Capital Punishment Injustice of Society Essay Example For Students

Capital Punishment: Injustice of Society Essay Looking out for the state of the publics satisfaction in the scheme ofcapital sentencing does not constitute serving justice. Todays system ofcapital punishment is fraught with inequalities and injustices. The commonlyoffered arguments for the death penalty are filled with holes. It was adeterrent. It removed killers. It was the ultimate punishment. It is biblical. It satisfied the publics need for retribution. It relieved the anguish of thevictims family.(Grisham 120) Realistically, imposing the death penalty isexpensive and time consuming. Retroactively, it has yet to be proven as adeterrent. Morally, it is a continuation of the cycle of violence anddegrades all who are involved in its enforcement, as well as itsvictim.(Stewart 1)Perhaps the most frequent argument for capital punishment is that ofdeterrence. The prevailing thought is that imposition of the death penalty willact to dissuade other criminals from committing violent acts. Numerous studieshave been created attempting to prove this belief; however, all the evidencetaken together makes it hard to be confident that capital punishment deters morethan long prison terms do.(Cavanagh 4) Going ever farther, Bryan Stevenson,the executive director of the Montgomery based Equal Justice Initiative, hasstated that, people are increasingly realizing that the more we resort tokilling as a legiti mate response to our frustration and anger with violence, themore violent our society becomesWe could execute all three thousand people ondeath row, and most people would not feel any safer tomorrow.(Frame 51) Inaddition, with the growing humanitarianism of modern society, the number ofinmates actually put to death is substantially lower than 50 years ago. Thisdecline creates a situation in which the death penalty ceases to be a deterrentwhen the populace begins to think that one can get away with a crime and gounpunished. Also, the less that the death sentence is used, the more it becomesunusual, thus coming in conflict with the eighth amendment. This is essentiallya paradox, in which the less the death penalty is used, the less society canlegally use it. The end result is a punishment that ceases to deter any crimeat all. The key part of the death penalty is that it involves death somethingwhich is rather permanent for humans, due to the concept of mortality. Thiscreates a major problem when there continue to be many instances of innocentpeople being sentenced to death.(Tabak 38) In our legal system, there existnumerous ways in which justice might be poorly served for a recipient of thedeath sentence. Foremost is in the handling of his own defense counsel. In theevent that a defendant is without counsel, a lawyer will be provided. Attorneys appointed to represent indigent capital defendants frequently lackthe qualities necessary to provide a competent defense and sometimes haveexhibited such poor character that they have subsequently been disbarred.(Tabak37). 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 timerepresenting a capital defendant. When you compare this to the prosecution, aided by the police, other l aw enforcement agencies, crime labs, state mentalhospitals, various other scientific resources, prosecutors experienced insuccessfully 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 offerit and have it properly recognized. Furthermore, why should he be punished fora misjustice that was created by the court itself when it appointed theincapable lawyer. .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f , .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f .postImageUrl , .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f , .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f:hover , .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f:visited , .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f:active { border:0!important; } .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f:active , .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .udd6757b9f2922b01b8f0ccbe7a2b418f:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Cheating EssayEven if a defendant has proper legal counsel, there is still the matterof impartiality of judges. The Supreme Court has steadily reduced theavailability of habeas corpus review of capital convictions, placing itsconfidence in the notion that state judges, who take the same oath of office asfederal judges to uphold the Constitution, can be trusted to enforce it.(Bright768) This makes for the biased trying of a defendants appeals, given theoverwhelming pressure on elected state judges to heed, and perhaps even lead to,the popular cries for the death of criminal defendants.(Bright 769) Thirty-twoof the states that impose the death penalty also employ the popular election ofjudges, and several of these even have judges run with party affiliations. Thiscreates a deeply political justice system the words alone are a paradox. Cansociety simply brush off mistaken execution as an incidental cost in the greaterscheme 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 victimto 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 herson 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 seekthe death penalty, their own consciences will be burdened by the death of thekiller. Furthermore, killing him will not bring back your sons.(Grisham402). At some point, man must stop the v iolence. Seeking temporarygratification is not a logical basis for whether the death penalty should beimposed. Granted, revenge is easily confused with retribution, and most wouldagree that the punishment should fit the crime, but can society really justifymurdering someone else simply on the basis that they deserved it? Governmenthas the right and duty to protect the greater good against people who jeopardizethe welfare of society, but a killer can be sentenced to life without chance ofparole, and society will be just as safe as if he had been executed. A vast misconception concerning the death penalty is that it savessociety the costs of keeping inmates imprisoned for long periods. In the act ofpreserving due process of justice, the court appeals involved with the deathpenalty becomes a long, drawn-out and very expensive process. The average timebetween sentencing and execution for the 31 prisoners put on death row in 1992was 114 months, or nine and a half years.(Stewart 50) Criminal justiceprocess expenses, trial court costs, appellate and post-conviction costs, andprison costs perhaps including years served on death row awaiting execution all told, the extra costs per death penalty imposed in over a quarter milliondollars, and per execution exceeds $2 million. (Cavanagh 4) When you comparethis 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 themaway for life for less money with a great deal more ease?In earlier timeswhere capital punishment was common, the value of lifewas less, and societies were more barbariccapital punishment was probablyquite acceptable. However, in todays society, which is becoming ever moreincreasingly humanitarian, and individual rights and due process of justice areheld in high accord, the death penalty is becoming an unrealistic form ofpunishment. Also, with the ever-present possibility of mistaken execution,there will remain the question of innocence of those put to death. Finally, manis not a divine being. He does not have the right to inflict mortal punishmentin the name of societys welfare, when there are suitable substitutes thatrequire fewer resources. I ask society, why dont we stop thekilling?(Grisham 404)BibliographyBright, 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. .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98 , .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98 .postImageUrl , .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98 , .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98:hover , .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98:visited , .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98:active { border:0!important; } .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98:active , .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98 .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .u52862ecd043e0ca7cabbb35f21ff5e98:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: The Actor EssayCavanagh, 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: 50Grisham, John. The Chamber. New York: Island Books, 1994. Stewart, David O. Dealing with Death. American Bar Association Journal80.11 (1994): 50Tabak, Ronald J. Report: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Lack of DueProcess in Death Penalty Cases. Human Rights 22.Winter (1995): 36Whittier, Charles H. Moral Arguments For and Against Capital Punishment.CRS Report For Congress (1996): 1