[Class Title]
Introduction
Capital punishment is the legal remedy afforded by the state that legitimizes the punishment of death penalty for those criminals who have violated a particular law. Such method of punishment is not new. In fact, in the history of mankind, the capital punishment has been observed. Various forms of capital punishment such as stoning, burning, hanging, beheading, crucifying, etc., can be observed in various societies and cultures of the world that goes back as far as history can tell. Today, the imposition of capital punishment has survived. And though there are modern ways of taking someone’s life, such as with the use of electrocution and later the lethal injection, many of the traditional methods of capital punishment such as hanging and stoning have still survived in some countries around the world. Capital punishment is one of the most controversial and highly debated issues, but until today, no conclusive stand has been established. When it comes to the death penalty, a consensus could not be reached. There are people who wish to permanently abolish death penalty while there are also those who support its implementation. Each of these factions has their own argument. There are different ethical and moral perspectives to capital punishment, which creates a dilemma that is often difficult to address. But despite its harsh nature, this paper would like to argue that capital punishment is a necessary penal practice that governments could not help, but adopts.
Brief History of the Capital Punishment
There is little resistance to the imposition of capital punishment in early human societies. It is a common knowledge that the death penalty is practiced by the earliest human civilizations in Egypt and Mesopotamia as evidenced by the discovery of the code of Hammurabi. Even in those primitive societies, the capital punishment, as harsh as it may seem, is considered as a just form of punishment for certain crimes. The death penalty has become even widely practiced because of the popularity of the Law of Moses; an ancient law that have been handed over by the Israelites and has become a part of the Jewish and Christian tradition. Under the Mosaic Law, the death penalty is reserved for criminals who have committed crimes that they consider as utterly evil. Over the years, society’s perception of what is utterly evil has changed. Disgracing one’s parents,’ for instance, was once punishable by capital punishment during the time of Moses and yet today it is considered as just a minor offense that is not even worthy of legal attention. Gradually, people began to question the morality and logic behind the death penalty, which eventually challenged the institutions of capital punishment. The 18th century was the dawn of the enlightenment period and political thinkers in Europe began to emphasize the value of an individual. It was also during this time when a growing number of people began to see capital punishment as a human right violation.
Opponents of the capital punishment see it as a brutal and degrading form of punishment. The early forms of executions, for instance, are performed in public using methods that are often inefficient, which can lead to a gruesome and painful death. Moreover, opponents of capital punishment question its effectiveness in deterring crime. Since the 18th century, many major reforms in death penalty have occurred. Originally, the death penalty can be imposed for crimes that are not considered as heinous to modern standards. However, through the efforts of abolitionists, the death penalty was eventually reserved only for exceptionally heinous crimes such as murder and treason. Capital punishment was eventually abolished in many European countries as well as in other countries around the globe. In the United States, the death penalty is observed in varying degrees depending on the laws of the States. Since the establishment of America as a nation, capital punishment has always been a part of its penal code except for a time between 1972 to 1976 when the United States’ Supreme Court issued a temporary moratorium on executions. There are even instances wherein some states abolished the death penalty for a time and then reinstated it. Nevertheless, the United States found it necessary to retain Capital Punishment despite the enormous challenges to its implementation.
Major Arguments against Capital Punishment
One of the most compelling arguments in opposition to capital punishment is that it is cruel and barbaric (Sunstein & Vermeule 704). Many critics, for instance, are afraid that executions would go wrong, which would subject a person to unnecessary suffering. Cases of botched executions in the United States tend to strengthen the arguments of those who oppose the death penalty. There are times wherein due to the incompetence of the executioner and the inefficiency of the method used, executions can become gruesome wherein the condemned person suffers a “prolonged and severe anguish” (Raybin 30). Accordingly, out of the 9,000 death sentences that were carried out in the United States, 276 or roughly 3% were botched (Raybin 30). What is more alarming, according to some scholars, is that the lethal injection, which is the execution method used in the United States today, is the “most problematic currently used form of execution” (Raybin 31). Another compelling view against capital punishment is based on the unreliability of the human justice system. Accordingly, “capital punishment ensures the execution of (some) innocent people and also that it reflects arbitrariness, in the form of random or invidious infliction of the ultimate penalty” (Sunstein & Vermeule 704). Opponents of the death penalty argue that if the death penalty is arbitrary and is only based on whim, then it is not a just form of penalty and is, therefore, ineffective. The point is, as argued by Justice Brennan in his concurring statement over Furman v. Georgia, that if death penalty could not be fairly and consistently imposed, then there is no point that it should be imposed. Also, the irreversibility and the finality of the Capital punishment do not allow any error in the judicial process. If an innocent person is convicted of a heinous crime by mistake, his execution will forever deny him the opportunity to contest his case. As stated by Justice Brennan in his assent over the landmark case of Furman v. Georgia, “Death is today an unusually severe punishment, unusual in its pain, in its finality, and in its enormity” . For the same reason, opponents of the capital punishment interpret it as a violation of the 8th Amendment of the United States constitution; a law that prohibits the government from imposing unusual and cruel punishments. Moreover, opponents of the capital punishment argue that such punishment is morally and ethically unacceptable. The death penalty, for instance, violates the moral code that is stated in the Bible, which prohibits the killing of an individual. The death penalty, for instance, does not correct the crime of the condemned, but rather legitimizes murder of the state towards its citizens.
On Why Capital Punishment is Still Necessary Even if it is not a Popular Choice
According to scholars, proponents of capital punishment can be categorized into two: those who believe that the death penalty is justified as a form of retribution and those who view the death penalty as justified because of its desirable outcome (Sunstein & Vermeule 704). Under the retribution view, capital punishment is not only morally just, but also a necessary component of justice. Such view is backed by the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, who reiterated the ‘eye for an eye’ principle as the most justified approach to imposing punishments (Potter 267). The concept of retribution posits that punishment should be imposed based on what the criminal deserves. It is based on the principle of ‘Lex talionis,’ which is the idea that “The concept of retribution posits that punishment should be imposed based on what the criminal deserves” (Finkelstein 6). When taken literally, the principle of ‘Lex talionis’ would seem to be an absurd idea. Apparently, it would look ridiculous and illogical to rape the rapist or burn the arsonist for the sake of exacting the same amount of suffering that the victim suffered. Retribution, however, demand that the punishment, as much as possible, is proportionate to the crime committed (Finkelstein 7). This proportionate punishment view is the very foundation of criminal justice. Consider, for instance, the crime of theft. Under the principle of ‘Lex talionis,’ the criminal must return what he has stolen or pay the victim an equal amount of what was stolen. However, it does not take into account the trouble and aggravation the crime has brought towards the victim. It does not take into account the emotional and mental stress that the criminal act has incurred towards the victim. Returning the equal amount of money or property, therefore, may constitute equality, but it does not constitute justice. As most would agree, there are certain crimes that are so evil that there are no appropriate punishment available to make criminals pay. The proportional punishment view effectively opposes the assumption of the opposition that capital punishment is arbitrary and so it could not be considered as a just punishment. In the context of retribution, the main point of having a capital punishment is not to provide an equal punishment for the crime committed as what the opposition suggests. Rather, the idea of retribution is to provide the state with an option to give the most appropriate punishment for certain crimes that even the death of the criminal is insufficient to provide justice to the victim. The state has no choice, but to adopt capital punishment as an arsenal of justice since there are certain crimes, so evil, that letting the criminal live will cause great injustice to the victim.
Another compelling argument that should serve as a complementary factor in support of the death penalty is its positive impact as a deterrence for heinous crimes. An experiment conducted by judicial experts, for instance, suggests that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on crimes. As observed by researchers, the murder rate increased rapidly during the 1970s; a time when executions in the United States declined because of the moratorium imposed by the Supreme Court on the death penalty (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd 9). However, murder rates began to decline after the moratorium was lifted (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd 9). In conclusion, experts believe that “executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums” (Dezhbakhsh & Shepherd 27). Such experiments prove that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect on crimes. Psychology and criminology theories also support the deterrence impact of capital punishment on crime. The theory of differential reinforcement of Edwin Sutherland and Ronald Akers, for instance, posits that rewards and punishment influence criminal behavior (Jeffery, 294; Akers, & Jensen, 5). According to this theory, the tendency of committing crime varies with the perception of rewards and punishment. When a person perceives that the reward for the crime exceeds its punishment, then the person will most likely commit the crime (Akers, & Jensen 5). However, when a person perceives that the punishment is greater than the reward, then he will most likely refrain from doing it (Akers, & Jensen 5). Capital punishment is consistent with the theory of differential reinforcement as it provides individuals’ something weighty to contemplate before committing a crime.
But what if innocent people were convicted due to the fallibility of the justice system? In the modern justice system, such occurrences are so seldom that they can be considered as isolated cases. If wrongful conviction seldom occurs, so much more are wrongful executions because the justice system in the United States exhausts all legal remedies prior to the actual act of execution. Granting that there is a possibility of such error to occur, there is no reason why the death penalty should not be imposed on the basis of collateral damage. In trying to combat crime and injustice, errors in the justice system do not mean that the justice system should be abolished. Similarly, capital punishment should not be abandoned because of random errors.
Conclusion
Justice is one of the pillars of a functional government. For the same reason, in order for justice to be effective, the government must have a just method of punishment. In doing justice, the government is compelled to provide the appropriate punishment to criminals. For the same reason, the government could not avoid adopting the capital punishment. There are certain crimes, so evil, wherein only death is the appropriate punishment. Although, at times, the death penalty may not be enough to obtain justice, it is the only arsenal that the government can have in cases wherein it is appropriate. Furthermore, one of the most important objectives of capital punishment is to protect society by deterring heinous crimes. So far, no other legal measures are as effective in achieving this end as the capital punishment. Although law enforcement can apprehend and prevent crime, such system is not present all the time to perform its function. Capital punishment, on the other hand, provides deterrence directly into the consciousness of the people who contemplates on committing crime. The fallibility of the justice system is not an excuse to defer from imposing capital punishment primarily because infallibility is not the criteria wherein the government operates. The possibility of error, however small it is, could not be totally erradicated, which is true not only in the justice system, but in all aspects of governance. But because the government is not perfect, it means that it must cease to operate. Similarly, just because the justice system is not perfect, capital punishment should be abolished. The solution, therefore, is not to abolish capital punishment, but rather to mitigate errors and improve justice proceedings.
Works Cited
Akers, R., & Jensen, G. Empirical Status of Social Learning Theory of Crime and Deviance: The Past, Present, and Future. n.d. March 2016 <http://www.cj-resources.com/CJ_Crim_Theory_pdfs/social%20learning%20theory%20-%20akers%20et%20al%202009.pdf>.
Dezhbakhsh, H., & Shepherd, J. The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a “Judicial Experiment. 2003. March 2016 <http://deathpenalty.procon.org/sourcefiles/The%20Deterrent%20Effect%20of%20Capital%20Punishment.pdf>.
Finkelstein, C. Does Retribution Demand the Death Penalty? 2002. March 2016 <http://samples.jbpub.com/9781449605988/05988_CH01_Mandery.pdf>.
Jeffery, C.R. Criminal Behavior and Learning Theory. 1965. March 2016 <http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5312&context=jclc>.
Jost, K. Rethinking the Death Penalty; Are the growing doubts justified? 2001. March 2016 <http://library.cqpress.com.ezp.pasadena.edu/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2001111600&type=hitlist&num=0>.
Potter, N. Kant and Capital Punishment Today. 2002. March 2016 <http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=philosfacpub>.
Raybin, D. Book Reviews: Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty. 2014. March 2016 <http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b19c15bf-7c3f-428c-9fff-7d856a0e837f%40sessionmgr102&vid=20&hid=115>.
Sunstein, C., & Vermeule, A. Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? Acts, Omissions, and Life-Life Tradeoffs. 2005. March 2016 <http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/print/article/capital-punishment-morally-required-acts-omissions-and-life-life-tradeoffs>.
U.S. Supreme Court. FURMAN v. GEORGIA. 1972. March 2016 <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/furman.html>.
