Death Penalty a Political Science

Death Penalty

A Political Science Perspective on the Death Penalty

The death penalty is the most extreme of punitive consequences, with its application representing the greatest of finalities in law enforcement and criminal sentencing. An issue which has garnered intense debate for decades and which has divided individuals along party lines and philosophical dispositions, the use of capital punishment is defended by its advocates as an effective way to deter violent crime and as a critically potent way to punish the worst of offenders. Its critics regard it as barbaric, unconstitutional or generally a violation of human rights. The United States is the only Western democracy in the world which still employs the death penalty in its criminal justice system, reflecting a unique political identity of significant divide and philosophical diversity. A careful analysis of its recent legislative and executive contention with the issue illustrates that the United States remains collectively supportive of the death penalty but that significant demographic trends in public opinion are revealing that long-standing attitudes may be changing. A political science perspective on the subject does lend some understanding to the continued use of the death penalty in the United States as well as the mounting opposition thereto.

Though the United States is still a country that generally favors the death penalty as a part of its law-enforcement arsenal, polls over the last few years suggest that the government's drive to increase the strength of the death penalty actually runs in contrast with the slope of popular opinion, creating an inverse relationship between the laws of the nation and the cultural consensus. This position seems to underscore some of the clear logical arguments against the use of the death penalty, particularly its arbitrary nature, which renders it as an instrument of punitive enforcement that is subject to the economic, racial and political peculiarities of the judiciary system.

One possible explanation for the dramatic and steady decline in public support for the death penalty may be related to an increasing awareness as to many of the inherent biases in our judicial system which seem directly to implicate racial and socioeconomic prejudices in the deliberation of justice. Persistent claims as to the conditional proclivity for African-Americans, for example, to be unfairly treated by the judicial system suggest a reason for the public's wariness of this intractable approach. Even today, the death penalty is heavily disputed in the courts under these pretenses. Indeed, in the state of Connecticut, just this past year, a landmark Superior Court decision found "that seven death row inmates can pursue their claim that Connecticut's death penalty is racially and geographically biased." (Melone, 1) This represents what is more consistently emerging as positive recognition that institutional racism has contributed to a serious danger in implementing the death penalty. The political history of the United States as a deeply unequal and racially imbalanced nation is evidenced in our law enforcement, judicial realities and prisons, where those of disadvantaged races are most significantly impacted. This illustrates the clear connection between the implementation of the death penalty and the enforcement of negative political patterns in U.S. society and culture.

According to the research here encountered, in the space of a decade, between 1992 and 2002, the death penalty was used increasingly in sentencing with regards to all races. In terms of the gross number of inhabitants of death row nationally, according to 2002 statistics, whites outnumbered blacks almost 3:2. This is a similar ratio to that which had been perpetuated ten years prior, with both races experiencing a proportional rise. Still, these numbers do tell a story. With whites outnumbering blacks by a 3:1 ratio in the general population, this source does provide evidence that there may be a racial disparity in the populations represented on death row. (DPIC, 1)

And it is noteworthy that racial considerations do not provide much pause for consideration amongst advocates of the death penalty, who enter into support thereof by virtue of a strong degree of faith in the justice system. Again, here we see that political disposition is a significant factor in shaping one's position on the subject. Those who support the death penalty tend to take a position of greater trust in the fairness and equality of the government, which is a disposition promoted itself by certain cultural, economic and racial characteristics. From this disposition, a counterargument frequently proposed against the notion of discontinuing the death penalty due to its apparent racial biases cites "a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that evidence specific to a defendant -- not statistics showing systemwide bias -- is necessary to challenge an individual's death sentence on a racial claim." (Melone, 1) This is to argue that an individual case evaluation, whereupon capital punishment is considered, should inherently protect against the permeation or ethnic, racial or geographical biases. Of course, in order to accept this argument, one must possess a certain degree of faith in the system itself as offering fair protections within the context of individual cases against prejudicial impulses.

However, most evidence suggests that the correlation between socioeconomic status and proclivity toward death penalty sentencing is far too high. Indeed, "most have contended that the death penalty is bad because it is poorly administered. In many jurisdictions, the argument goes, public defenders are incompetent." (Carlson, 1) In jurisdictions where this is true, allegations that public defenders are anything from incompetent and unprepared to sleeping through trial or defending while under the influence of drugs or alcohol denotes that those without the means to hire a fit attorney are at the mercy of a deeply unequal system. To the point, a recent "study found that those defendants whose representation was the least expensive, and thus who received the least amount of attorney and expert time, had an increased probability of receiving a death sentence." (DPIC1, 1)

This is to denote that the relationship between both race and socio-economic class and vulnerability to the death penalty suggests an arbitrary inequality that is absolutely unacceptable and steeped in a political system that is itself intolerable. This is only further magnified by the clear relationship between geographical location and this inclination. Based on the cultural and political tendencies which color different regions of the United States, one who is guilty of murder in one state may well receive a fully distinct treatment to that experienced by one in another state. Though all Americans are said to have a right to a fair trial, "ensuring this right falls, ultimately, on local jurisdictions, which vary wildly from one place to the next. Alabama, for example, has a state cap of $1,000 for out-of-court fees for defending a death-penalty case, while in Indiana the average expenditure on capital cases is $53,000. In some states, including Minnesota, Connecticut, Mississippi, Illinois and Indiana, the indigent-defense system is so inadequate that the state has been sued." (Gleick et al., 2)