Why the Death Penalty Is an Issue in the Criminal Justice System Essay Example

Biblically, life is a precious gift from God which should be safeguarded at all costs. For centuries there has been a debate over the implications of capital punishment also referred to as the death penalty in criminal justice. Most people argue that the risks involved with the death penalty are very high and cannot be reversed and that's why such rules need to be abolished entirely from society. However, some people argue that capital punishment is the only way to get rid of some sensitive criminal cases like murder and rape. In some countries the death penalty involves; electrocuting, shooting, hanging and even stoning in Islamic states. Focusing on some of the reasons why the death penalty is an issue in criminal justice like the fact that it doesn't deter criminals from committing a crime, its delays and humanitarian violation ensures that we understand why it should be abolished.

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

Save 25%

Typically, the death penalty does not hinder individuals from committing crimes. As such it is an irrational and archaic way of making poor decisions. For instance, having in mind that most judicial systems depend on evidence for the prosecution, it would, therefore, be perceived that the system is bound to error especially in cases of wrong convictions. History asserts that a more significant percentage of inmates have illegally faced the death penalty. Earley notes that George Stinney Jr, a young teenager was innocently electrocuted on a chair on a crime he never committed (Earley 12). The judge hurriedly gave his judgment without any witness or sufficient time for an investigation to be done. Such judgment exposes the faults in our judicial system and shows that judges have a conflict of interest in some cases. Therefore, a more humane deterrent mechanism is needed other than the death penalty. Consequently, finding the culprits would be efficient, making it impossible for criminals to escape with their heinous crime. If such hindrances were seen then, criminals would leap before committing crime because they would be cautious of the consequences related to such crimes.

Additionally, delays in capital punishment makes it less effective and reliable because it minimizes the chances of a convicted criminal ever being executed. In most cases, especially in America, it takes long before the punishment is executed. This may be attributed to the fact that the criminal might appeal hence causing delays in execution. Anthony affirms that lawyers present post-delay strategies to allow room for the prerogative of mercy on suspected individuals (Anthony 4). Moreover, these strategies are enemies of progress in seeking justice hence making death penalty unreliable method of punishment. In such a scenario the punishment might take long before being executed. At the same time, civil right groups might delay the process due to their constant engagements in courtrooms. As a result, such delays make capital punishment unrealistic method of curbing crimes. Additionally, delays in execution create a vacuum in the judicial system which in return promote more crimes in society.

Generally, some psychologically affected individuals would see death as the only leeway to freedom; this is attributed to the fact that as per their conscious, they do not value life and would instead commit crimes to face capital punishment. On a daily basis, people face a lot regar ofding how difficult life is. That is why on the news; cases emerge of parents who have killed their kids as result of unemployment and lack financial stability. Such actions call for capital punishment according to the criminal law in America not knowing that the parent was traumatized. This would in return escalate crimes and rather neglect the key issues when dealing with judicial decisions and causes of homicides.

Additionally, in most cases, the analysis shows that death row inmates in American correctional centers were unskilled individuals, a significant percentage were unemployed. At the same time, many of these people were represented by attorneys who have minimal experience in the field of criminal law. Society has it that death penalty is purely meant for peasants. Individuals insufficiently represented are at risk to be found guilty; therefore it makes capital punishment discriminating because poor people are highly to be sentenced to death than wealthy people. Consequently, as mentioned before, a lawyer's magnitude provision of incriminating evidence will dictate whether a suspect is to be jailed or not. Bright affirms that indigent suspects of murder may be assigned by the state a less experienced lawyer (Bright 3).In return, the lawyer would be unable to defend his or her client adequately. Therefore, it proves that so long as a suspect is not able to afford a suitable lawyer then evidently he or she stands a chance of being prosecuted unfairly. The justice systems in most countries, especially in the developing nations seem to be money bounded. Only the rich eat their cake in peace. Some of the judgments passed in courts are coerced or lased with blood money resulting in an unfair decision made. Such is quite experienced in cases involving politicians who might have a hand in the murder. As a result, they influenced judgments made by either doing away with criminals or gagging the judges.

In addition to that, murder cannot be prevented by murder and is a violation of human rights. The love a family has for the deceased cannot be replaced by having another person killed. Clerics have argued that, even by killing the suspect of murder, you cannot bring back the life. Essentially, life lost cannot be replaced by another entity. Furthermore, at some point, a suspect innocently sentenced to the death penalty may also not get his or her life back because death has already taken place. Society, especially Christian based reveal that forgiveness is paramount in each crime committed.

Contrary to that, Muslim societies believe in the death penalty either by stoning or continuous shooting. Such violence for violence actions deprives the role played by the community in advocating for peaceful co-existence. At the same time, religion has been used discriminately in court cases. Miller argues that religion quotes evoke emotion in capital cases (Miller 4). Jurors may be emotionally induced and as a result, reduce the credibility of the judicial process.

Furthermore, the prosecutor can use the Bible or Quran subjectively to suit the course of the case. It, therefore, leads to predetermined judgments. In such a scenario a suspect can be illegally sentenced to the death penalty because of subjective quotes highlighted. Therefore, it is prudent to give more attention to curbing heinous crimes in our society and rather not advocate for the death penalty.

Additionally, on criminal justice, several nations in the world have stopped the death penalty in their judicial systems. Neumayer confirms that many states in the world have mitigated death penalty sentence (Neumayer 28). He goes ahead to argue that human beings have inherent right to life and be as it may, it is crucial to value the meaning of life. Capital punishment is losing meaning and significance in society, and as a result, its abolition is essential. A lesser percentage in China and America still practices the punishment but with severe criticism from international bodies such as Amnesty International and United Nations.

Conclusion

Focusing on reasons why the death penalty is an issue in criminal justice like its irreversible nature, humanitarian violation and the fact that it doesn't deter criminal activities ensures that we understand why it should be abolished. Leaders in society should advocate for peace and unity when dealing with crime. As per the punishment for law offenders, a more liberal strategy should be created to balance justice to both the suspects and the deceased.

Works Cited

Alfieri, Anthony V. "Mitigation, mercy, and delay: The moral politics of death penalty abolitionists." Harv. CR-CLL Rev. 31 (1996): 325.

Bright, Stephen B. "Counsel for the poor: The death sentence not for the worst crime but for the worst lawyer." Yale LJ 103 (1993): 1835.

Earley Sr, Mark L. "A Pink Cadillac, An IQ of 63, and A Fourteen-Year-Old from South Carolina: Why I Can No Longer Support the Death Penalty." U. Rich. L. Rev. 49 (2014): 811.

Miller, Monica K., and Brian H. Bornstein. "The use of religion in death penalty sentencing trials." Law and Human Behavior 30.6 (2006): 675-684.

Neumayer, Eric. "Death penalty: The political foundations of the global trend towards abolition." Human Rights Review 9.2 (2008): 241-268.