Analyzing the Capital Punishment

¶ … Capital Punishment and Who Gets to Decide the Final Law. Capital punishment is the act of executing a person found guilty (in a court of law) of committing a particular crime. Capital punishment can only be utilized by governments, so in cases where non-state parties 'execute' an individual and claim it is capital punishment, it is not, and in that case, the parties will have committed murder. Capital punishment is often only utilized as a punishment for very serious crimes, such as rape, adultery, certain types of fraud, and treason.

These crimes are referred to as capital crimes. Though many nations have outlawed capital punishment, many countries around the globe still allow it (BBC, n.d.). Statistics revealed in May 2012 by the global human rights group, Amnesty International, reveal that as many as 141 nations have abolished capital punishment either by law or practice (Amnesty International, 2012). Some of the States across the U.S. still allow capital punishment. Public support for the practice is, however, increasingly waning in the United States.

More than 50% of Americans now prefer alternative forms of punishment (Amnesty International, 2012). There are different reasons as to why the American public does not support capital punishment. Some of the reasons for the abolishment of capital punishment are discussed below. Many religions and individuals stress that all life is precious. The majority of the people against capital punishment are of the opinion that human life is so precious that even the most evil individuals shouldn't be killed.

Many individuals opine that the value of an individual's life cannot be diminished or destroyed by the individual's evil acts even if he or she has raped or murdered someone. However, some of those who want to abolish capital punishment don't agree. They argue that human life ought to be preserved only to the extent that there is a justifiable reason not to, and that government should justify its reasons not preserve a convicted criminal's life (BBC, n.d.).

One of the most important and valid arguments against the death penalty is that if states continue practicing capital punishment, an innocent individual will soon be executed because of faulty legal processes. Judges, jurors, witnesses, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel can all commit errors. In cases where states have not abolished the death penalty, such errors cannot be rectified.

There is credible proof that such errors can occur, for instance in the United States alone, some 130 individuals who had been found guilty and sentenced to death have been found innocent (BBC, n.d.)(Amnesty International, 2012). According to Amnesty International (2012), research shows that over 77% of the individuals who have been sentenced to death were convicted for killing white individuals yet African-Americans comprise about 50% of homicide victims. This shows that capital punishment has been used selectively to give justice to white victims and not victims of color.

Another reason fronted by abolitionists is that capital punishment is an expensive form of punishment, and that it diverts resources from genuine crime control. The heavy costs linked to capital punishment are incurred in the pre and actual trial periods and not in the post-trial period (appeals). Even if appeals were abolished for individuals sentenced to death, capital punishment would still be costlier than alternative forms of punishment (Amnesty International, 2012).

But who decides if something is constitutional or not? The Supreme Court is the institution tasked with ruling on the constitutionality of an act or legislation. The justices at the court interpret the words in the constitution and make a ruling through a majority vote to give their final decision (Tushnet, 2013).

Some have argued if the Supreme Court just decides, why does it have the power to do so yet the public should have the final say? The frequently given explanation to this is that the public trusts the justices at the Supreme Court to do the right thing, and that the citizens do not trust themselves with the responsibility of deciding the constitutionality of issues. Why does it Matter? Some have argued that the legislatures should be the ones tasked with making such decisions.

However, it has become common knowledge that legislatures do not protect minority interests. For instance, the recently enacted Defense of Marriage Act is often cited by liberals as an example of Congress failing to act on the interests of the LGBT (Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender) community. However, in some cases the legislature has.