Posted: June 27th, 2015

Should USA Execute capital offenders?

 

Should the death penalty continue to be carried out in the United States?

Historians record that the death penalty in the USA was influenced by the Great Britain. The first known case of execution in the United States of America happened in 1608 when George Kendall was executed by a firing squad in Jamestown. He had been accused of spying for the Spanish government.

Between 1608 and 2002 a total of 15,269 people were executed. This list of executions was compiled by M. Watt Espy and John Ortiz Smykla. However, statistics that are readily available from the Bureau of Justice Statistics date back from 1930.

During the colonial times, some European theorists questioned the institution of the death penalty. The first attempt to amend the death penalty law was made. Thomas Jefferson, for instance proposed a bill to amend death penalty laws to allow execution only for crimes of murder and treason. Herrmann (2007).

American intellectuals would later follow in questioning the belief that death penalty serves as a deterrent Many states would later repeal their death penalty laws reducing the number of their capital crimes with Michigan, in 1846, becoming the first state to abolish the death penalty for all crimes.

To this day, the question on whether the United States should carry out the death penalty has not lost its ability to arouse powerful emotions and elicit heated debates. Garland, McGowen, Meranze (2012) say “proponents of the abolition of the penalty assert that it violates universal human rights which transcend local traditions or circumstances. Their opponents tend to reject this claim, asserting, instead, the priority of separate and distinct national or religious identities.” (p. 1).

Does the state have the moral authority to Take away the life of a human being?

When one looks at the question of capital offence from the moral point of view, several issues arise. Who should face punishment? What offences should be liable for punishment? Are some punishments inhumane even if they are effective? How valuable is the human life?

There are many who are against the death penalty because they believe it is immoral, some believe that the state has no moral authority to kill those it has imprisoned while others argue that no one deserves to die, given that the right to life is universal and inalienable.

This group basically asserts that the bigger moral question in this case is not whether those convicted of violent and heinous crimes deserve to die but whether the state or the federal government has got the right to kill those it has taken in to custody.

The fact that criminal justice system in the U.S is not always right is another point that opponents of this capital punishment point at. According to Stevenson (2004), the evidence of racial and discrimination makes capital punishment immoral and exonerates those who oppose the death penalty on moral grounds.

But there are others who subscribe to the school of thought that the death penalty is moral. Here, the argument is that man’s right are on the condition that he is rational- a man living irrationally should not have rights. That the reaction should be proportional to the action (The death penalty, 2001, paragraph 3).

In an interview with Hoover Institution in 2002, Kozinski (2002) asserts that any society that does not take the life of someone who has taken the life of another or engaged in a heinous crime is immoral.

The argument is that the judges who rule on this cases have taken an oath to follow be faithful to the constitution. The judges cannot make their own laws because the United States constitution allows the death penalty.

Whatever one’s position on this should be, the state should be acknowledged as a moral agent and any carrying out punishment should not be seen as immoral before looking at the facts of the specific case.

Does the death Penalty serve as a deterrent of crime?

The debate on whether the capital punishment serves to deter crime is yet to be concluded. With each party quoting its own statistics, it is not very clear if capital punishment actually deters crime.

Proponents of capital punishment believe it has a serious deterrent effect, Sunstein, V. (2005). Claims that the deterrent effect is very high and that one execution may prevent as many as eighteen murders

Over the years, sociologists have undertaken to find out if the death penalty deters crime. The conclusions, albeit not unanimous, is that it does. “No one can Identify for certain any crimes that did not occur because the would-be offender was deterred by the threat of the death penalty and could not have been deterred by a less severe threat. Likewise, no one can identify any crimes that did occur because the offender was not deterred by the threat of prison even though he could have been deterred by the threat of death.” Bedau (n.d)

Be that as it may, it is clear that the deterrence achieved through capital punishment cannot be measured against that achieved through life imprisonment or any other lesser punishment. Executions should not be carried out merely on the premise they will deter future offenders.

Is Capital punishment cost effective?

This is a question that is bound to elicit heated debate any time it is asked. With the economic crisis, there is a renewed interest in the argument that the death penalty is much more expensive than life imprisonment.

Kaste (2009) says efforts to repeal the death penalty have been boosted because of the economic crisis. He cites New Mexico, Maryland, Montana, Kansas and new Hampshire as some of the states that have repealed death penalty laws.

Capital murder has more costs as it involves two phases, one from the trial and another one for sentencing. Getting a jury to listen and impose the death verdict may take time and resources.

Even after the sentencing, capital punishments will most likely find the way to appeal thus increasing cost. According to Howarth (2012), says in Nevada, 68% of all capital cases between 1973 and 1995 were reversed.

It is important to note that justice should not be served just because it is cheap. Whichever method is preferred it should be entirely be based on cost but other factors should be considered.

Conclusion

From the argument presented, it is clear that no party can claim moral superiority. The state is a moral agent and questions on whether capital punishment is moral should not apply for people who themselves refuse to observe morality by committing the most barbaric crimes.

On the question of cost, the state should not make decisions on justice based solely on how effective they are.

Punishments are definitely a form of deterring crime. However, when two punishments can equally deter crime, the lesser punishment should be preferred. Capital punishment should therefore continue. However, it should be limited to the most heinous crimes and where, in the state’s opinion; serves in deterring future crime and serves justice for victims.

 

 

 

 

Reference List

Garland, D, Meranze,L,McGowen(2012). America’s Death Penalty: Past and Present. New York, USA: New York University Press.

Hermann, J. (2007). The History of the Death Penalty in the United States:

Presented and Analyzed on the Basis of Selected U.S. Supreme Court Cases. Norderstedt, Germany, Grin Verlag.

Howarth, J. (2002) Empirical Studies Contribute to Death Penalty Debate. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2184878

Kaste, M. (2009). Opponents Focus On Cost In Death Penalty Debate. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102570588

Stevenson, B. (2004) Close to Death: Reflections on Race and Capital Punishment in America. Retrieved on 10^th January 2012 from http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001038

Sunstein, R. (2005). Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=691447

The death penalty. (2000). Retrieved from http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-us-1608-2002-espy-file