The death penalty: an argumentative analysis in favor

Death Penalty

Of the major forms of punishment meted out by the criminal justice system in the United States, the death penalty seems the most severe. Fines, probation, restitution money, community service, and even incarceration all offer the potential for the accused to rehabilitate, or perform restitution in the form of service to the victim. This may be why the United States and Japan are the only modern industrialized democracies to have the death penalty: it may be perceived as overly harsh by some other cultures ("Death Penalty Fast Facts," n.d.). In spite of some problems related to its use, the death penalty remains in place in the United States for several reasons. For one, the death penalty is not used often and is applied judiciously due to "declining support," (Mears 1). It is a severe option that is taken seriously and invoked only to serve the fundamental core values of the nation as a whole, such as the need to incapacitate dangerous individuals who have no hope for rehabilitation, to protect the public, and deter others from committing crimes. Second, the death penalty creates stability and consistency in the system. This is particularly true for situations in which the race of the victim is different from the race of the perpetrator. Third, the death penalty may provide a vengeful comfort to the victim's family and members of the community. Finally, the death penalty fulfills one of the core goals of sentencing, which is that it a deterrent. As a specific deterrent, there is nothing better than death to prevent a person from reoffending. As a general deterrent, other would-be offenders will fear the state and become law-abiding citizens knowing that their life is on the line. Because of these primary reasons, the death penalty is a valid form of restorative punishment.

In spite of declining support for the death penalty and having some states recently withdraw their support for it, capital punishment remains salient at the national level and within many states with strong criminal justice systems. The death penalty is not used haphazardly. On the contrary, there are clear patterns in the methods used to determine sentencing. The death penalty is more expensive overall than incarceration, which is why most states that use capital punishment do so with great deliberation and concern for their budgets (Sarisky). Nor is the death penalty "cruel and unusual," and therefore disallowed under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the death penalty is not "cruel and unusual," and that the Eighth Amendment applies to such things as "crucifixion" and "burning at the stake,' but not lethal injections (Sarisky 3). States have the right to determine whether the death penalty will remain a sentencing option for judges in their circuits, and some states have opted out of the death penalty in spite of its many benefits. It would, however, be preferable to mandate all states to embrace the death penalty due to the importance of maintaining consistency in the system.

Capital punishment ensures consistency throughout the judicial system, in spite of the fact that several states have withdrawn complicity in the death penalty. The death penalty is one of the oldest types of punishments, with roots extending to Hammurabi's Code. The death penalty ensures the solidarity of the state, and strengthens the institutions of the law by preventing weakness of any type to emerge in the system. Capital punishment allows for specific retribution in cases in which the victim was white. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, over 75% of the murder victims in death penalty cases were white, which is much higher than the average of 50% of murder victims in total being white. In some states, the death penalty also allows the judicial system to perpetuate racial bias given that black defendants are up to three times as likely to be given the death penalty as a sentence vs. white offenders (Death Penalty Information Center). Moreover, the death penalty prevents felons from appealing their cases, thereby unclogging the criminal justice system and liberating financial and human resources that would be better diverted elsewhere in the system. The nature of the offences committed by those on death row is heinous, and the only moral response to those crimes would be death. Capital punishment is also in moral and spiritual accordance with underlying ethics of the American community. A full third of the American public supports the death penalty, making capital punishment a consistent and logical choice for all states. The death penalty should be integrated as a potent component of the criminal justice system.

One of the main functions of sentencing is to provide the victim or the victim's family with support and retribution. Some victims may be content to live knowing the man or woman who killed their relative is behind bars, and may even use the opportunity to practice forgiveness. Others need the cathartic release of watching the perpetrator die, or at least knowing the perpetrator will never be released to the community. Weak laws and the potential for parole make it so that the victim's family could potentially spend the rest of their lives in fear. Victim's rights must be protected by the state, lest the criminal receive all of the media attention and criminal justice funding. Capital punishment offers some of the things that life in prison can never give: satisfaction, revenge, and restoration. The death penalty provides balance, ensuring that the family of the felon undergoes the same loss as the family of the victim. Hammurabi's Code guaranteed citizens lex talionis; there is no reason why modern American families deserve anything less than an eye for an eye, or a death for a death (Sarisky).

The death penalty may be one of the most effective deterrents of criminal behavior. As many as 5% of criminal justice analysts believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent (Death Penalty Information Center). Knowing the death penalty is an option in their state, an individual might opt to commit a lesser crime or perhaps no crime at all. Persons who are unable to make complex decisions or who do not have rational choice are now considered exempt from the death penalty, because they might not understand the ramifications of their actions. It is no longer used to execute persons who are mentally disabled, based on a 2002 ruling in the Supreme Court. Thus, persons who are mentally disabled may not have the cognitive ability to have foreseen the death penalty.