Death Penalty: A Necessary Deterrent for Serious Offenses? - Essay Sample

Introduction

It is an accepted part of society that punishment is used to discourage potential criminals from conducting unlawful acts. Society has the highest consideration for life, and therefore to prevent murder and other violent crimes, it relies on the most potent form of punishment available, the death penalty. The notion of the death penalty is to execute a criminal with serious offenses to deter similar criminals from serious offenses. America is among the few western democracies that continue the practice of executing criminals with approximately 3000 currently waiting for execution (Acker). It is critical to appreciate the notion that the measure of each punishment declared by the Justice system is dependent on the atrocities of the crime, the criminal conduct, and finally, the defenseless and unshielded nature of the victim (Acker). The criminal justice system obliges to society's plea for justice against felons. Moreover, justice demands that the courts impose punishment befitting to the crime, reflecting the court's preposition on the detestation of crime.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In simpler terms, the death penalty is a necessity in the justice system as it offers the appropriate punishment for hardened criminals conducting severe offenses such as murder, among others. The majority of people believe that the identified approach to justice is fitting and provides an inherent notion of an active justice system. Capital punishment, though viewed as a form of vengeance by many globally, few believe it is a form of retribution (Garland). It works by expressing the law and reinforcing its moral exasperation, not for the victim's family but all law-abiding citizens. Capital punishment has been part of America's history from its discovery in by colonials in 1630 to date (Garland). However, it is critical to appreciate the changes that the justice system has undergone. Before the 20th century, America, similar to England, practiced capital punishment for all forms of offenses, both major and minor (Garland). The trend gradually changed with more demands on human rights and currently mainly focuses on first-degree murders. First-degree murder is a category of murder that depicts the criminals' deliberate, voluntarily, and planned intentions.

In the mid-20th century, capital punishment was rejected by the majority of the public resulting in the decline of executions. The outcome was a drastic reduction in executions with no executions taking place between the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s (Acker). Additionally, a 1972 case, Furman v. Georgia, resulted in the Supreme Court declaring capital punishment an unlawful. The decision by the Supreme Court forced over 35 states to rewrite regulations in capital punishment in a bid to meet the requirements of the Supreme Court. The outcome was two far-reaching laws; in the first faction, States such as Florida, Texas, and Georgia described capital punishment to be viable for capital crimes (Acker). Unlike previous occasions where the court would make the decision, currently, there are systems in place to weigh the viability of capital punishment on convicted criminals.

The second faction which represented Louisiana and North Carolina overcame the Supreme Court's concerns by making capital punishment viable for any criminal accused of a capital crime. With the first case being Gregg v. Georgia in 1976, the outcome of the case was based on the actions of the first faction's strategy (Acker). The balancing act was widely accepted by the justice system and was also beheld as being constitutional. The second faction was declined, and executions resumed in 1977. However, other alterations were made to make the process more constitutional with non-death resulting in criminal offenses being barred from capital punishment.

Counter

It is also essential to consider the changes in society, recent efforts by the courts with expenses on the taxpayers, modern death penalty process is slow, costly, and unreliable. Regardless of the selection process for execution, the majority of the inmates waiting for their death will continue waiting as capital punishment is slowly being removed (Anderson, Chao, and Schwadel). The support by the legal, political, and social aspects have diminished with the majority of citizens preferring to preserve life regardless of the crime. Consequently, the decision is based on scientific data from the population on their perception of the death penalty (Foglia, and Connell) The shortcomings of the judicial system resulted in international human right organizations to push for the eradication of the process.

Capital punishment in most developed nations is based on historical and religious notions. However, today, religious organizations are in agreement that there is no morality in capital punishment (Anderson, Chao, and Schwadel). The notion is further supported by scientific data from decades of research, which identified that capital punishment is no longer an effective deterrent to crime. The change began in the latter half of the 20th century with religious leaders from Judaism and Catholicism campaigning against it (Anderson, Chao, and Schwadel). Regardless, from a practical point, capital punishment has numerous shortcomings that affected its effectiveness in curbing criminal activities. Among the most critical was the public's lack of faith in the consistency of justice delivered (Foglia, and Connell). For example, the execution of minors, before 2005 of the 38 states that still practice capital punishment half, were involved in the execution of minors (Foglia, and Connell). However, executions were mostly conducted after a prison term that allowed them to be over the age of 21 years.

The majority of American citizens are against the notion of executing the mentally ill. However, research has identified that the capital punishment system actively targets the mentally challenged. It was identified that individuals executed have higher rates of mental illness compared to the public population. Suicide tendencies also account for mental illness, and based on the notion, from the resuming of criminal executions in 1976, close to 1500 inmates have been executed, of the number over 140 were mentally ill (Walsh, and Hatch). They volunteered to the death sentence by wavering their appeal. Therefore, the death penalty actively assists mentally ill patients

When it comes to the humane execution methods, it is vital to note that none are humane as they all involve the taking of another individual's life. Nevertheless, lethal injection is identified by most scientific communities to offer the fastest death (Bohm). It involves the use of one or more drugs to cause a cardiac failure resulting in rapid death. The chemicals used include a person with paralysis, barbiturate, and potassium solution. The process begins with the inmate being injected with a sedative to render them unconscious (Bohm). The person with paralysis is then injected to stop muscle movement, then finally, potassium chloride, which stops the heart. From a fiscal perspective, the death penalty is more expensive to the taxpayers (Bohm). The complexity and significance of the process raise the cost of the entire process. It begins with the prosecution attending all preliminary hearings; they must also identify the most convincing evidence to present to the jury. The jury, which constitutes of 23 members, must convene for approximately a month before deciding on the accused's providence (Bohm). It is also critical to appreciate the fact that the selection process of the capital case jury is also complex compared to other cases. The increasing complexity coincides with increased expenses incurred by the taxpayers.

Conclusion

Change is a notion that the American judicial and correctional system is realizing to be challenging and progressive. America has stuck with ideals that have shaped its judicial system and also motivated other democracies to adopt the changes. Currently, the majority of U.S. states sanction the death penalty. However, few use the responsibility. With high inconsistencies in the judicial system, which mostly affects the mentally ill, outrage is being expressed by the public over the practice. It has affected all states, including Texas which still has the highest number of executions from 1976. Change is slowly being experienced, with more people being against the use of capital punishment in the legal system. It was intended to deter criminals, and it was useful during its initial phase. However, changes in societal acceptance resulted in its rejection. The societal changes and advancements in medical technology have affected the judicial system. Criminals can use the notion of mental instability to evade capital execution, and the public supports the concept. Capital punishment has already been modified to its weakest form, with more states opting for its overall removal. The change was initially based on morality; however, practicality is currently the driver to the eradication of capital punishment.

Works Cited

Acker, James R. "American Capital Punishment Over Changing Times: Policies and Practices." Handbook on Crime and Deviance. Springer, Cham, 2019.

Anderson, Amy L., Weng-Fong Chao, and Philip Schwadel. "Evolving Attitudes toward Capital Punishment." Handbook on Sentencing Policies and Practices in the 21st Century. Routledge, 2019. 237-253.

Bohm, Robert M. Deathquest: An introduction to the theory and practice of capital punishment in the United States. Taylor & Francis, 2016.

Foglia, Wanda D., and Nadine M. Connell. "Distrust And Empathy: Explaining The Lack Of Support For Capital Punishment Among Minorities". Criminal Justice Review, vol 44, no. 2, 2018, pp. 204-230. SAGE Publications, doi:10.1177/0734016818796902. Accessed 8 Apr 2020.

Garland, David. "The concept of American exceptionalism and the case of capital punishment." American Exceptionalism in Crime and Punishment (2017).

Walsh, Anthony, and Virginia L. Hatch. "Capital Punishment, Retribution, And Emotion". New Criminal Law Review: An International And Interdisciplinary Journal, vol 21, no. 2, 2018, pp. 267-290. University Of California Press, doi:10.1525/nclr.2018.21.2.267. Accessed 8 Apr 2020.