Capital Punishment Specifically for Inmates

¶ … Capital Punishment specifically for inmates who kill Correctional Officers while incarcerated

An argument in favor of capital punishment against criminals who murder correctional officers in prison

This paper will begin with an analysis of the argument regarding the morality and legality of the death penalty, arguing briefly for its continued presence within the fabric of the contemporary United States justice system. Then it will examine the enforcement of the death penalty in the different states, and the reasons for the use of the death penalty. It will show how these facts demonstrate why inmates who kill correctional officers in prison while they are incarcerated should receive the death penalty just like criminals who kill a police officer are more likely to receive the penalty of death because of the extremity of this crime.

The Death Penalty in the United States

The U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. What constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is a subjective idea, and has evolved over the course of world and American history, both legally and in terms of public opinion. The appropriateness of punishment is something that evolves in dialogue with the law courts of the land and also in terms of what people believe is fair punishment. At present, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the death penalty, provided that it is enforced in a fair and equitable manner, and the majority of the United States citizenry has supports the death penalty. Support is growing, rather than sinking. "Support reached an all-time low of 42% in 1966. Throughout the 70s and 80s, the percentage of Americans in favor of the death penalty increased steadily, culminating in an 80% approval rating in 1994" ("Part I: History of the Death Penalty," Death Penalty Information Center, 2007). Support was only lowest during the 1960s and 1970s when the Supreme Court temporarily declared that the way the death penalty was enforced was unfairly arbitrary and penalized persons of minority descent, however in 1977 the Supreme Court permitted the execution of convicted killer Gary Gilmore, because the way the death penalty was enforced in Oklahoma met the standard that had been set in the case that temporarily overturned it: "the Supreme Court set the standard that a punishment would be 'cruel and unusual' [only] if it was too severe for the crime, if it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or it if was not more effective than a less severe penalty" ("Part II: History of the Death Penalty," Death Penalty Information Center, 2007). Given that correctional officers, like police officers, put their lives on the line to enforce the laws of the state and to contain dangerous criminals, it would make the death penalty more, rather than less equitably enforced, if criminals who acted against correctional officers while incarcerated were also put to death.

Reasons for the Death Penalty

Today, only the most heinous crimes are punishable by death in the United States such as first-degree murder, terrorism, and even then the punishment is only extended when "statutorily-defined aggravating circumstances" are present ("Crimes Punishable by the Death Penalty," Death Penalty Information Center, 2007). Given that the majority of the populace and the judiciary support the death penalty, the question that exists is not if the death penalty should be enforced, but when. The murder of a police officer is considered one of the aggravating factors in deciding to condemn a person to death, rather than sentence that person life imprisonment. This underlines the retributive aspect of the death penalty, given that policemen and women are not merely citizens but representatives of the law of the land. To act against an enforcer of justice is a crime against the state and the badge, not just the individual, and makes the community less safe as well as harms the person's family. It is also meant as a deterrent, so that when a criminal is cornered he or she will think twice before pulling the trigger.

Why Correctional Officers in Prison are Analogous to Police Officers

Deterrence and retribution are two of the most common reasons cited for keeping the death penalty as part of the law of the land. Given this, it is extraordinary to consider that killing a correctional officer within a penitentiary is not considered a similarly aggravating factor when sentencing a criminal convicted of murder. Although correctional officers within prisons are not technically police officers, they too represent the state in some of the most difficult circumstances and situations imaginable. They preside over hardened criminals on a daily basis, just like police officers, only the criminals they oversee are often present in greater numbers. To act against a correctional official is surely just as flagrant example of striking back at law enforcement as it is to kill a police officer.

The idea of deterrence is perhaps even more important in the case of a corrections officer. After all, a person acting against a police officer has more to lose than a person acting against a corrections officer. If a person shoots at a police officer, he or she stands a chance of loosing his or her liberty or his or her life. But an individual incarcerated in prison, perhaps for life, or for a duration in jail that 'feels' like life to a hardened, desperate criminal, has nothing to lose. Striking back in a violent fashion against a corrections official seems like second nature, especially in the violent atmosphere of a prison. Deterrence in the killing of correctional officers in prison is, if anything, an even more pressing matter than it is under the circumstances of the street.

Ironically, although rates of violent crime have declined many of the nation's cities, prisons are more violent and dangerous than ever. Overcrowding is also rampant. According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, in 2005, fourteen states oversaw prison population increases of at least 5%, led by South Dakota (up 11.9%), Montana (up 10.9%), and Kentucky (up 10.4%). These inmate increases were not matched by substantially expanded facility capacity or human support, making the protection of the law for our correctional officers all the more vital. Furthermore, state prisons were operating between 1% below and 14% above capacity; Federal prisons were operating at 34% above capacity ("Prisoners in 2005," Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 2006).