death penalty Essay Example

justice system focuses on safeguarding the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property for all citizens.

The criminal justice system's objective is to deter potential offenders by ensuring that "plunder is more painful and more dangerous than labor." As a result, it is imperative for crime punishment to be appropriately severe. Therefore, the death penalty becomes a rational option as it ensures that criminals face repercussions for their actions, prevents them from recommitting crimes, and dissuades others contemplating similar offenses. The primary aim of implementing the death penalty is to protect American lives; thus, focus should be placed on those who benefit from its implementation. When evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of capital punishment, it is crucial not to overlook the victims.

The victims of a flawed justice system are the individuals who have lost their lives. It is important to always remember these innocent victims when considering the use of capital punishment. Many innocent people have already died, and thousands more continue to die each year. According to Time magazine, in the United States alone, over 2,000,000 individuals experience beatings, stabbings, shootings, and other forms of assault annually, resulting in 23,000 fatal incidents (2). When discussing the death penalty, it is crucial to recognize that there are two distinct groups at risk.

There is often a discrepancy in focus between the convicted murderer facing execution and the disregarded victim who lost their life. Joseph Stalin coined the famous quote, "One death is a tragedy, but a million deaths are statistics."(3) When an apprehended murderer is proven guilty, it is essential for justice to ensure that they are unable to commit another murder. If the law aims to

protect our right to life, it must have the ability to discourage convicted murderers from repeating their crimes. Surprisingly, our criminal justice system does not succeed in fulfilling this goal.

The imprisonment period for murder is typically less than six years.(4) Within six years of their release, six percent of young adults who were convicted of murder and released on parole since 1978 were re-arrested for murder.(5) This suggests that approximately six percent of all murderers were apprehended, convicted, imprisoned, released, and then committed another murder. If the initial execution had taken place, at least six percent of all murders could have been prevented. In 1995, North Carolina recorded 750 homicides.(6) By preventing repeat murderers alone, at least forty-five lives could have been saved in North Carolina during that year. Implementing an effective form of the death penalty could spare a similar number of lives each year. An example illustrating the advantage of the death penalty occurred in India during the 1800s.

During the colonization of India by Great Britain, there existed a religion referred to as the Thuggee religion. The Thuggees were notorious for being an incredibly violent and brutal gang of thieves. Their atrocities included the murder of thousands of individuals, primarily foreigners, to steal their money. Remarkably, this cult mandated that each member must commit at least one murder annually. To address this issue, the British authorities swiftly responded by apprehending and executing thousands of Thuggees.

After several years, the leader of the Thugees was apprehended and put to death. In the course of his trial, it was discovered that he had brutally killed 931 individuals. By 1883, the British had effectively resolved the issue

by executing the final known Thuggee. (7) Frequently, critics contend that there exist certain criminals who are so mentally disturbed, so unafraid, so confident in their ability to elude capture that they will commit murder regardless of the consequences. If this applied to anyone, it certainly applied to the Thuggees.

Yet, it is often overlooked that the death penalty can have a significant impact by eliminating relentless murderers who would kill regardless of the penalty. The number of lives saved after executing all the Thuggees is incalculable. Those against the death penalty claim that repeat murderers are rare, but if we can prevent six percent of all murders and save forty-five lives annually just in North Carolina, who wants to bear responsibility for those forty-five unnecessary deaths that occur each year because our government fails to take action against murderers from the start? While the death penalty may deter repeat murders and save lives, opponents argue that it has no deterrent effect. Nevertheless, numerous studies suggest the opposite is true.

A study conducted by W. Bailey between 1967-68 revealed that 27 states exhibited a deterrent effect (8). This effect was also observed in 25 states in a subsequent study (9). The United States witnessed a 100% increase in murder during the suspension of capital punishment (10). Analyzing 14 nations that abolished the death penalty, there was a 7% rise in the murder rate from the period before abolition to the period after abolition (11).

In Texas, Harris County has had the highest number of executions since 1990 compared to any other state in the US. During this time, Harris County experienced a significant decline of 48% in crime,

making it the most substantial nationwide. Notably, Harris County’s peak homicide rate occurred in 1981, just one year before Texas reinstated the death penalty (12).

All these studies indicate a correlation between implementing the death penalty and reducing homicide rates. Another study conducted by Stephen K. Layton at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found that each execution deters an average of eighteen murders (13). By increasing utilization of capital punishment, it has potential to save thousands of lives.

Since 1977, Utah has conducted a total of five executions. Following each execution, there was a noticeable decrease in the homicide rate. Criminologist Steven Stack supported this correlation and found that highly publicized executions resulted in a significant reduction in the homicide rate. Interestingly, this decline was more prominent among white individuals compared to black individuals.

Poet Hyam Barshay likened the death penalty to a lighthouse that serves as both warning and prevention for potential shipwrecks while safely guiding ships. Although concrete evidence on the exact number of lives saved by the death penalty may be lacking, Barshay highlights its importance and discourages its dismantling.

However, despite its deterrent effect, enhancing the effectiveness of the death penalty could be achieved through more frequent implementation.

According to deterrence theory, in order to prevent crime, justice must be swift, severe, and certain. However, the death penalty does not meet these requirements. The average time spent on death row before execution is ten years (17), indicating that it fails to fulfill the swiftness criterion. Additionally, the execution rate per murder from 1977 until now is only 0.055 percent (18), suggesting that for every 1800 murders committed, only one person is executed. Thus,

the death penalty also lacks certainty. Consequently, most murderers can reasonably assume they will not receive a death sentence.

Implementing the death penalty swiftly and consistently would effectively decrease occurrences of homicide. The fear of death is a fundamental part of human behavior, causing individuals to carefully think about the potential consequences before acting, both consciously and unconsciously.

The use of capital punishment and expedited processes could enhance justice by swiftly delivering severe and certain punishment for murderers, potentially lowering the homicide rate. While it is not possible to make instant death a reality, our government has the power to increase the use of capital punishment. Implementing this can provide significant protection for potential victims. However, opponents argue that innocent individuals may be wrongly executed, which needs addressing.

The consequences of wrongly executing an innocent person are far more severe compared to the possibility of sending an innocent man to prison or fining them. The finality and seriousness of the death penalty amplify these consequences. While there is no concrete evidence of innocent executions, some studies suggest they may have occurred. The Bedau-Radlet Study, considered the most comprehensive in this field, identified twenty-two cases where wrongful execution was possible. However, other studies like Markman and Cassal criticize this study for its flawed methodology.

These critics argue that twelve of those cases had significant evidence supporting guilt and no evidence supporting innocence. In the remaining eleven cases, the Bedau-Radlet study did not adequately consider the jury's verdict. Although questionable circumstances were present, there was no proof of actual innocence on behalf of the defendant.

It is important to note that our judicial system takes numerous precautions to protect the rights of

innocent individuals.

To understand this concept, one must examine the complex process of convicting and sentencing an individual for first-degree murder. First, the person is apprehended and provided with legal representation. The evidence presented must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of committing first-degree murder and mentally competent at the time of the crime. After a five to six week trial, another trial takes place to determine if imposing the death penalty is appropriate. Once again, a full trial is conducted.

The defense presents evidence to argue against imposing a death sentence on the murderer. Once the sentence is given, it is automatically appealed to the state Supreme Court, and this process may be followed by multiple appeals. After ten years of utilizing all available legal options and employing delaying tactics, the murderer is ultimately executed.

There is ongoing debate over whether the death penalty should be abolished, despite precautions taken to prevent the execution of innocent individuals. It is important to recognize that although the likelihood of executing an innocent person is low, it remains a significant concern. Supporters also claim that the death penalty saves lives by eliminating repeat murderers and deterring potential ones. When making a decision on this issue, it is crucial to consider both the victims who have suffered and the defendant facing execution.

According to Wesley Lowe (21), sacrificing the lives of forty-five innocent individuals is deemed acceptable in order to prevent the execution of any innocent person. In an imperfect world, individuals must be willing to assume certain risks for the sake of relative safety. This is evident in society's acceptance of the risk of dying in car

accidents due to its convenience. Similarly, if risking potential wrongful executions means saving thousands of innocent lives from becoming murder victims, then it can be justified. Moreover, discrimination further emphasizes opposition against the death penalty since eighty-two percent of murder victims are white and thirteen percent are black.

Opponents of the death penalty, such as the NAACP, argue that there is a perception of racial bias within the system. Statistics indicate that while 55% of those who are executed are white, blacks account for 39%. This raises inquiries about why black individuals, who commit 49% of all murders, do not face a higher execution rate compared to whites (39%) from 1976-1994. However, it's important to note that successful prosecutions rely on the nature of the crime rather than the race of the victim. The greater number of white victims in death row cases can be attributed to the fact that capital crimes more frequently target whites. This point was stressed in the McClesky v. case.

The court ruling in Zant declares that there is no indication of racial bias in the implementation of the death penalty, and it does not violate the clause prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Instead of completely abolishing the punishment, any existing racial bias should be acknowledged and corrected. Ernest van den Haag argues that discrimination should be rectified without exempting guilty black individuals from the death penalty while imposing it on guilty white individuals. The aim should be to guarantee equal consequences for both guilty white and black offenders. To eliminate discrimination, it must be directly addressed instead of eradicating penalties entirely.

However, even if this cannot be done, I do not see

any good reason to let any guilty murderer escape his penalty. It does happen in the administration of criminal justice that one person gets away with murder and another is executed. Yet the fact that one gets away with it is no reason to let another one escape.'"(24) One of the problems with the death penalty right now is that it is rarely used that it often seems arbitrary. The proposal set forth later in this paper makes the death penalty the standard punishment for murder and removes the loopholes. This proposal would make a racist application of the death penalty nearly impossible. If the death penalty were to be the standard punishment for murder, and the rules deciding who received the death penalty were tightened, the death penalty would apply equally to the people of all races.

Opponents of the death penalty argue that execution is equivalent to murder and using it as a means to stop murder is like fighting fire with fire. They believe that executing criminals makes the state no better than the murderers themselves. However, this argument can be discredited by drawing analogies. If execution is considered murder, then killing someone in a war would also be considered murder. As a result, our country should refrain from engaging in any further wars.

The proposition of wars and killing being necessary, although tragic, to protect the rights of a group is realized to be ridiculous. It is necessary for the death penalty to protect a person's right to live. Arresting someone for a crime is not the same as kidnapping, and confiscation of property to pay a debt is not the same as

theft. Similarly, executing someone is not murder, but rather punishment imposed by society on a deserving criminal. To comprehend the current form of capital punishment, it is essential to consider its history and constitutionality.

Throughout the history of the United States, the death penalty has been a part of our society. Initially, it was required for various offenses such as murder. However, over time, a few individuals started to express their opposition towards capital punishment. While the majority of Americans continued to favor it, there were instances where these individuals served on juries for cases involving the death penalty. As a consequence, lawmakers noticed that juries were less inclined to convict when the death penalty was mandatory, which ultimately led to a modification and diminishment of death penalty legislation.

Instead of the mandatory death sentence, the decision on the sentence to be given would be made by juries. Furthermore, several crimes that were previously eligible for the death penalty were removed from the list of capital offenses. Consequently, the death penalty gradually became a discretionary punishment for first-degree murder. In 1971, this was affirmed in the case of McGautha v.

California and Crampton v. Ohio established that it is not necessary for states to outline the specific factors for the jury to consider when imposing the death penalty. The case also recognized that although bifurcated trials are preferred, they are not obligatory. However, surprisingly, this decision was reversed just one year later in Furman v. Georgia in 1972.

The Supreme Court in Georgia ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional due to its unfair and unequal implementation. The eighth and fourteenth amendments were considered, particularly in relation to the

due process and equal protection clauses (27). The Supreme Court deemed the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment as a result of its current execution. To reinstate the death penalty, states needed to establish consistent criteria and instructions for juries in determining its use. Following the Furman v. Georgia case, some states established mandatory death penalty statutes for specific crimes.

However, in Woodson v. North Carolina, the death penalty laws were reversed. As a result, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and twenty-two other states developed new laws that reintroduced the death penalty, but with specific aggravating and mitigating circumstances(28). The aggravating circumstances were factors that justified the imposition of the death penalty, while the mitigating circumstances were factors that argued against it.

According to the ruling in Lockett v. Ohio, states are not allowed to restrict the types of mitigating circumstances that can be considered by juries (29). For the death penalty to truly achieve its intended benefits, it needs to be consistently and regularly enforced. However, there are currently several issues with how the death penalty is being carried out. One problem is that second degree murder is not receiving sufficient punishment. Second degree murder refers to the intentional and unlawful killing of another person without any valid reason, excuse, or provocation.

Currently, second degree murder carries a punishment of fifteen years imprisonment, but this can be reduced based on significant mitigating factors. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that most criminals do not serve their full sentence. Such a criminal justice system fails to prevent repeat offenses and does little to discourage potential murderers. Despite being categorized into two degrees, first and second degree murder are essentially the same

offense. The only distinction lies in the requirement for premeditation and deliberation in first degree murder cases. Both degrees involve the "unlawful killing of another human being with malice." It is difficult to comprehend how premeditation and deliberation elevate the severity of the crime if the perpetrator had the intent to kill regardless.

The question of whether or not a victim is any less deceased if a murderer did not premeditate and deliberate on the act, and if the guilty party is any less culpable, arises. Additionally, there is the challenge of establishing first-degree murder due to its difficult nature to prove. Classification as first-degree murder necessitates the demonstration of premeditation and deliberation. While this may seem uncomplicated, it is crucial to examine the burden of proof required by the prosecution to convict the defendant of first-degree murder. Specifically, premeditation refers to planning the act beforehand for a certain period, while deliberation entails the intent to kill in a composed mental state, with the motive of seeking revenge or accomplishing an unlawful objective, and without being influenced by a sudden violent passion provoked by lawful cause or legal provocation. Both aspects present difficulties in terms of establishing guilt as they delve into the criminal's mindset, involve intricate definitions, and are often reliant on circumstantial evidence. Nevertheless, this represents only the initial stage of the intricate legal challenges that prosecutors must navigate to secure a conviction.There are several factors that prosecutors have to take into account in order to prove a first-degree murder. These include ensuring that the defendant's emotional state did not impair their judgment, determining if the killing occurred during a quarrel or fight, considering

any previous hostile feelings or prior acts of aggression, evaluating the nature and number of wounds inflicted, examining any inappropriate behavior towards and efforts to hide the victim's body, assessing if the slaying was particularly savage and brutal, determining if the defendant consumed alcohol before the incident, and taking into consideration various other factors that may impose limits on the case.

A trial for first degree murder typically lasts around six weeks, due to its complex nature. These trials are both lengthy and costly, and the appeals process is also time-consuming and expensive. According to the Attorney General's Office, a capital case, which is a trial for first degree murder, usually involves 3,000 to 5,000 pages of court record. (30) The trial itself is expensive, but the court record must be reviewed in every appeal made by both sides' attorneys, as well as by the appeals court and the judges involved. Due to the large number of pages involved, the appeals process for these cases takes significantly longer compared to appeals for second degree murder. This lengthy process is a major factor contributing to the approximately 10-year period murderers spend on death row before being executed. (31) (32) Under the Homicide Reform Act (refer to appendix A), first degree murder and second degree murder will be treated as the same crime and carry a punishment of death or life imprisonment.

The definition of murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, express or implied (33). This means that first and second degree murder will be combined and referred to as murder, with the standard legal definition. The death penalty is not frequently imposed,

even on those convicted of first degree murder, because current death penalty statutes typically result in life imprisonment as the usual punishment for such cases. The Capital Punishment Reform Act (found in appendix B) aims to change this by making the death penalty the standard punishment for murder. Its purpose is to reform capital punishment statutes and establish the death penalty as the typical consequence for committing murder.

Although the option of life imprisonment remains for those convicted of murder, the criteria for this punishment have become more limited. This legislation maintains that murder should be punishable by death. According to the proposed bill, if someone is found guilty of murder, the jury must demonstrate the presence of one or more significant mitigating factors in order to justify the reduced sentence of life imprisonment. Otherwise, the murderer would receive a death sentence. Under the current laws governing capital punishment, life imprisonment is the standard penalty. To impose a death sentence, the jury must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of one or more substantial aggravating circumstances, while also ensuring that there were no mitigating factors that outweighed the aggravating circumstance.

If both of these conditions are found to be true by the jury, the death penalty can be imposed. The Capital Punishment Reform Act changes this pattern, making the death penalty the typical punishment. To sentence someone to life imprisonment instead, the jury must demonstrate that there are one or more mitigating circumstances that they found beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, they must determine that the aggravating circumstance is not enough to outweigh any mitigating circumstances. Should these conditions be established by the jury, they

can impose a sentence of life imprisonment rather than the death penalty.

According to our existing death penalty laws, unanimous agreement from all twelve jurors is required for the sentencing. Should any one juror object to the majority decision, the convicted murderer will receive a life imprisonment sentence instead. Given the diverse array of ideologies, thoughts, and philosophies that exist, if even a single individual within a group of twelve has the power to prevent the implementation of the death penalty, it can never be considered the default punishment for murder.

My bill, under Section (b), proposes that only nine out of the twelve jurors are required to agree on the punishment.(34) Thus, if three-fourths of the jurors deem the person deserving of death, then they shall be sentenced to death. Moreover, if the nine jurors fail to reach a unanimous decision, the judge will determine an appropriate sentence. However, in most instances, it is expected that nine out of twelve jurors will be able to reach a verdict on their own. In contrast to the current death penalty laws, a sentence of death undergoes automatic review by the state Supreme Court, whereas a life imprisonment sentence does not receive automatic review. During this review process, the Supreme Court evaluates whether the death penalty was excessively severe and addresses any other relevant matters raised in the appeal. This is another legislation that impedes the implementation of the death penalty.

The Supreme Court should only be responsible for checking any mistakes or errors made during the case, as the jury has already determined that the aggravating circumstance is more significant than any mitigating ones. Automatically reviewing the death sentence

is not required. The defendant should have the right to appeal, and the Supreme Court should review the assigned matters on appeal.

According to the Capital Punishment Reform Act, the defendant has the right to appeal to the state Supreme Court, which will review any assigned matters on appeal. Under the current death penalty statutes, a sentence of death can only be given if certain aggravating circumstances are proven by the jury. This requirement makes life imprisonment the typical punishment, as it must be shown that at least one aggravating circumstance is true to impose a death sentence. To establish the death penalty as the standard punishment for first degree murder, it should be sufficient for murder alone to be considered an aggravating circumstance.

The Capital Punishment Reform Act states that murdering another human being is the only aggravating circumstance. Therefore, as everyone convicted of murder has committed this act, there will always be an aggravating circumstance. The other aggravating circumstances are not necessary and have been removed. On the other hand, the current death penalty laws have many and diverse mitigating circumstances. Furthermore, any other circumstances arising from the evidence, which the jury considers to have mitigating value, is also considered a mitigating circumstance.

If the death penalty is to remain the prescribed punishment for first-degree murder, a restriction on the range of mitigating circumstances is necessary, resulting in the elimination of many of them. One such circumstance is when "the defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity." This implies that committing first-degree murder is permissible if one has no prior criminal record, thereby undermining the overall deterrent impact of the death penalty. Therefore, this

mitigating circumstance should be abolished.

(2), (3), and (4) are necessary to keep. Speaking of (5), it is important to acknowledge that premeditated murder is inherently wrong and must face consequences regardless of external pressures. The existence of the death penalty as a standard punishment for murder serves as a deterrent for potential perpetrators who may have been coerced. Consequently, (5) should be omitted. As for (6), if the mitigating circumstance mentioned is genuinely valid and significant enough, it is already encompassed by (2).

(6) needs to be eliminated due to the numerous opportunities for exploitation. (7) Age is a significant factor to consider! Please keep in mind the Bibliography. Whenever the topic of the "death penalty" arises, extremists from opposing viewpoints immediately begin vocalizing their arguments. One side asserts the concept of deterrence, while the other side emphasizes the potential for wrongfully executing an innocent person. On one hand, there are advocates for justice, retribution, and punishment; on the other hand, opponents believe that execution equates to murder. However, setting aside all these arguments, the most reasonable and exclusive manner of arriving at a judgement concerning capital punishment is to investigate the purpose of our criminal justice system.

Once the purpose of the criminal justice system is established, one must find out the purpose of capital punishment. This paper aims to demonstrate that the purpose of capital punishment aligns with and embodies the purpose of the criminal justice system. Additionally, it will assess whether the current form of the death penalty fulfills its purpose and suggest improvements to enhance its efficiency and effectiveness. The central question to address is: "What is the purpose of the criminal justice

system and does the death penalty contribute to achieving that purpose?" According to Federic Bastiat's The Law, humans possess inalienable rights that preexist and transcend government. These rights include life, liberty, and property. Bastiat argues that the sole legitimate function of government is to safeguard these rights.

When someone violates another person's rights or exploits them, it can be considered as plundering, according to Bastiat. He raises the question of when plundering ceases, and he answers that it stops when it becomes more laborious and risky than actually working. Hence, it is evident that the main objective of law should be to utilize its collective power to prevent this destructive inclination towards plundering and promote productivity. All legal measures should be aimed at safeguarding property and punishing those who engage in plundering. People will continue to commit crimes and take advantage of others as long as it serves their own interests.

The purpose of our entire criminal justice system is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property for all its citizens. To achieve this, the criminal justice system must ensure that committing a crime is more painful and dangerous than labor. Consequently, it is crucial for the punishment for crime to be severe enough to discourage potential criminals. In line with this perspective, the death penalty is a logical approach. This form of punishment effectively holds the criminal accountable for their actions, prevents them from committing further crimes, and acts as a deterrent for others considering the same crime.

The primary intention of the death penalty is to safeguard the right of Americans to live. Therefore, the foremost focus shoul