, Alison Landes, and Mark A. Siegel.Capital Punishment, Cruel and Unusual?.O'Brien, David M.Constitutional Law and Politics.Second Edition.The sources used in this text include:

1. New York: W.W.Norton and Co.,1994.
2. Wylie: Information Plus, 1996.p68 - "1995 World Almanac".
3. Morin, Richard."UNCONVENTIONAL WISDOM; New facts and hot stats from the social sciences." The Washington Post.January 7, 1996.
4. Toufexis, Anastasia."Seeking the Roots of Violence." Time.19 April 1993: 53.
5. Bastiat, Frederic.The Law.New York: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.1853.24-26.
6. Lowe, Wesley."Wesley Lowe's Pro Death Penalty Webpage."
7. Nancy Jacobs, Alison Landes, and Mark A.Siegel.Capital Punishment,Cruel and Unusual?.Wylie: Information Plus, 1996.[80]
8. "Crime statistics." North Carolina Attorney General's Office.1995.[1]
9. "Justice for all.Death Penalty and Sentencing Information in the United States."
10.source23) O'Brien, David M.Constitutional Law and Politics, Second Edition.New York: W.W.Norton & Co., 1994.(source23)
11.Death Penalty Statistics, North Carolina Attorney General's Office
12.(source24)4

According to source number eight (North Carolina Attorney General's Office), it is expected that with new laws at both federal and state levels regarding capital punishment appeals processes would be faster; however it is still anticipated to take around five years (source one). Other sources referenced include a newspaper article from The Washington Post titled "UNCONVENTIONAL WISDOM; New facts and hot stats from the social

sciences" by Richard Morin (source three-five), a book titled Capital Punishment,Cruel and Unusual? by Nancy Jacobs, Alison Landes, and Mark A.Siegel (source seven), and a webpage called Wesley Lowe's Pro Death Penalty Webpage (source six).5 Malice is the intentional taking of someone's life without justification. 6 Express malice refers to the deliberate intent to kill or seriously injure. 7 Implied malice is inferred from a person's conduct, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary. In cases involving capital punishment, there are typically two trials. The first trial determines guilt or innocence, while the second trial determines whether the defendant will receive the death penalty or life imprisonment. It should be noted that for the second trial, 9 out of 12 jurors must agree on the punishment - not for the first trial. This bill will not change the procedure for the first trial. (Source: Duff, Charles.A Handbook on Hanging.Boston: Hale, Cushman and Flint.1929.)