Introduction
Capital punishment is the legal execution of criminal offenders after a closure of a case in which a judicial system becomes satisfied with trial and confirmation of guilt. The penalty, mostly referred to as death sentence, is administered to offenders of crimes perceived to be capital, such as rape, murders, and treason. Records from Amnesty International indicate that as of 2012, 141 countries had either stopped executing capital offenders or had abolished the law. Countries that still record a high number of death sentences include China and the U.S. (Amnesty International, 2012). Johnson (2019) reports that there has been a continuous decline in the number of executions in the U.S. With debates still raging on the abolishment or enforcement of capital punishment, this argumentative paper presents the best reasoning of the two sides. It also analyzes the facts through which the logic is founded.
First Argument
Brad Bushman, a critic of capital punishment, argues that the death sentence does to achieve what it was initially intended to achieve. On the contrary, death sentence promotes the very vice that it strives to eliminate, which is killing. Bushman (2014) also suggests that the death sentence should be abolished from the fact that the procedure is prone to judicial errors but remains irreversible. Innocent inmates have been executed in the past; thus, a valid reason for abolishing the punishment to avert future errors. There also exist elements of racial and socioeconomic disparities when enforcing death sentences in the U.S. Racial minorities and the poor are prone to face executions due to unfounded perceptions and inability to cater for quality legal services. Lastly, the death sentence acts against the constitution, which outlaws cruel and unusual punishment. From these premises, it becomes conclusive that capital punishment is ineffective and contradicts the constitution, thus a need for its abolishment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Defense for the First Argument
To present a viable case for the abolishment of capital punishment, it is critical to demonstrate that the death penalty is not efficient to its intended purpose. As mentioned, drafters of the punishment expected to have it reduce capital offenses by instilling fear in potential offenders. However, statistics indicate that states which enforce the punishment have a higher number of capital offenses than states which do not enforce it. John Tures, a professor of political science, caries out comparative research to determine capital crime rates in the two categories of states. The data obtained is then used to rank countries according to their rates of murder. The results indicate that of the 25 states with the highest capital crimes, 20 enforced death sentence. Twenty-five states with the least rates of murder had 14 states that had abolished the capital punishment law (Tures, 2016). The research conclusively underlined the fact that death punishment is not only ineffective in tackling rates of murder but is also related to higher rates of capital crimes.
Despite failing to meet its intended purpose, capital punishment is also erroneous, thus leading to the conviction of innocent defendants. First, it is highly likely that innocent executions have happened and would never be recorded since the evidence got buried with the victims. This probable scenario has led researchers concluding that actual statistics of innocent death sentences will remain unknowable until the law is abolished. Despite this lack of information, the available data indicates that 4.1% of death sentences would be potentially exonerated if the defendants had the time and proper legal representation (Gross et al., 2014). The figure implies that the U.S has already executed several innocent inmates.
Apart from falling short of the constitutional threshold on cruel punishment, Akhtar (2010) also demonstrates that the death sentence is biased and discriminating. Forty-four percent of executions are ethnic minorities despite a 30 percent population representation. The economically disadvantaged are also unable to afford quality legal representation, thus unfairly discriminated. This in-depth analysis and data, coupled with the astonishing fact that executing an inmate is more costly to the state than keeping them under a life sentence, provide conclusive reasons for the need to abolish the death sentence.
Opposing Argument
Proponents of capital punishment, like Hoyle and Lehrfreund, believe the death sentence is serving its initially intended purpose and should be globally enforced. Hoyle and Lehrfreund (2019) base their argument on the two premises of deterrence and retribution. On deterrence, they believe that every single execution of a proven capital offender saves the lives of numerous innocent citizens by deterring potential murderers from committing the killing. The two authors, however, emphasize the need to ensure proper investigation and fair trial to ensuring executions are justified. Under the premise of retribution, the death penalty is deemed just and appropriate to inmates who are proved to have committed similar or worse crimes. Punishing a criminal on equal measures with crimes committed gives a feeling of justice to families and friends of victims and also serves a humane way of serving revenge.
Defense of Opposing Argument
Supporters of the death sentence have, in several attempts, shown evidence that capital punishment achieves the deterrence purpose that it was primarily designed to achieve. India is an example of countries in which deterrence has been observed. After the introduction of capital punishment, India continues to see a decline in capital offenses such as murder and armed robberies. Weisberg reported a similar trend of results at Stanford University School of Law. Weisberg (2005) affirms that even though there exist challenges in determining the extent of deterrence in exact figures, observation of general trends gives a hint on the effectiveness of the death penalty. An observation on states after abolishment and reinstatement of the law indicates that 90 percent of states that abolish capital punishment always exhibit a surge in the number of capital offenses. On the other hand, 70 percent of states that reinstate the death penalty often experience a decline in capital crimes. More recent econometric studies have attempted to quantify levels of deterrence and reported up to 18 lives saved per legal execution (Weisberg, 2005). These figures indicate the effectiveness of capital offense on deterring potential offenders from executing planned crimes.
The premise of retribution is unmeasurable but can be assessed through levels of satisfaction from victims, close family, and friends. Persons in close relation to the deceased always feel satisfied and just when an offender is subjected to a punishment similar to their offense. The two premises prove the effectiveness of the punishment and justify its deployment, thus confirming the need to enforce death sentences.
Analysis of the Reasoning
The eight premises presented by critics of the death penalty have quality arguments and facts but also potential bias and fallacies. The most logical of the arguments is the fact that trials are erroneous and may lead to the execution of innocent inmates. The introduction of DNA evidence in trials has, in the past, exonerated several inmates on the death penalty, proving the erroneous and innocent executions theory. The premise of capital punishment promoting death instead of curbing the vice is fallacious. Legal execution does not promote death but acts as a reminder that murders are capital offenses and may attract punishment of equal measures. It is also biased to conclude that the death penalty achieves zero deterrence. Research in regions that have shown increased or unchanged levels of crime after the enforcement of capital punishment did not consider all possible factors related to the vice. As long as planned murders and armed robberies still exist, it remains likely that deterrence occurs, albeit minimally.
Racial and socioeconomic disparities in the enforcement of capital punishment also exist, as argued by the critics. Statistics show that the minorities and the poor face higher rates of executions due to their color and inability to afford legal fees. However, critics should consider that the disparity might be due to extreme levels of crime in these communities. Equity in the distribution of resources to these groups should be factored as a way of curbing murders, rather than using the death penalty. Finally, it is logical that the death penalty is cruel, thus unconstitutional. Putting these arguments together, despite the notable bias and fallacies, presents a stronger case for the abolishment of the caporal punishment.
Proponents of the death penalty base their arguments on the premise of deterrence and retribution. Deterrence is a potentially strong argument when the number of planned murders is considered. However, the number of impulsive murders remains high, indicating that the extent of deterrence is likely low. Retribution is also evident from the levels of satisfaction shown by affected individuals. Punishing offenders on equal measures to the crimes committed bring a feeling of just, but does not explain the potential erroneous executions.
Conclusion
Several states in the U.S and across the globe continue to enforce the death penalty on capital offenders. Previously, Americans have shown support for the death sentence, as a way of deterring crime and retribution to victims, families, and friends of the plaintiff. However, the number of Americans opposing this law has been increasing. The increase is not only linked to political affiliations but also levels of education. Individuals with high levels of education show an inclination against the death penalty on premises of unconstitutionality, inhumanity, and ineffectiveness of the law. The strongest of the arguments is, however, reserved for the numerous innocent executions that have so far occurred in the U.S. Any single erroneous execution is enough to call for the abolishment of capital punishment. Using these arguments, critical thinkers in the field of crime and security may weigh other options of deterrence instead of relying on the death penalty.
Works Cited
Akhtar, A. M. "Murder most foul: The death penalty and the disadvantaged." SSRN Electronic Journal (2010): n. pag. Web. <10.2139/ssrn.1638564>.
Amnesty International. "Death penalty facts." N.p., May 2012. Web. <https://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/DeathPenaltyFactsMay2012.pdf>.
Bushman, B. J. "It's time to kill the death penalty." Psychology Today 19 Jan. 2014: n. pag. Web. <https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/get-psyched/201401/it-s-time-kill-the-death-penalty>.
Gross, S. R., B. O'Brien, C. Hu, and E. H. Kennedy. "Rate of false conviction of criminal defendants who are sentenced to death." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111.20 (2014): 7230-7235. Web. <10.1073/pnas.1306417111>.
Hoyle, C., and S. Lehrfreund. "Contradictions in judicial support for capital punishment in India and Bangladesh: Utilitarian rationales." Asian Journal of Criminology (2019): n. pag. Web. <10.1007/s11417-019-09304-0>.
Johnson, D. T. "A Factful perspective on capital punishment." Journal of Human Rights Practice 11.2 (2019): 334-345. Web. <10.1093/jhuman/huz018>.
Tures, J. A. "Does the death penalty reduce the murder rate?" Huffpost 2 Dec. 2016: n. pag. Web. <https://www.huffpost.com/entry/does-the-death-penalty-re_b_13362760>.
Weisberg, R. "The death penalty meets social science: Deterrence and jury behavior under new scrutiny." Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1.1 (2005): 151-170. Web. <10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.1.051804.082336>.
