Part 1
The death penalty in the United States is, clearly, a very divisive issue. Although the proponents and opponents of the practice are commonly split down party lines, the ethics and morals of capital punishment are very gray areas for many people; very few individuals have clear, black and white views on capital punishment in the United States. This is good in some ways, and bad in others; it means that there is common ground to find between people who disagree on the efficacy of the death penalty. However, it also means that there are many different nuances that can be found in the ways that people think about and consider the death penalty as a political and national policy in the United States of America.
The New York Times has always been considered a very liberal newspaper, and that reputation continues to this day. The New York Times commonly follows the Democratic party line, although there are some notable exceptions; however, when it comes to capital punishment, the editorial stance on the issue is very clear. The editors and editorial staff at the New York Times do not support the death penalty or capital punishment in the United States at all; indeed, a web search of the New York Times archives turns up no articles that support the policy of capital punishment in the United States within the last thirty years—which is essentially how long the debate has been raging (New York Times Editorial Staff).
The New York Times notes that there are significant issues with the way the death penalty is utilized in the United States. The editorial staff writes that there is significant racial and class bias in the system: “Minority defendants with white victims are much more likely to be sentenced to death than others; [] many indigent defendants sentenced to death after major blunders by court-assigned lawyers. And a horrific number of innocent people have ended up on death row: 17 convicts with death sentences have been exonerated with DNA evidence since 1993, 123 with other evidence since 1973” (New York Times Editorial Staff). The problems associated with the death penalty, according to the New York Times, are too big to ignore, and too many innocent people have been sentenced to death because of poor representation.
Stiles, on the other hand, suggests that the death penalty “moral lunacy” is something that Americans ought to be ashamed of, and that the United States has a long and engaged process that allows for checks and balances to ensure that the individual who is being executed is actually guilty (Stiles). In response to a botched execution in Oklahoma, Stiles writes that “ revulsion that the state would engage in ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment by having the subject of an execution suffer before he expires is a bit more reasonable It is, of course, worth noting that Oklahoma in all likelihood did not intend for this poor murderer to suffer a bit before he died. As such, the constitutional worries seem moot” (Stiles). Although the language is slightly sarcastic, the sentiment is a common one: punishments should be fast and painless, not something drawn out; people on death row, according to pro-death penalty advocates, had their chance at success in society and chose not to act accordingly.
Part 2
There are a number of important issues that are raised in the discussion regarding the issue of capital punishment. As you can see, you have vastly different opinions regarding the issue; however, I believe that common ground can be found on this issue, and that both parties will be happy with parts of the solution. Capital punishment is an issue that is significant in today’s society, and it is losing ground as a potential solution for punishment in the United States of America; as a result, I will use this space to outline a plan that will benefit both sides of the debate. Of course, it is impossible to halfway execute a prisoner, so the solution will be slightly more nuanced.
Accepting that there are some crimes that are so heinous that they cannot be forgiven and must be punished for life is the boundary around which we will find the middle ground. To do so, we will accept that there are ways of punishing offenders—most offenders—without ever resorting to capital punishment. For almost all cases in the United States legal system, outside of a few horrendous cases, there can be no question that life in prison without the opportunity for parole is both the more humane and the cheaper option (New York Times Editorial Staff).
It is expensive to go through the process of putting someone to death—for this reason, most crimes that are currently capital crimes should be considered automatic life sentences without the possibility of parole. However, as Mr. Stiles states, there are some crimes that defy humanity. If it can be established beyond a shadow of a doubt that one of these types of crimes has occurred and was committed by the defendant, then the death penalty process can go forward.
Because both the New York Times and Mr. Stiles believe that the death penalty is over-utilized and subject to a number of problems of race and class that permeate American society as a whole. However, certain people—people who still pose a threat to society and to others—should still be considered for the death penalty, if the prosecutor believes that it is a case that is winnable. In addition, both parties can agree that stricter standards are necessary for the death penalty, to ensure that no more innocent people are put to death because of their race, class, or mental health.
References
New York Times Editorial Staff. 'More Evidence Against The Death Penalty'. N.p., 2012. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
Stiles, Andrew. '‘Botched’ Oklahoma Execution Proves It’S Time To Bring Back The Guillotine'.Washington Free Beacon. N.p., 2012. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
