Introduction
Capital punishment remains one of the most divisive subjects in the field of criminal justice system due to the ethical and social implications associated with it. In its ruling of the 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed that the death penalty was constitutional and applicable in the country. Over the years, hundreds of American citizens have been executed in accordance with the established capital punishment policies. The primary objective of the death penalty is to offer moral protection to the society by executing those who commit offenses. Most of the states that have abolished capital punishment successfully have not recorded meaningful changes in murder rates. This reality reveals that credible evidence to support death sentences over long prison sentences is missing. Although many people would believe otherwise, the death penalty might actually push criminals and convicts to commit a heinous crime so that they themselves can feel as if their destiny is out of their hand.
Why Capital Punishment is Unacceptable
The American society needs to do away with capital punishment since most of the available statistics reveal that it does not deter different forms of criminal activities. In the article, “5 Reasons Why the Death Penalty is Wrong”, Soken-Huberty (n.d.) indicates that the death penalty has done very little to address most of the recorded offenses in different states. In the same report, it occurred that more murders were recorded in the southern states despite the fact that they contributed around 81 percent of the country’s total executions (Soken-Huberty, n.d.). The level of criminal activities has remained lower in most of the regions characterized by reduced number of death penalty sentences and subsequent executions.
The National Research Council (NRC) has been monitoring and reporting most of the criminal justice issues in the country. In one of its findings, it occurred that capital punishment was capable of deterring crime was wrong (Jones, 2019). Around 88 percent of American criminologists were against the idea since they believed strongly that it was incapable of helping the country to deal with criminal offenses (Jones, 2019). In regions whereby the death penalty sentence is no longer applicable, murder cases have remained low (Jones, 2019). These observations support the argument that the promoted policy is inappropriate and incapable of delivering timely results.
The fact that capital punishment appears to affect different populations disproportionately is a strong reason to get rid of the policy. Soken-Huberty (n.d.) reveals that the specific legal approach is inhumane and claims the lives of more people from marginalized groups, such as Latinos and African Americans. Within the past century, underserved members of the American population have remained poorly represented and incapable of pursuing their social and economic goals. Most of the judicial and legal approaches remain unfavorable to such individuals. Majority of them are eventually tried, thereby becoming victims of capital punishment. To support the same idea, Soken-Huberty (n.d.) goes further to indicate that the death penalty sentence remains discriminatory in nature. When members of a minority population are affected negatively, it would be preferable to reconsider the death penalty and propose strategies to promote equality and support their life experiences.
Due to the tough challenges associated with the modern times, governments need to make smarter and better decisions in the manner in which they deal with criminal justice issues. In his work, O’Malley (2015) indicates that “the death penalty is expensive, ineffective, and wasteful as a matter of public policy” (p. 79). In the 21st century, the idea of promoting this kind of policy remains questionable and capable of affecting the needs and expectations of more people.
The economic implications of capital punishment reveal that the government incurs numerous expenses in executing convicted and sentenced criminals (Soken-Huberty, n.d.). Some analysts go further to indicate that better options would be available to address the current situation and ensure that more people have their rights put into consideration. The ineffectiveness nature of this form of punishment and the financial wastes associated with it would explain why it is unnecessary. Consequently, the collaboration of all key stakeholders and policymakers would be recommendable to transform the current situation and empower more citizens.
The ethical questions associated with capital punishment present a strong reason for abolishing capital punishment in the United States. In his article, O’Malley (2015) argues that the foundations of the United States should become the basis or guideline for pursuing policy initiatives. Specifically, the concepts of equality, human rights, and freedom describe the dreams and goals of all Americans. By considering these challenges, it would be appropriate to abolish capital sentence since it fails to support the future societal objectives of this country.
Within the past four decades, the changing legal ideas and the importance of promoting people’s civil liberties could guide more societies to reconsider capital punishment. O’Malley (2015) considers the idea of promoting imprisonment with the possibility of parole as a better option. The move to kill another person, the true essence of the death penalty policy, would be unethical and wrong in the American context. This kind of understanding is what needs to encourage more people to reconsider the nature of this policy and abolish.
Some of the real reasons why a certain group of people commit murders challenge the practicability and effectiveness of the death penalty. For instance, O’Malley (2015) observes that drug abuse, alcoholism, and mental diseases could compel different citizens to commit heinous crimes. In most of the situations, such individuals would be unaware of their actions and the subsequent repercussions. In the criminal justice system, the pronouncement of the capital punishment when the wrongdoer did not intend to kill would be a form of injustice. In another investigation, Sato (2022) argued that majority of the professional murders were aware of the existing loopholes that could make it easier for them to avoid getting detected. Consequently, these criminals would evade capture and eventually be unable to go through the criminal justice system. The nature of these gaps and challenges could explain why there is a need for those in power to reconsider this policy.
Opposing Views
Some scholars present unique arguments in favor of capital punishment as a powerful framework for deterring criminal activities. For instance, Shepherd (2004) relied on the use of execution and murder data in an effort to learn more about the implications of the death penalty. The findings revealed that the policy had the potential to reduce people’s engagement in criminal activities (Shepherd, 2004). Specifically, the researcher indicated that “each execution resulted in, on average, three fewer murders” (Shepherd, 2004, p. 283). The application of capital punishment made it possible for different populations to address the challenge of murder as a common social problem affecting both white and African Americans (Shepherd, 2004). To ensure that positive results were realized, some analysts and criminologists revealed that it was necessary to reduce the time taken before execution were made (Shepherd, 2004). Such an approach was associated with reducing levels of deterrence, thereby encouraging more criminals to continue committing additional offenses.
The idea of morality continues to guide more professionals and scholars to promote capital punishment since it has the potential to maximize deterrence. Shepherd (2004) indicates that the move to prevent criminal activities should be the guiding principle for evaluating penalties that need to be in place. The promotion of deterrence as a moral aim can guide more people to remain committed to human liberty, dignity, and life (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2005). Based on this understanding, there is a need for stakeholders to promote capital punishment based on the notion that it delivers some deterrent effects (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2005). Through the lens of morality, the promotion of the death penalty becomes necessary in an effort to protect innocent lives when future criminals are deterred before they can commit their offenses.
The promotion of capital punishment is an evidence-based practice that has the potential to put cases of murder to closure while providing justice to victims and their respective family members. When the courts sentence criminals to the death penalty punishment, the affected victims or relatives of the deceased find it easier to pursue their lives (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2005). The people will be convinced that the wrongdoer will never walk free again. The effort goes further to create the best environment for discouraging more people from engage in similar offenses of killing other members of the victims’ family. In most of the situations, people who have lost beloved ones through criminal activities usually live in fear of losing more relatives. By considering the use of capital punishment, it becomes possible to protect more possible victims and guide them to lead high-quality lives while resting assured that justice has been served.
The legal attributes and goals of the criminal justice system appear to be defined in the capital punishment policy. Gius (2020) supports the death penalty sentence since it helps address heinous criminal activities. Jones (2019) believes that murders should not be encouraged to live among other members of the society. Additionally, the practice of imprisoning such individuals and supporting them public funds gained from taxes would be inappropriate since it mocks the wider notion of justice. The identified criminal offenses should be punished using execution, thereby becoming a lesson for other people who might be planning to commit similar offenses.
Strengthening the Argument against Capital Punishment
Despite the divergent opinions existing regarding the validity and unacceptability of capital punishment, a balanced viewpoint is necessary in an effort to deal with the question with finality. While the death penalty responds to a criminal activity, it becomes necessary to appreciate the idea that killing is morally wrong and unacceptable. For cases revolving around murder, it would be wrong to execute the offender since the process will result in the loss of another life (Sato, 2022). This argument would be appropriate when focusing on various crimes, such as espionage. The move to decriminalize capital punishment will allow more stakeholders to consider and implement better options that are sustainable and ethical in nature.
The criminal process might at times be associated with erroneous sentences and miscarriage of justice. In some cases, innocent people might be identified as guilty and eventually executed wrongfully. This complex scenario could explain why there is a need for the American society to identify a better option for dealing with various types of crimes (Gius, 2020). Life sentence sounds as a better option capable of meeting the needs of more people and ensure that others do not lose their lives whenever there is miscarriage of justice.
Numerous arguments could, therefore, be presented to deal with the problematic issue of capital punishment. The current evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that the death penalty does very little to lessen crime and murder. Ethical and moral principles challenge the option since it results in death and miscarriage of justice. The initiative remains questionable since it is expensive and capable of disorienting the economy of the country. The disproportional impact of capital punishment on different minority groups makes it inappropriate in the American society (Jones, 2019). Some people might commit murder due to mental diseases or under the influence of alcohol, a weak reason for punishing them using the death penalty policy.
Conclusion
The completed discussion has identified capital punishment as a common criminal justice practice that is unacceptable in the 21st century. The U.S. needs to implement superior policies that are founded on the emerging concerns associated with this legal decision. The leading reasons for supporting the illegalization of the death penalty include its inability to deter crime, emerging ethical concerns, disproportionate impacts on minority groups, and the possibility of miscarriage of justice. Being an expensive procedure, the government can abolish it and consider better options to improve the country’s criminal justice system.
References
Gius, M. (2020). Using the Synthetic Control Method to determine the effects of the death penalty on state-level murder rates. Justice Policy Journal, 17(2), 1-10. Web.
Jones, R. C. (2019). The impact of reviving the federal death penalty. News@TheU. Web.
O’Malley, M. (2015). Abolish the death penalty, invest in public safety. W. J. Clinton, J. R. Biden, C. Booker, C. Christie, H. R. Clinton, T. Cruz, M. Huckabee, C. L. Lanier, M. O’Malley, J. Napolitano, Rand Paul, R. Perry, M. Rubio, B. Stevenson, S. Walker & J. Webb (Eds.), Solutions: American leaders speak out on criminal justice (pp. 79-82). Brennan Center for Justice.
Sato, M. (2022). Politics of international advocacy against the death penalty: governments as anti–death penalty crusaders. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 11(3), 1-11. Web.
Shepherd, J. M. (2004). Murders of passion, execution delays, and the deterrence of capital punishment. The Journal of Legal Studies, 33(2), 283-321. Web.
Soken-Huberty, E. (n.d.). 10 reasons why the death penalty is wrong. Human Rights Careers. Web.
Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2005). Deterring murder: A reply ethics and empirics of capital punishment. Stanford Law Review, 58(3), 847-857. Web.