Death Penalty justice is one of the controversial subjects in the USA justice system (Stevenson 79). Judges bear the burden of deciding someone’s future, especially when accused of significant crimes against humanity, such as murder. Over the years, the controversial death penalty has been handed out while others who the jury thought was to be sentenced to death were rescued. Some of these verdicts are questionable, raising differences in theories regarding death sentences. Considering that some death penalty cases have been reversed after initial sentencing, one recommends revised death sentencing. Although the current criminal justice system has played a significant role in humanity, there are still errors conducted in the justice system during the ruling of the death penalty.
Over the past years, wrongful death penalty convictions have been witnessed, leading to an unjust death. In his book Just Mercy, Stevenson depicts the current justice system as a system full of hoaxes, which cannot be trusted to serve its citizens (Stevenson). Initially, the justice system was meant to do justice to all citizens regardless of their status. However, considering what Stevenson explains, one can be sure that many people have been denied justice. In the first case, Stevenson realizes the loopholes in its ruling despite the suspect robbing the offense. Upon investigation, Bryan is drawn into a tangle of conspiracy, political intrigue, and legal brinkmanship, rescuing the suspect from wrongful sentencing.
Arguably, most citizens will support the death penalty slapped on offenders of various human atrocities. Since these offenders are reported to have committed offenses that took or risked others’ life, such as murder and treason, they should be sentenced to death if they are guilty. However, the current justice system does not guarantee justice transparency. This lack of integrity creates room for wrongful conviction; with politics and fraud involved, justice crimes will rise; thus, a fair trial cannot be assured.
The death sentence is an irreversible conviction, which is why the penalty should be revised. Since human beings can correct their behavior, the death penalty is harsh. Instead, they should be convicted of corporal punishment. The role of the court and prison is to ensure offenders undergo numerous behavior-correcting exercises. Most of those supporting the death penalty argue that if an offender who is killed immediately is found guilty, it will scare other people who will restrain from offenses that will lead to immediate death sentencing. However, despite the death sentencing, it does not guarantee lowered crime rate or change of behavior.
To sum up, as humans, due to our imbalance and normal emotional reaction, we are likely to recommend the death penalty to those found guilty. We should reconsider our stand and try giving fellow humans a second chance to correct their behaviors. We all agree that offenses must never go unpunished, which is why we will recommend more significant punishment and behavior correction. The current justice system cannot be trusted to subject suspects to a fair trial, hence can pass unjust rulings. Without charging the judicial system, it is recommendable to have reversible sentencing in case retrials. Arguing from the ‘What if’ perspective, where there is a probability of mistakes, the death penalty should be abolished or revised. However, significant crimes such as mass murder and shootings should be slapped with the immediate death penalty in case of convincing evidence. The jury’s opinion should be highly considered during the sentencing, with more than one judge involved in the death penalty sentencing.
Stevenson, B. Just mercy: A story of justice and redemption. One World/ Ballantine, 2014.