Downfalls Of Capital Punishment Essay, Research Paper

Looking out for the state of the public?s satisfaction in the

scheme of capital sentencing does not constitute serving justice.

Today?s system of capital punishment is frought with inequalities and

injustices. The commonly offered arguments for the death penalty are

filled with holes. ?It was a deterrent. It removed killers. It was the

ultimate punishment. It is biblical. It satisfied the public?s need

for retribution. It relieved the anguish of the victim?s

family.?(Grisham 120) Realistically, imposing the death penalty is

expensive 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 involved in its enforcement, as well as

its victim.?(Stewart 1)

Perhaps the most frequent argument for capital punishment is

that of deterrence. The prevailing thought is that imposition of the

death penalty will act to dissuade other criminals from committing

violent acts. Numerous studies have been created attempting to prove

this belief; however, ?[a]ll the evidence taken together makes it hard

to be confident that capital punishment deters more than long prison

terms do.?(Cavanagh 4) Going ever farther, Bryan Stevenson, the

executive director of the Montgomery based Equal Justice Initiative,

has stated that ??people are increasingly realizing that the more we

resort to killing as a legitimate response to our frustration and

anger with violence, the more violent our society becomes?We could

execute all three thousand people on death row, and most people would

not feel any safer tomorrow.?(Frame 51) In addition, with the growing

humanitarianism of modern society, the number of inmates actually put

to death is substantially lower than 50 years ago. This decline

creates a situation in which the death penalty ceases to be a

deterrent when the populace begins to think that one can get away with

a crime and go unpunished. Also, the less that the death sentence is

used, the more it becomes unusual, thus coming in conflict with the

eighth amendment. This is essentially a 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 the death 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 to be

many instances of innocent people being sentenced to death.?(Tabak 38)

In our legal system, there exist numerous ways in which justice might

be poorly served for a recipient of the death sentence. Foremost is in

the handling of his own defense counsel. In the event that a defendant

is without counsel, a lawyer will be provided. ?Attorney?s appointed

to represent indigent capital defendants frequently lack the qualities

necessary to provide a competent defense and sometimes have exhibited

such poor character that they have subsequently been disbarred.?(Tabak

37). With payment caps or court determined sums of, for example, $5 an

hour, there is not much incentive for a lawyer to spend a great deal

of time representing a capital defendant.

When you compare this to the prosecution, ??aided by the

police, other law enforcement agencies, crime labs, state mental

hospitals, various other scientific resources, prosecutors

?experienced in successfully 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 has a

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 court itself when it appointed the

incapable lawyer.

Even if a defendant has proper legal counsel, there is still

the matter of impartiality of judges. ?The Supreme Court has steadily

reduced the availability of habeas corpus review of capital

convictions, placing its confidence in the notion that state judges,

who take the same oath of office as federal judges to uphold the

Constitution, can be trusted to enforce it.?(Bright 768) This makes

for the biased trying of a defendant?s appeals, ??given the

overwhelming pressure on elected state judges to heed, and perhaps

even lead to, the popular cries for the death of criminal

defendants.?(Bright 769) Thirty two of the states that impose the

death penalty also employ the popular election of judges, and several

of these even have judges run with party affiliations. This creates a

deeply political justice system — the words alone are a paradox. Can

society simply brush off mistaken execution as an incidental cost in

the greater scheme of putting a criminal to death? ?Revenge is an

unworthy motive for our society to pursue.?(Whittier 1) In our

society, there is a great expectation placed on the family of a victim

to pursue vengeance to the highest degree — the death penalty. Pat

Bane, 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 son because she did not want to

kill the person who murdered him.?(Frame 50) This creates a dilemma of

morality. If anything, by forcing families to seek the death penalty,

their own consciences will be burdened by the death of the killer.

Furthermore, ?[k]illing him will not bring back your son[s].?(Grisham

402). At some point, man must stop the violence. Seeking temporary

gratification is not a logical basis for whether the death penalty

should be imposed. Granted, revenge is easily confused with

retribution, and most would agree that the punishment should fit the

crime, but can society really justify murdering someone else simply on

the basis that they deserved it? Government has the right and duty to

protect the greater good against people who jeopardize the welfare of

society, but a killer can be sentenced to life without chance of

parole, and society will be just as safe as if he had been executed.

A vast misconception concerning the death penalty is that it saves

society the costs of keeping inmates imprisoned for long periods. In

the act of preserving due 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 and execution

for the 31 prisoners put on death row in 1992 was 114 months, or nine

and a half years.?(Stewart 50) ?Criminal justice process expenses,

trial court costs, appellate and post-conviction costs, and prison

costs perhaps including years served on death row awaiting

execution… all told, the extra costs per death penalty imposed in

over a quarter million dollars, and per execution exceeds $2 million.?

(Cavanagh 4) When you compare this 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

the hassle and money to kill a criminal, when we can put them away for

life for less money with a great deal more ease?

In earlier times–where capital punishment was common, the

value of life was less, and societies were more barbaric–capital

punishment was probably quite acceptable. However, in today?s society,

which is becoming ever more increasingly humanitarian, and individual

rights and due process of justice are held in high accord, the death

penalty is becoming an unrealistic form of punishment. Also, with the

ever present possibility of mistaken execution, there will remain the

question of innocence of those put to death. Finally, man is not a

divine being. He does not have the right to inflict mortal punishment

in the name of society?s welfare, when there are suitable substitutes

that require fewer resources. I ask society, ?…why don?t 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.?

Boston University 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: 50

Grisham, 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 Death Penalty Cases.? Human Rights 22.Winter (1995):

36

Whittier, Charles H. ?Moral Arguments For and Against Capital

Punishment.? CRS Report For Congress (1996): 1