Death Penalty as Justified Murder

Death Penalty as Justified Murder - an Ineffective Method of Crime Prevention

Capital punishment has a history in the United States that goes back to the colonies. The tenet of capital punishment remains one of the most controversial issues in the United States. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, 1,151 executions have taken place in the United States (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 1). Thirty-eight of those executions took place in 2008 (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 1). The following research will examine the death penalty from the lens of fairness in a number of special populations. It will then examine the death penalty in its ability to carry out its primary objective, deterrence of violent crime. By the end of this presentation, it will be clear that the death penalty does not accomplish its original intended purpose. It will also be clear that this practice is administered in an unjust fashion.

Justice for All...With a Few exceptions

One of the key arguments against the death penalty is that in 96% of the states where there have been reviews of the death penalty, a pattern of racial discrimination became apparent (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 2). In states that have the death penalty, 98% of the chief district attorneys are white, with only 1% black (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 2). This racial inequality in the justice system may have an impact on the administration of the death penalty and the chances that a person will pay the ultimate price for a crime.

In North Carolina, it was found that blacks are 3 1/2 times more likely to receive the death penalty than whites who committed similar crimes under similar circumstances (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 2). In California, crimes in which the victim was white were 3 times more likely to receive the death penalty than if the victim were black of Hispanic (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 2). It is not known if these statistics are representative of trends in other states, but at this juncture in time, it appears as if these racial trends are reflected in like. These statistics make the death penalty echo the cries of racially motivated lynch mobs that were common on America's not so distant past.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ended the death penalty for juveniles. However, since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1975, 22 defendants that were juveniles had been executed (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 3). They were not old enough to vote for laws to protect their rights. They were not old enough to the rights of an adult. They were not allowed to have the chance to turn their lives around and become model citizens. They were in a period of their lives that is typically marked with hormonal rage and impulsive decisions. We will never know what these young persons may have become, or what contributions they may have made in society because they will never get the chance to show us.

The execution of persons with mental health issues is another point of contention among capital punishment opponents. In 2002, Atkins v. Virginia the execution of defendants suffering from mental retardation was ruled unconstitutional (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 3). There are currently proposals by the American Psychiatric Association to make it unconstitutional to execute anyone with a mental illness (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 3). These issues would seem apparent to the person who wishes to make certain that the death penalty does not unfairly target those that are less fortunate.

However, supporters of the death penalty fear that this can be used as an excuse to escape death for those that truly deserve to die for their crimes. One must ask which is worse, to kill an innocent who has not concept of what they have done and is in need of help, or to allow someone to go free so that they can receive proper medical treatment for their condition. If they are deemed unsafe to roam society at large, so be it, but at least we did not murder a person for a handicap. This brings us to our next topic: that of wrongful executions.

Wrongful Executions: Murder by the State

The U.S. constitution has stopgaps to help assure that innocent people are not punished for crimes that they did not commit. In the case of Capital crimes, the importance of his concept become more poignant, as wrongful prosecution can mean the difference between "punishment" and murder for the state. The concept of innocent until proven guilty is a wonderful concept in theory, but in practice, a person is guilty until proven innocent. The concept of "innocent until proven guilty" is not a reality in the world of crime and punishment in the United States.

When a heinous crime occurs, District Attorneys, Judges and juries are anxious to "get their man." They want to find someone to blame and put the public mind at rest. In their haste, sometimes, the innocent must die for crimes that they did not commit. One can find numerous examples where mistakes were made and the innocent were punished while the true murderers went free (Gumbel).

The case of Cameron Todd Willingham is one example. In 1991, a house fire broke out in the Willingham home. Todd tried desperately to save his three children, but to no avail. They burned to death in the fire. Willingham's conviction was based on inaccurate information from the arson investigator, evidence that was later demonstrated to be faulty. The only other key piece of evidence against him was testimony from a neighbor who did not have a high opinion of him. The question of bias never came up. In February 2004, he was executed by lethal injection, still proclaiming to be an innocent man (Gumbel). As an afterthought, the "science" proclaimed to be key evidence was shown to be faulty (Gumbel). Willingham, a grieving father, was murdered by the state for a crime that he did not commit.

The United States has a history of wrongful executions. It is not known how many innocents have been executed for crimes that they did not commit, but when one looks at the historical record, it appears that it happens more than anyone would like to admit. It is easier to understand those that occurred before modern technology, when trials were based largely on testimony and witness account (Radelet, Bedau, and Putnam, 1992). However, with new techniques in forensics, it is hard to believe that this could still happen.

The most frightening thing about wrongful executions is that faulty science and lack of evidence are often not to blame. In an examination of wrongful executions for which the person was exonerated for the crime after the fact, the faulty justice system was often to blame. The problem occurs when valid scientific evidence is ignored and opinion and hearsay are accepted in its stead. This is scary, but true.

When evidence is ignored and the innocent are executed, the result is irreversible (Amnesty International). When an innocent is murdered, even if they are later proven innocent through valid forensic evidence, what is done cannot be undone. Even if the real murder is found and convicted, for the innocent it is too late. When an innocent is executed, the state has committed murder. Yet, there is not one case where a DA or judge has been executed for the willful murder of their innocent victims. When evidence is ignored that could prove a person's innocence and faulty evidence is admitted that leads to their execution, the crime is much more heinous than the original. Yet, those in the criminal justice system appear to be exempt from the death penalty that they so willingly and indiscriminately impose on others.

Crime Deterrence

The last and final case in point deals with the original purpose of the death penalty in the first place. The death penalty was designed to serve as a deterrent to committing violent crimes.

The irony of this argument is that if it worked, we would not need it. However, despite existence of the death penalty, people still continue to commit capital crimes. A survey of former and present experts on criminology rejected the idea that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 4).

Consistent with these statistics, in 2006, the Southern states had the highest murder rate in the country. Yet, nearly 80% of all executions occur in these same areas (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 4). Consequently, the northeastern United States had the lowest murder rate and they also account for less than 1% of all executions (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 4). These statistics are heavy indicators that the death penalty and murder rates have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Let us now examine some plausible explanations for these trends.

Crime occurs for many different reasons. If all crime were committed due to a singular cause, then the ability to deter crime would be easier. However, the reasons why people commit crime are as different as the individuals themselves. Intentional murder comes in two different flavors. The first is the carefully plotted, well thought out, planned act. In this scenario, motivational theory takes over. The person must feel that they will gain some type of value from the action. It may be that they gain something, such as money, or they may feel that eliminating a person will offer them some type of protection. In any case, the person justifies their actions through a perceived reward in the future (Horisch and Strassmair).

In the case of an intentional murder, the death penalty may deter the action. However, several conditions must be met for the fear of death to act as a deterrent. The person must feel that there is a significant possibility that they will be caught and punished for their crimes. In many cases, they have thought out a plan that they feel will work and result in them escaping punishment. The person must also feel that the punishment is an immediate threat. Criminal minds tend to have a feeling of superiority and do not feel that they will ever be caught or face the death penalty. Therefore, the death penalty is not a crime deterrent in this case.

The other flavor of capital crime is the crime of passion. This is the type of murder that occurs when a person is suddenly angry or frightened. In this case, reasoning does not happen. They do not consider the consequences; they are only concerned with what is happening in the moment. In cases of crimes of passion, the death penalty does not act as a deterrent because the possibility of being caught does not even enter their mind. As one can see, using the death deterrent as a means of curb crime fails in numerous ways.

Humane Executions?

Thus far, we have examined the topic of the death penalty and the flaws within the system that make it an ineffective means of crime deterrence. The system is laden with injustices and inequalities. Yet, capital punishment continues to be an institution in the United States. One final point in this argument considers the acts involved in the administration of a person's sentence.

Since reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, persons have been executed by firing squad (2), hanging (3), gas chamber (11), electrocution (155), and lethal injection (980). Of those methods, lethal injection is promoted as the most "humane" method of execution in the United States. The eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" (Religious Tolerance). The problem with this amendment lies in defining the terms "excessive fines" and "cruel and unusual punishment." In Wilkerson v. Utah 99 U.S. 130, 135 the court ruled that methods such as drawing and quartering, emboweling alive, beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive all constitute unnecessary cruelty (Religious Tolerance). Most would agree that these practices went out with the Spanish Inquisition. However, we must ask if the methods that we use today are any less cruel than those of our ancestors.