FREE ESSAY ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Capital Punishment: An Eye For An Eye?
In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue.
Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters,
routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death
penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents
and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims.
Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just
society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the
death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions. I do not pretend
to be neutral on the issue; the application of the death penalty is the ultimate and
irreversible sanction. However, I do intend to fairly and accurately represent both sides
of the argument. 
Proponents of capital punishment persuasively argue that a "central principle of a just
society is that every person has an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness" (Cauthen, p 1). Within this principle, the deliberate (premeditated) murder of
an individual is viewed as a heinous act, which prevents the person from realizing his or
her right to pursue happiness. They strongly feel that persons convicted of first-degree
murder must, themselves, pay the ultimate price. They claim that the death penalty must
be imposed in order to maintain the moral standards of the community. 
Proponents of capital punishment are aware that many people who oppose the death penalty
are fearful that innocent people may be wrongfully executed. They insist, however, that
numerous "safeguards" are built into the criminal justice system which insures the
protection of those facing capital punishment. Among the safeguards are: 
1. Capital punishment may be imposed only for a crime for which the death penalty is
prescribe by law at the time of its commission. 
2. Persons below eighteen years of age, pregnant women, new mothers or persons who have
become insane shall not be sentenced to death. 
3. Capital punishment may be imposed only when guilt is determined by clear and
convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts. 
4. Capital punishment may be carried out only after a final judgment rendered by a
competent court allowing all possible safeguards to the defendant, including adequate
legal assistance. 
5. Anyone sentenced to death shall receive the right to appeal to a court of higher
jurisdiction. 
6. Capital punishment shall not be carried out pending any appeal, recourse procedure or
proceeding relating to pardon or commutation of the sentenced. 
(www. 1) 
In view of these safeguards, proponents of capital punishment believe that state
executions are justified sentences for those convicted of willful first-degree murder.
They do not think sentencing murderers to prison is a harsh enough sentence, especially
if there is the possibility of parole for the perpetrator. A final argument posed by
proponents of the death penalty is that execution is an effective deterrence. They are
convinced that potential murderers will likely think twice before they commit murder. 
Despite the rhetoric of politicians for the increased use of the death penalty, a number
of prominent individuals and organizations have emerged to express their opposition to
capital punishment. Along with families of death row prisoners, the International Court
of The Hague, the United Nations, Amnesty International, the Texas Conference of
Churches, Pope John Paul II, Nobel Peace recipient, Bishop Tutu, numerous judges and
former prosecutors, former Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, actors, and writers are waging
a determined struggle against the death penalty. They invariably argue that capital
punishment is wrong and inhumane. Religious folk generally evoke the nature of an "ideal
spiritual community" (Cauthen, 1). Within this perspective, a moral and ethical community
does not insist on a life for a life. While a community must act to protect law- abiding
citizens, an ethical response would be to imprison persons who have demonstrated a
flagrant disrespect for life, without the possibility of parole, if necessary. Cauthen
states, "An ideal community would show mercy even to those who had shown no mercy"
(Capital Punishment 2). 
Most opponents of the death penalty find fault with the supposed safeguards offered by
those in favor of state executions. Specifically, they charge that more innocent people
have been executed by the criminal court system than the two wrongful deaths that
proponents admit to. Two dramatic events illustrate that fact. In 1998, a conference,
"Wrongful Conviction and the Death Penalty" received much media coverage. The conference
brought together twenty-eight women and men who had been wrongfully convicted and
sentenced to death for murders they had not committed. Only through the efforts of
volunteers, activists, family members, and independent research, were the prisoners freed
(Guiterrez 8). Another example occurred in February, 1999. In this case, students from a
journalist class at Northwestern University, along with their professor, provided the
necessary evidence to prove the innocence of a man who had been on death row for sixteen
years in an Illinois prison. His execution date was just days away. 
Opponents of capital punishment discount the argument that the extensive use of the death
penalty acts as a deterrence. According to Amnesty International (1994) and a United
Nations document (1988), there is no "scientific evidence" to show that the death penalty
deters crime more effectively than other forms of punishment. Additionally, the United
Nations study showed that countries, which had abolished the death penalty, did not
experience an increased number of homicides. In fact, the Canadian homicide rate declined
in the twenty-year span after the death penalty had been abolished. 
A compelling argument against the death penalty is that the United States is out of sync
with most other countries. Of the approximately 180 countries in the world, more than
half of them no longer execute its citizens. And in countries which have retained the
death penalty, the number of people executed is still far less than in the United States.
Interestingly, the United States is the only Western industrialized nation to practice
capital punishment. Another aspect of the United States being out of sync with other
countries is in the death penalty for juveniles. Contrary to the alleged safeguards,
Amnesty International notes that the United States has executed more juveniles (persons
less than eighteen years of age at the time homicides were committed). The only other
countries guilty of juvenile executions were Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Is
this really a list we want to be on? 
Finally, and perhaps, most importantly, the use of the death penalty has been shown to be
racist and class-biased in its application. Many researchers confirm that minority
populations, particularly Black and Latino defendants, are substantially more likely to
receive the death penalty than White defendants charged under similar circumstances. More
damning, researchers have found evidence of "double discrimination". That is, the race of
the victim and the offender affects just who will be given the death penalty. In Florida,
for instance, African Americans who are convicted of killing Whites are "forty times more
likely to be sentenced to death than those who kill Blacks" (Weinglass ). In terms of the
class nature of capital punishment, consider this: Currently, there is not a single rich
person on death row. In fact; 90% of those on death row could not afford good, legal
representation, leading observers to conclude that the decision as to who dies and who
lives has more to do with poor representation and the personal wealth of an individual. 
Finally, opponents of the death penalty note the shift in public opinion regarding
state-sanctioned executions. Recent poll findings consistently show that support for the
death penalty is waning in the thirty-seven states with the death penalty, including
Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Kentucky. Typically, pollsters are finding that
increasing numbers of the public prefer alternatives to the death penalty, especially
when convicted murderers had no possibility of parole. For instance, 54.8 percent of
Virginians, when assured there would not be the possibility of parole for a minimum of
twenty-five years, coupled with restitution for the victim's family, agreed to
alternatives (Recent Poll Findings www). 
The most dramatic event to date has been a moratorium on executions issued by Illinois
Governor George Ryan on January 31, 2000. The governor, an avid proponent of the death
penalty, now says he can no longer support the system after a thirteenth death row
prisoner was exonerated during the 1990's. A panel has been convened to investigate all
facets of the court system, including the racism of the police, the district attorneys'
prosecutorial misconduct, the all too often incompetence of underpaid public defenders,
and the politicians who cut funding for attorneys and pass laws which limit the appeals
available to prisoners (Butterfield, Death Penalty Turmoil 7) . 
In light of these many considerations, opponents of capital punishment ask: Does the
state have the right to take another person's life? How can the death penalty continue to
be justified in the face of over-whelming evidence which shows that innocent people have
been wrongfully executed, that people are not deterred from committing murder, and that,
in practice, the death penalty is racially biased and reserved for the poor. In a New
York Times Op-Ed piece (July 14, 1995), writer, E.L. Doctorow, speaking in behalf of an
inmate on death row wrote, "If the death penalty must exist in this country, it is the
burden of the public servants charged with applying it to do so only from the most
unanswerable and awesome judicial imperatives--or state-administered death becomes
morally indistinguishable from any other murder." 
Bibliography
Butterfield, Greg. Repression Spurs Resistance. Workers World. 2/24/00 pg. 7
Cauthen, Kenneth. Capital Punishment: Maximum public safety (11/18/00) Online.available:
Doctorow,E.L. and Weinglass, Leonard. Race for Justice. Monroe, Maine 1995
Guiterrez, Tony. Crime in America NewYork 1997
Rubac, Gloria. Illinois moratorium accelerates anti-death-penalty across U.S. Workers
World. 2/17/00. pg. 5