Capital Punishment the Argument Over

Capital Punishment

THE ARGUMENT OVER CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Concepts of crime and punishment are universal in human societies, as are moral rules and principles. In Western society, the imposition of death as punishment for certain crimes is traceable all the way back to biblical times. In many respects, death is hardly the worst of all conceivable punishments, and the records of the Middle Ages in particular demonstrate how many types of punishment are infinitely more cruel than the mere termination of life. Throughout the Spanish Inquisition, ghoulish torture devices inflicted unimaginably horrible suffering, and even much more recent history evidences capital forms of punishment purposely intended to inflict pain in the process of ending the life of the accused.

At the same approximate time that imagined "witches" were immolated alive in the American Colonies, France had begun implementing another form of capital punishment, using a Guillotine device to kill as quickly as possible. Death by slow strangulation was the most common authorized form of death penalty in the United States until well into the 20th century (Friedman 2005).

Contemporary American Constitutional law has upheld the constitutional permissibility of capital punishment in conjunction with specific conceptual safeguards corresponding to the types of crimes for which it is eligible (Scmalleger 1997). Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court (USSC) has articulated standards as to the manner in which death penalty cases are adjudicated procedurally, as well as to the specific mechanisms that are authorized to carry out death sentences. Nevertheless, capital punishment remains a controversial topic for which numerous alternate moral justifications have been suggested on both sides of the issue.

The Moral Argument Against Killing as Punishment: According to some, capital punishment is completely antithetical to the concept of justice in civilized society because it represents the ultimate hypocrisy. If murder is the ultimate form of immoral criminal conduct, then imposing death as punishment for crime is, in this view, no better than the crime for which it is supposedly a justified punishment.

Many who espouse this position derive it from religious concepts, such as the belief that only God creates life and, therefore, only God is justified in terminating life (Dershowitz 2002).

However, even those who derive their moral beliefs from religious teachings sometimes disagree sharply on the appropriateness of capital punishment; some consider the fundamental distinction between malicious, criminal, or other unjustified murder and the act of justified or necessary killing, such as the act of killing in war, in self-defense, or in the defense of others. They point out that the Bible itself relates commandments to kill in sacrifice and that by God's own example, death is the appropriate punishment for certain moral transgressions.

On the other hand, the Constitution of the United States guarantees, in principle, the separation of Church and State. In that regard, the USSC has considered the issue and determined that the First Constitutional Amendment specifically prohibits religious beliefs, definitions, examples, and criteria from expression in secular U.S. law as a violation of the constitutional rights establishing the freedom of religious determination (Dershowitz 2002). Nevertheless, diametrically opposite secular moral beliefs define capital punishment, with one position equating it with murder and the other distinguishing morally justified killing, almost exactly in the same manner as religious beliefs allow for such different arguments on the topic.

Defining "Cruel and Unusual" Punishment:

According to the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" (Nowak, et al. 2004). Capital punishment generated significant controversy on the constitutional permissibility of punitive killing continuing into the modern era of the Supreme Court. In Gregg v. Georgia (1976) the USSC established that the death penalty is not inherently unconstitutional in principle (Dershowitz 2002), but that in order to satisfy the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, it required various safeguards against misapplication.

Specifically, Gregg emphasized the importance of the appropriateness of capital sentences in relation to the heinousness of the corresponding crime (Hall 1992) as well as the need for procedural safeguards (such as the right of appeal). According to the USSC, provided the crime is of a sufficiently heinous nature, and where safeguards ensure against the imposition of capital punishment in an arbitrary, capricious or prejudicial manner, it is not, in and of itself violative of the Eight Amendment or any other provision or right guaranteed by the Constitution.

The latest contemporary constitutional issue in relation to cruel and unusual punishment arises in connection with death by lethal injection (Friedman 2005), in light of credible medical testimony suggesting that the combination of powerful drugs used to effect the sentence may cause excruciating suffering in the form of asphyxia by breathing paralysis long before death occurs from the effects of the components of the prescribed drug cocktail designed to stop the heart. This too, is more a matter of procedural and operational issues (Zalman 2008) than an effective moral argument against the appropriateness of capital punishment in principle.

Fairness in Application:

One of the most troubling issues impacting on the moral appropriateness of capital punishment is the degree to which that race and economic factors play a role in its ultimate application in actual practice, even if not in purpose or design. Uncontroverted evidence suggests that the death penalty is applied disproportionately to convicts who are comparatively poor and to those of racial minority classifications than to other convicted criminals. Whereas the criminal justice system is inherently designed to apply the weight of justice and criminal punishment without preferential or discriminatory purpose, many elements of the economic and social realities of American society contribute to a contrary result, albeit unintentionally (Schmalleger 1997).

The simple fact of the matter is that socioeconomic status remains one of the distinguishing characteristics between the imposition of capital punishment or non-capital punishment on different individuals convicted of identical crimes (Scmalleger 1997). In this regard, one position suggests that all capital punishment must be suspended unless or until this aspect can be addressed and eliminated, whereas the opposite position views this as a legitimate issue, but one requiring solutions through procedural safeguards rather than abolishment of capital punishment altogether (Zalman 2008).

Wrongful Conviction:

The recent advances in the DNA sciences and forensic techniques has enabled criminal investigators to reexamine old case files containing preserved organic trace evidence to identify or eliminate suspects, and determine their guilt or innocence with scientific certainty and accuracy that was not available at the time the crimes were originally tried in court. Sometimes, reexamination of old evidence confirms the original conclusions; however, other times, modern analysis of old evidence does the opposite by exonerating those convicted of the crime. Several such cases have drawn significant media attention recently, both where individuals incarcerated for decades were finally released on the strength of modern reanalysis of old evidence, and more regretfully, where capital punishment was already administered.

This conclusive demonstration that capital punishment, like other forms of adjudicated determinations, is capable of being imposed wrongfully on the innocent is a very significant cause for moral concern. Again, the two arguments are (1) that the capacity for error makes capital punishment immoral on one hand, or (2) that the admitted possibility of error is addressable through improved procedural mechanisms without necessitating a reevaluation of capital punishment in principle, on the other. Balancing the Interests of Criminals and the Good of Society:

Assuming that capital punishment can be applied fairly and without the possibility of error, another fundamental issue it raises is the duty (if any) of society to bear the burden and significant expense of maintaining facilities necessary to house and sustain the health and welfare of those convicted of morally heinous crimes indefinitely. In particular, in as much as the dual purpose of incarceration for life is justified for the seriousness, moral turpitude, or heinous nature of certain crimes, the question arises whether society bears a moral obligation to invest resources provided by the innocent to house clothe and feed those too dangerous to release into society. No doubt, as the argument goes, the funds necessary to house convicted murderers, for example, could be much better spent on deserving individuals and social services in society.

Conclusion:

In many ways, it is easy to sympathize with many positions with respect to the moral appropriateness of capital punishment. Even wholly apart from the position ultimately supporting or opposing capital punishment, there are numerous specific arguments and justifications that lead to each conclusion from different directions.

Religious morality may dictate either conclusion depending on the criteria derived from religious beliefs and from different interpretation or focus with respect to biblical scripture or doctrine. However, since the USSC has determined that secular law must remain free of religious influence, it would seem inappropriate to apply religious principles to matters governed by the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution also prohibits punishment that is "cruel and unusual," but apart from any legal definitions or constitutional principles, it is clear that purely secular moral concepts should reach the same position on the purposeful (or unconcerned) infliction of pain in retribution for crimes. Therefore, even staunch proponents of capital punishment share the concern that it be (1) imposed only where extreme punishment is appropriate to the nature of the crime, and (2) applied in a manner that does not cause unnecessary pain or prolonged suffering. Assuming those elements are satisfied, capital punishment is warranted in certain situations.