Introduction
Capital punishment, also commonly called the death penalty, has been a contentious issue that has been subject to many debates in the past. The discussion surrounding its implications is still ongoing. Many people across the globe are against capital punishment, saying that it is inhumane, biased, and irreversible (Harris & Bodden, 2019; Sahni & Junnarkar, 2020).
Despite these arguments, capital punishment is practised by many jurisdictions worldwide. The reasons for death sentencing are that it deters people from committing murder, offers a platform for retribution, and ensures public safety. However, this goal and objective can only be achieved if the punishment is just and ethical. Increased oversight needs to be done on the legal and correctional institutions granted the power to oversee capital punishment procedures. Capital punishment is ethical and justifiable, but it must be accompanied by strict oversight to avoid mistakes that could make it unjust.
Ethical Justifications
Capital punishment is ethical since it allows victims and families who have lost a loved one to offer retribution. Bell (2020) argues that capital punishment is justifiable because when a person commits a crime, they should be punished to a degree that fits. Therefore, people who have committed the crime of murder need to be sentenced to death. The ethical implications of performing a death sentence to offer retribution for a person’s loved ones are complex and controversial. Thus, before a death sentence is performed based on retribution, oversight should be done, and alternative methods for retribution should be assessed.
Capital punishment is ethically justifiable by the fact that it increases public safety since it acts as a deterrent for future murderers to commit murder crimes. Research suggests that there is substantial evidence that the death penalty indeed deters people from committing heinous crimes such as murders, therefore, increasing public safety (Kocian, 2021). However, the level of effectiveness as a deterring measure is influenced by how the process is conducted, making it necessary for the institutions tasked with the role to be justifiable in their practice.
Moreover, capital punishment minimizes the chances of further murder crimes by removing dangerous criminals from society. However, opponents of it argue that life imprisonment could serve the same purpose. Capital punishment could be considered ethical from the lens of fairness to the victim since it is a quid pro quo (Bell, 2020). From a rule of law perspective, capital punishment is found to be ethical since it ensures that social justice is served to the family of the victims.
Ethical Concerns
Despite the justification for capital punishment provided, various ethical concerns must be addressed when executing capital punishment. Over the decades, the biggest concern has been the risk of subjecting innocent people to capital punishment (Miao, 2022). The criminal justice system is accused of making mistakes in the process of identifying and convicting people who are innocent of receiving death sentences in the past. Additionally, capital punishment has been skewed towards certain populations, with people of colour and people of low social and economic status (Evans, 2022). The differences in statistics have made people question how fair the social justice system is.
Capital punishment opponents also argue that the death penalty gives people a culture of vengeance, which could result in more crimes in society. Soares (2022) analyzes the catholic church and argues that killings and murders could send the wrong message to the church and other public members that vengeance needs to be answered with vengeance. This could end up being counterproductive to the efforts made by the criminal justice system, where correctional measures are aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating criminals into society.
The ethicality of capital justice has also been questioned based on its effect on the individual being sentenced to death. The mental torture that people who have been sentenced to death go through is inhumane and violates human rights. Therefore, the death penalty should never be used unless absolutely necessary.
Justification Strict Oversight
The two previous subtopics have shown that capital punishment is justifiable and should be conducted when necessary, but it also has several concerns that must be addressed. One reason increased oversight is necessary when imposing a death sentence is that there has been an inconsistent application in the past. Studies have confirmed that this justice system has inconsistent application, where people of particular genders, races, and ethnicities have been disadvantaged and subjected unfairly to capital punishment (Hannan et al., 2021; Ulmer & Hanrath, 2019).
For instance, in the US, there have been more capital punishments in the southern states than in the northern ones (Hoag, 2019). The black and poor populations have also witnessed significantly larger death penalty cases when compared to their white counterparts (Godcharles, 2019). Therefore, oversight should focus on these two issues to ensure that the people entrusted with ensuring that justice is maintained are not biased against a certain demographic in the population.
The legal systems have been criticized for being faulty and slow, thus delaying justice and subjecting the accused, who may face the death sentence, to undue duress. Capital murder cases are often complex, with many false witnesses and evidence that results in the judges sometimes making mistakes. Since this has been used as an argument for capital punishment, the problem could be corrected by having an oversight team that seeks to identify and correct any mistakes made by the legal system. The oversight is also justified because the legal system tries to lengthen the justice process, which could be unfair to both the accused and the victims (Udoudom et al., 2019).
The processes used to perform death sentences, such as the tools and injections, are not made public for safety reasons. Therefore, an oversight team must be designed to act as the public eye to ensure the process is conducted justly and fairly. Additionally, oversights are justified by the need to conform to the international community and ensure that the procedures in the country are fair and just. Strict oversight in capital murder procedures could also influence many people who are opponents of the justice process to become proponents.
Solutions for Increased Oversight
Several possible solutions would ensure that capital punishments are conducted in a manner that is ethical and acceptable to the international community. One solution available is guaranteeing oversight to ensure the accused have competent and well-funded lawyers. Lack of adequate legal defence has been why many people of lower socioeconomic status have been found guilty of capital murder crimes (Bruck, 2022).
All states need to form public defence teams that adequately represent people accused of murder or treason who cannot afford a lawyer. The oversight team could help standardize the application of the death sentence process. The application of capital punishment has been left to the care and personal choice of the judges, which has resulted in it being inconsistent.
Increasing oversight in the capital punishment process could improve its internal processes. For instance, today, appeals to capital murder cases and other serious crimes can be slow and time-consuming, causing the convict to experience psychological trauma. An oversight team could push the criminal justice system to speed up its processes, ensuring fairness to the accused (Nason, 2021).
Fastening the system could also save on resources and ensure no court backlogs. An oversight team may recommend that the legal and justice teams integrate technology in the courts, which could result in increased accuracy in the court procedures and, thus, fairness in the rulings. Some technologies the defence team could initiate include DNA and other forensic tests that could provide substantial proof.
Conclusion
Although the death penalty is morally right and justified, it must be applied with close supervision to prevent errors that could render it unfair. The justifications for the death penalty include preventing future crimes, expelling offenders from society, implementing redistributive justice, and treating victims fairly. Nonetheless, it is a risky process as it could result in the execution of innocent people and unfairly sentence people from marginalized communities.
Therefore, oversight is essential to ensure the system is fair and just. Oversight could bring various benefits, such as strong legal representation for people who can afford competent lawyers, standardizing the processes, and integrating new solutions. Capital punishment should be conducted in a safe, transparent, ethical, and standard manner and only when completely necessary.
References
Bell, A. H. (2020). Cop-Killers, emotion, and capital punishment in Moncton, New Brunswick: the Ambrose and Hutchison Case, 1974–5. Canadian Historical Review, 101(3), 346–369. Web.
Bruck, D. I. (2022). Does the death penalty still matter: Reflections of a death row lawyer? Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice, 29, 169. Web.
Evans, I. I. (2022). Life for Life or Life for Less: Voices against the Death Penalty? Nnamdi Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence, 13(2), 115-128.
Godcharles, B. D., Rad, J. D. J., Heide, K. M., Cochran, J. K., & Solomon, E. P. (2019). Can empathy close the racial divide and gender gap in death penalty support? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37(1), 16–37. Web.
Hannan, K. R., Cullen, F. T., Butler, L. C., Graham, A., Burton, A. L., & Burton, V. S. (2021). Racial sympathy and support for capital punishment: A case study in concept transfer. Deviant Behavior, pp. 1–24. Web.
Harris, D., & Bodden, V. (2019). Capital punishment: History of crime and punishment. ABDO.
Hoag, A. (2019). Valuing black lives: A case for ending the death penalty. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 51, 983. Web.
Kocian, E. J. (2021). Deterrence theory and Batman: The dark knight of deterrence. Theories of Crime Through Popular Culture, 7-16. Web.
Miao, M. (2022). A review of the progressive development of the international human rights framework on capital punishment. Hauser Global Law School Program, NYU School of Law. Web.
Nason, S. (2021). Oversight of administrative justice systems. In M. Hertogh et al. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice. (pp. 155-176). Oxford Handbooks. Web.
Sahni, S. P., & Junnarkar, M. (2020). The death penalty: Perspectives from India and beyond. Springer Nature.
Udoudom, M. D., Bassey, S. A., Okpe, T. A., & Adie, T. (2019). Kantian and utilitarian ethics on capital punishment. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute: Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(2), 28-35. Web.
Ulmer, J. T., & Hanrath, L. (2019). Disparities in death penalty prosecution and punishment: A review of recent research and an expanded agenda. Handbook on Sentencing Policies and Practices in the 21st Century, 254-280.