Capital Punishment the Legally Authorized

¶ … Capital Punishment

The legally authorized killing of an individual as a source of punishment for a crime of which they have been convicted is known as capital punishment. Both those who support and those who oppose the death penalty will continue this debate citing history, psychology, theology, and governmental policy to support their arguments. Many United States Citizens have formed their opinions, drawn their lines, and have stated their positions. It is the purpose of this paper to support the position that capital punishment is only appropriate when and only when DNA forensic evidence clearly confirms the convicted is guilty of the crime committed.

Some Issues Surrounding Capital Punishment

"Until approximately the eighteenth century, death was not the harshest punishment available for law enforcement in civilized countries. Torture was," (Van Den Haag, 1983, p. 13). Throughout history, torture has been the worst form of punishment for those who have committed capital offenses, and often death came as a result or as a relief to those being tortured. In the United States, the earliest forms of legislation of capital punishment date back to the earliest colonialists and explorers as representatives of nations that used both torture and capital punishment as forms of deterrence to crime. "When the state exercises this awesome power, it should have the moral decency to do it as quickly and painlessly as possible," (Sinclair & Sinclair, 2009, p. 27). Within the summation of the reading and research for this thesis, it was apparent that most of the arguments against capital punishment were related to either an inherent moral or discussed capital punishment in the form of torture and/or pain. It should be noted that it is often argued that the death penalty is the only irrevocable form of punishment, and while this might be true in the purest of physical sense, there are other punishments are leaving lasting impacts as well including torture and psychological punishment. "There was a time, when the punishment of captives with death or servitude, and the indiscriminate destruction of peaceable husbandmen, women and children, were thought to be essential to the success of war, and the safety of states. But experience has taught us, this is not the case," (Vila & Morris, 1997, p. 22). If anything is evident is the reality that, for the most part, the punishment, torture, or death of such captives serves as deterrent for war more than a support of it. The criminal law exists to protect the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and every so often, an individual within a society makes a choice to end that right for someone. The question, therefore, is does the state have the right to end those rights for someone who has been convicted of taking away the freedoms of members of an incorporated society by committing a capital offense. One of the most convincing arguments against the death penalty is that an innocent convict could be unjustly sacrificed at expense of the legal system. With the advances in forensic science and DNA testing and evidence, such cases are lessening. "Americans were struck with a compromise between adopting and abolishing the death penalty that embodied the worst of both options. Yet the issue was so important that neither side would budge," (Banner, 2002, p. 310). Perhaps the answer to the debate and the resolve for this controversial topic is found in the developments within DNA testing and forensic science.

The DNA Factor

It is becoming one of the most discussed and debated topics within the greater category of crime and punishment. Forensic science has given lawmakers and officials a new set of rules to consider in crime and punishment. "In the U.S., as of June 2002, 108 people including 12 death row inmates have been exonerated by use of DNA tests. The increasing use of DNA testing to help confirm the innocence or guilt in capital cases is one among many reforms that will help ensure that innocent people are not sentenced to death," (ACLU.org, 2010). As early as ten years ago, many states did not recognize nor use DNA testing in conjunction with criminal defense. DNA is important in the development of these cases as it is being used not only to prove the innocence of individuals convicted as the ACLU notes, but it is also being used to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. DNA evidence has now changed how criminals are being tried both by prosecuting and defense attorneys. "DNA evidence has demonstrated that 'absolutely certain' eyewitnesses testimony is often wrong and that innocent men have suffered in prison for decades based on its mistakes," (Sinclair & Sinclair, p. 102). It has also proven that the guilty can be tried, prosecuted, and convicted in a simpler fashion, as its evidence is more than prudent to any criminal case and investigation. Since DNA is unique to each individual, it can often be proven with certainty all that was involved in the dispute. "DNA technology was first used in a criminal trial in 1986, and first played a role in an exoneration in 1989…As of the summer of 2007, there have been 200 convicted criminals who have been completely exonerated as a result of DNA evidence," (Gerber and Johnson, 2007, p. 22). Perhaps nothing brought DNA evidence to the living rooms and dinner conversations of the American public like the OJ Simpson trial in 1994. Now more than ever, advances are made almost daily in the use and development of DNA technology. There are still cases, however, when DNA technology and evidence is not always accurate. As already noted in this thesis, there are several individuals who have been exonerated because of DNA evidence, but there are likely more where the DNA was not used as the deciding factor of the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is not a fail-safe method, but it does produce an accuracy of result like no evidence before in the history of the American Justice System. In the same way that individuals have been exonerated because of the clarity in DNA evidence, the counter should be the same. Since we can conclude and realize that prosecuting and defense attorneys alike rely on the results of DNA testing, and since DNA testing has been used to exonerated inmates, it also should then be the deciding factor, when someone has committed a capital offense if their crime punishment should be the death penalty. IF the DNA evidence is speculative and not conclusive, than capital punishment should not even be considered as an option for the convicted individual. "A mitigation of punishment ought, therefore, to be accompanied as far as possible, by a diffusion of knowledge and a strict execution of the laws. The former not only contributes to enlighten, but to meliorate the manner and improve the happiness of the people," (Vila and Morris, p. 26). Punishment still serves as the greatest deterrent to crime; the question is what punishment is sufficient to alter the choices of a potential criminal act. To this end, a reform is needed in the delivery of a guilty verdict with a sentence of capital punishment. While capital punishment is still a vital response to the mass murderer, the intended assassin, and the heinous of all criminals, it should only be the result of the sentence with conclusive DNA evidence has been provided and confirmed that the right individual was arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced.

Further Considerations

The right to exist is the highest right since all others hinge on this reality. The taking of a life, even under legal circumstances, is not a light consideration or a decision that should be debated flippantly. Often, those who commit such crimes, take the life of others in this manner. "The life of the deliberate assassin can be of little worth to society, and it were better that en such atrocious criminals should suffer the penalty of the present system, than that one worthy citizen should perish by its abolition," (Vila & Morris, p. 25). Every citizen is granted rights for living in the American society. When another member of the society through a criminal act, or a capital offense violates these rights, the justice system should have the right to deliver a verdict and a sentence in the fullest extent of its authority. Through recent DNA testing many individuals have been released in light of the evidence that has been delivered by forensic science. The same rights to the new science are convicting others.

"Advanced DNA testing improves the just and fair implementation of the death penalty. While reasonable people can differ about capital punishment, it is indisputable that advanced DNA testing lends support and credibility to the accuracy and integrity of capital verdicts. In short, we are in a better position than ever before to ensure that only the guilty are executed. All Americans -- supporters and opponents of the death penalty alike -- should recognize that DNA testing provides a powerful safeguard in capital cases. We should be thankful for this amazing technological development," (Hatch, 2000).