Darlie Routier from Rowlett, Texas is an American woman that was convicted for the murder of her five- year old son, Damon. Coincidentally both of her sons, 6 year old Devon and 5 year old Damon died during the attack but the conviction only tried the murder of Damon. During the fateful day Routier claimed that her house had been broken into and that an intruder had repeatedly stabbed 2 of her sons. Upon arrival policemen secured the area to collect evidence but a search in the house did not indicate any signs of forced entry. Her 2 sons had sustained gruesome injuries though her husband, Darin, and her younger son Drake had not been harmed. Newscasters depicted family members undertaking a posthumously celebration of Devons 7th birthday in which Darlie was shown smiling and laughing during the normally somber ceremony. Darlie was later charged with capital murder.
Prosecutors suggested that Routier had murdered her own sons due to the family’s financial constraints with strong suggestions that Routier was responsible for stage managing the crime scene. Evidence from the prosecution team strongly indicated that all evidence was stacked against Routier and she was later convicted of murdering her son Damon and was sentenced to die through the lethal injection. This paper herein upon the conclusion and trial of Routier tends to establish if cruel unusual punishment infringes on the bills of rights of Routier through discussion of the pros and cons of the death penalty. The death penalty violates the right to life though the defendant is guilty of taking life and depriving life to other citizens.
Arguments for the death penalty include the occurrence of the threat of the death penalty may potentially lead to the decrease in the rate of homicides. Though there is no certain manner in which one can explicitly tell how death penalty prevents murderers from killings though common sense solidifies the claim that when the threat of the death penalty decrease the rate of murders may increase but when the threat may increase homicide occurrences will certainly decrease. Another argument brought forth for the argument for the death penalty is that the penalty will provide closure for the victims of the deceased. Victims of single murders are constantly on the rise as criminals are caught, put on trial and convicted of their crimes while in the hope that the punishments served will be harsh and non-merciful. However the deceased usually has no role in this conviction. Since the murderer deprives the family of a member they love and grief begins after the death of a loved one. A feeling of relief may be fostered amongst the victims loved ones after the execution as they do not need to continue on the thought process of their loved ones as compared to when the murderer still lives on.
Arguments for the death penalty also suggest that it costs less for the government as compared to life imprisonment. According to Tyler (1982) despite the death penalty causing the government to incur expenses through the imposition of the death penalty it is far less expensive than when compared to the continued costs of life imprisonment that accumulates over time due to the high costs associated with food and health care services. Other administrative costs are also prevalent due to incarcerated individuals sentenced to life in prison. Previous research also indicates that the death penalty has been a deterrent in more than 27 states in a study research carried out by Baily. When there was the threat of the death penalty the crime rate reduced whereas in instances where the death penalty was abolished murder rates in the 27 states increased by 100%. Other research findings established that murders increased by a rate of 7% five years prior to the abolition of the death sentence to more than five years after its abolition. A consequent research by Professor Isaac Erlich indicated that between the periods 1963 to 1969 an extra execution each year led to fewer murders.
Fear of death is also a major pro for death executions as most individuals are afraid of the loss of life. The thought of loss of life if not thought consciously is still thought of unconsciously therefore such thoughts would definitely deter murderers for committing crimes that took human life as their life would also be instantly taken. The importance of the death penalty cannot be undermined as thousands of lives for potential victims will be spared ( Bedaub 1982).
Arguments against the death penalty include the conviction raised from the fact that the death penalty does not rehabilitate individuals. Such an assertion stems from the fact that once a person is dead he/she cannot be brought back to life. Most murders are committed as a result of rational thoughts therefore there is little or no room for fear during the heat of the ‘passion’ that is the commitment of the crime. Criminologists argue that statistics indicate that once an execution has taken place and is publicized more murders tend to occur in the preceding weeks that follow. A case in point is the Linberg Kidnapping as a multitude of states adopted the execution of criminals but tacticians faulted the act as kidnappings increased. Publicity stokes the fire of criminals in performing more crime as indicated by McClellan (1961). Death is a penalty that causes irreversible errors and the coincidence of error is not escapable when human judgement is relied upon. Surprisingly some of the defendants prefer execution as life in prison is viewed as a more cruel fate as supported by McClellan (1961).
Another argument brought forth against the death penalty is that the death penalty does not discourage crime claims supported by McClellan (1961) where 10 of the states that reported the fewest murders of not more than 2 people a year in a population of 100,000 people showed that four of these states had abolished the death penalty. There is also the occurrence of conviction of the innocent as the states that actually use the death penalty are not free of murder as compared to the states that do not use the death penalty which are free of murders. Conviction of the innocent may occur and justice is the irrevocable and as such that is justice averted. The states of Maine and Rhode Island executed innocent men and their deaths led to the abolishment of the death penalty. The motive behind the death penalty may be revenge therefore legal vengeance exemplifies the solidarity of the society against law breakers acting as private revenge to those that were affected.
In my own opinion I stand for the favoritism of the death penaltysince innocent lives can be saved. Consequentially I am of the strong belief that life is sacred though those that take matters into their own hands and take life should be treated in the same manner in which they have caused life loss. Death penalties are necessary as current legislation has seen the aversion of justice as murderersget away with their heinous crimes and are allowed to live prolonged jail terms only for some of them to be released later in life thus completely putting Justice into question.
References.
Bailey, W. C., Bedaub (1974). Murder and the death penalty. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 65(3), 416-423.
Rankin, J. H, Elrich. (1969). Changing attitudes toward capital punishment. Social Forces, 58(1), 194-211.
Tyler, T. R., & Weber, R. (1982). Support for the death penalty; instrumental response to crime, or symbolic attitude?. Law and Society Review, 21-45.
Rokeach, M., & McLellan, D. D. (1969). Dogmatism and the death penalty: A reinterpretation of the Duquesne poll data. Duq. L. Rev., 8, 125.
