[Class Title]
Introduction
Death, as a form of punishment, is being practiced even in the earliest days of human civilization. The people of ancient Mesopotamia, during the time of Hammurabi, have been observed to perform death sentences on certain transgressions and immoral acts, as determined by their codes . Similarly, the Hebrews has also been using death as a capital punishment for several transgressions under their law. The traditional Law of Moses, which can also be read in the Christian bible, is, in fact, a relic of the age old tradition of exacting death penalty that has been practiced for many centuries. Being one of the oldest forms of punishment, the death penalty runs deep into a man’s primal need for justice. Death penalty, for instance, is used in order to achieve an equal punishment for a sin committed. A person who kills another, for example, can only compensate for the life he took by taking out his life in return. The Law of Moses, for instance, teaches that the sinner should pay an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and life for life (Prejean 701). This approach has laid the very foundation of retributive justice that is being observed in most modern justice systems today. A literal interpretation of ‘an eye for an eye’ concept of justice, however, does not sit well with the civilized man. Man’s justice system has evolved from the primitive way of using brutal methods of punishment into a more humane approach. People, for instance, do not take the limb of a person in order to compensate for the loss of limb of another when the other person is at fault. Rather, people look for equivalent ways to compensate for the loss of another. A thief, for instance, is not punished by taking away his possessions nor is a rapist punished by having him raped. But despite the development of man’s justice system, death, as a capital punishment, has remained. Over the years, people have been debating its appropriateness. Given the brutality and finality of death, many people have been opposed to its adoption as punishment. There are those, however, who believe that the death penalty is an arsenal of justice that must be available whenever necessary. In the midst of the death penalty controversy, people question whether death penalty be justified or if it is a just punishment. There are also those who question whether it is an effective deterrent to crime or not while others question whether it can be applied fairly and consistently.
Arguments against Death Penalty
Abolitionists have several arguments against the death penalty. One of which is that the death penalty could not be justified primarily because it could not be imposed fairly and consistently. The lack of uniformity in the sentencing of the death penalty among criminals is seen by those who are against it as a major flaw why the death penalty should not be allowed as a means of punishment in a justice system. In the case of McCleskey v. Kemp, the defendant presented a statistical data in court, which revealed that “defendants charged with killing white victims were 4.3 times more likely to receive the death penalty than defendants charged with killing African-American victims”. According to the defendant, the statistical data shows that there is an apparent arbitrariness in the imposition of the capital punishment and that the statistical evidence shows that the death penalty is impacted by racial prejudices. In the landmark case of Callins vs. Collins, Justice Blackmun explained that if death penalty could not be imposed with consistency and fairness, then it should not be imposed at all . The fallibility of human institutions is also seen as a source of arbitrariness of death penalty sentencing. Decisions to impose death penalty are based on whim primarily because it lacks uniformity. As observed by scholars, “Some of the most heinous murders do not result in death sentences, while less heinous crimes are punished by death”.
Another major argument against the death penalty is based on death being a cruel and unusual form of punishment. Under the 8th Amendment of the United States constitution, any form of cruel and unusual punishment is unconstitutional. According to statistics, 3% or 276 of the 9,000 of the executions conducted in the United States are botched with lethal injection as being the most problematic (Raybin 30). Theoretically, death penalty through lethal injection is considered as a painless death. Granting that this assumption is true, death could not be considered as cruel and unusual anymore. But whether the death penalty is painful or not, death is still considered by many as cruel and unusual because of its finality and irreversibility. Considered as an ultimate misfortune, death has been seen by many as the worst thing that can happen to an individual. According to the philosopher, Thomas Nagel, death is not bad because people cease to exist. Apparently, before being born, an individual is already non-existent in the first place and his non-existence is not necessarily bad. Death, however, is considered bad because when one loses his life, he is deprived of the things that life can offer. Although there are many undesirable experiences in a person’s life, life is seen by most people as good in its entirety. Philosophers believe that it is the experience that life offers that makes death extremely unfortunate and evil. The death of a young individual who is at his prime, for instance, is considered as a tragedy primarily because he was not able to experience life and all the things life can offer while the death of an elderly person may not be as bad. Nagel, for instance, compared the death of two prominent writers. According to Nagel, the death of Tolstoy, who died at the age of 82 is not as tragic as compared to the death of Keats who died at the age of 24. The reason of which is that Keats’ death deprived him of the years that were given to Tolstoy. In a similar analogy, criminals who were sentenced to die hold on to life primarily because being existent is better than being non-existent. And though theoretically, modern death penalty through lethal injection is considered as painless, death itself is the greatest punishment because it deprives a person of his existence. The finality and irreversibility of the death penalty also worry some people of the chance that innocents will be executed. There are, for instance, many cases of wrongful accusations that after several years of being convicted, turns out that the convict was innocent. The case of James Bain is just one example of a wrongful conviction, which took 35 years to notice. Bain was accused of rape and was sentenced to life imprisonment, but was later found innocent through DNA testing. Such wrongful convictions prove that the justice system is not immune to mistakes and given that the death penalty is irreversible, a mistake of such magnitude is unacceptable and should not be allowed to happen.
Arguments for Death Penalty
Death, as an ultimate punishment, can be the only just punishment for certain crimes. There are crimes, for instance, that are exceptionally evil that a punishment lesser than death can be considered as unjust. Justice, according to scholars, is based on the notion of ‘Lex Talionis;’ a principle which implies that an individual should be punished to a similar degree as to how he has injured another person (Finkelstein, 2002, p.4). Justice being fairness can only be based on this principle. Consider a man who rapes and murders his victim. No amount of monetary compensation can fairly pay for the injury, suffering and the loss of life of the victim. And if justice should be served, under the principle of Lex Talionis, the only remedy would be to take away the criminal’s life in retribution to the life that he took. Such penalty is even unfair towards the victim. As a matter of fact, taking the life of the criminal does not pay for the ordeal that the victim and the victim’s family have gone through. Moreover, to think that the criminal would be executed through lethal injection, which is, theoretically, a painless method of death is, in itself, a form of injustice. But since the justice system could not be unusually cruel in exacting punishment, the only arsenal that it can use to exact justice over exceptionally evil crimes is the death penalty. It is the only form of punishment that can closely compensate for extremely evil deeds. Being a just punishment, the death penalty could not be abolished just because it is arbitrary and could not be uniformly imposed. In general, no verdict can be uniformly imposed primarily because every case is unique and have different circumstances. Does it mean that people should not pursue justice anymore because verdicts and cases are not uniform? Apparently, it is not the case so. The justice system’s fallibility could not be used as a reason for not pursuing justice. If the criterion of having a justice institution is perfection, then no justice institution will ever exist.
Aside from being just, there are also increasing evidence that the death penalty can deter crimes. In a study conducted by scholars, it was found that heinous crimes increased rapidly after the death penalty was postponed in a Supreme Court imposed moratorium in the 1970s (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd 9). Heinous crimes, however, gradually declined and remained at its lowest level prior to the moratorium when capital punishment was again restored (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd 9). Criminology theories also support the hypothesis of deterence. Ronald Akers’ differential reinforcement theory, for instance, posits that one of the major factors that affect the tendency of a person to commit crime is on how he percieve the rewards and punishment of the act. Accordingly, the strength of criminal behavior is a direct function of the amount, frequency and probability of reinforcement (Akers 45). For Akers, if a person percieves that the reward for committing a crime is greater than its punishment, then it is most likely that he will do it (Akers, & Jensen 5). However, if the person percieves that the punishment is greater than the reward, he will, most likely, refrain from doing it (Akers, & Jensen 5). As evidenced by theories and empirical researches, there is little doubt that death penalty does deter crimes.
Conclusion
The death penalty is not always a popular choice. Many people see it as a cruel and brutal punishment primarily because most people see life as precious and important. But the preciousness and pricelessness of life is also the reason why there should be a death penalty. There are certain individuals, for instance, who have no respect for life. There are criminals whose deeds are exceptionally evil that no amount of retribution could compensate for the loss and damage that they have committed. Under these circumstances, a justice system without the arsenal of a death penalty would be severely impaired in exacting justice. It could not be denied that justice institutions, despite the systems of check and balance, are still subject to human fallibility. Most verdicts, for instance, are arbitrary and in some cases, verdicts are subject to whims. It is also possible that in the execution of the death penalty, glitches can happen and, in a worst case scenario, a botched execution will occur. These fallibility of the justice system, however, could not be used as a reason to deny an individual of justice. After all, there is no perfect human institution despite the fact that everyone thrives for perfection. The point is, the death penalty is the only option that a justice institution can use to make a proportionate punishment for exceptionally evil crimes. For the same reason, justice institutions should not be denied of this arsenal that it can use whenever necessary in upholding justice and fairness. Yes, there can be mistakes. However, considering the entire scenario, the posibility of mistakes are too slim to sacrifice the sense of justice deterence that the death penalty can provide.
Works Cited
Akers, R. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2009.
Akers, R., & Jensen, G. Empirical Status of Social Learning Theory of Crime and Deviance: The Past, Present, and Future. n.d. May 2016 <http://www.cj-resources.com/CJ_Crim_Theory_pdfs/social%20learning%20theory%20-%20akers%20et%20al%202009.pdf>.
Blackmun, H. "Callins v. Collins (1994) Blackmun - His Dissenting Opinion." (1994).
Death Penalty Information Center. Arbitrariness. 2015. May 2016 <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arbitrariness>.
Dezhbakhsh, H., & Shepherd, J. The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a “Judicial Experiment. 2003. May 2016 <http://deathpenalty.procon.org/sourcefiles/The%20Deterrent%20Effect%20of%20Capital%20Punishment.pdf>.
Finkelstein, C. Does Retribution Demand the Death Penalty? 2002. May 2016 <http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449605988/05988_CH01_Mandery.pdf>.
Nagel, T. "Death." Moral Questions (1979): 769 - 774.
Prejean, H. "Executions are Too Costly - Morally." What is the Ideal Society? n.d. 701 - 704.
Raybin, D. Book Reviews: Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty. 2014. May 2016 <http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b19c15bf-7c3f-428c-9fff-7d856a0e837f%40sessionmgr102&vid=20&hid=115>.
Sterbenz, C. Innocent Man Freed After 35 Years Has An Incredible Outlook On Life. 2013. May 2016 <http://www.businessinsider.com/james-bain-exonerated-after-35-years-in-prison-2013-10>.
The Code of Hammurabi. n.d. May 2016 <http://www.constitution.org/ime/hammurabi.pdf>.
