William Price

The Death Penalty

Critical thinking assignment.

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is a sentence given by a judge or a jury to a felon convicted of a crime that falls under a very specific category of crimes that allows the death penalty to be used as a punishment. That category of crime varies by state, which is set by the legislature, or in federal court, congress. Until 2008 when the Supreme Court ruled it unfitting, some states such as Louisiana allowed the death penalty for crimes of rape, or more specifically child rape. Most other states only allow capital punishment to be used as a sentencing for murder. However; the death penalty is only a legal form of punishment in 32 states (law.cornell.edu). Other crimes such as espionage and treason could also allow for the death penalty as a punishment in federal court. In a military court martial, the death penalty can be used for desertion, although the sentence has not been carried out since January 31 st, 1945. (Wikipedia.org/wiki/eddie_slovik). This paper will examine the pros and cons, opinions of those for and against the death penalty, as well as the morality, the unalienable human right of life endowed by the creator (declaration of independence, Jefferson), and the governments consent to take that right away when necessary. First, the punishment has to fit the crime. The U.S Supreme court has ruled that the penalty has to be proportionate to the crime (law.cornell.edu). Otherwise; it violates the eighth amendment, the amendment outlawing cruel and unusual punishment. Groups like the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, NCADP, believes that the death penalty used in

William Price

any circumstance is a violation of the eighth amendment (ncadp.org). The NCADP also believes that the death penalty does not deter murderers from committing heinous crimes. Naci Mocan, a professor of economics at the University of Colorado, Denver, differs in opinion. Mocans 2003 study showed that each execution resulted in five fewer homicides, and every death sentence repealed resulted in five homicides (washingtonpost.com). A study by Paul Rubin an economist, from Emory University, suggests that the death penalty deters as much as eighteen murders. The NCADP also believes that the cost of the death penalty is too high, and that the cost of keeping an inmate in prison for life is more cost effective. Mocan, argues this point that speeding up execution would not only strengthen deterrent, but also would cut costs of the death penalty substantially. Next, another organization, the California Innocence Project, of the California Western School of Law, San Diego, feel that the risk of executing the innocent far out-way the benefits of capital punishment (californiainnocenceproject.org). Familiar problems with the death penalty are that of potential error, arbitrariness, irreversibility, and racial skew. According to the Death Penalty Information Center there have been 142 exonerations of death row inmates since 1973 (deathpenaltyinfo.org). This amount of errors is enough for a moral objection to arise in any study of capital punishment. However; a well-known professor of law at the University of Chicago, Cass Sunstein, argues that the recent information found in Mocans study is enough to unsettle any moral objections to the death penalty (law.chicago.edu). Sunstein states (in a paper he authored titled Is Capital Punishment Morally Required?), that refusal to impose the death penalty condemns the lives of numerous innocent people to death . Sunstein refers to this as a life-life tradeoff (law.chcago.edu). Sunstein argues that the same problems of

William Price

irreversibility, arbitrariness, and racial skew, exist even more so in the world of homicide. Therefore; these problems do not contend to the abolition of capital punishment, but rather provide evidence to impose the penalty, committing to the sanctity of human life. The death penalty is a moral form of punishment because it is omitted by the government rather than an act of murder. Finally, some people do not believe in life-life tradeoffs. They believe that the government should not have the power to take life away, they believe they should only be able to take freedom away. The NCADP is an example of an organization that believes this. The difference in opinion among the people of the United States is what keeps the death penalty on the table. Most people accept capital punishment, a recent poll shows about 60% (deathpenaltyinfo.org). The people have the power to take the death penalty away. So long as the people accept the death penalty, the government will continue to impose the punishment. The people give the government its power in this country, so any argument saying the government doesnt have the right to take away life is invalid because the people is what gives the government its power. If enough people believed the death penalty should be abolished, then it most definitely would be. However; as of right now the scales havent tipped in the direction of that cause. The government does not take life away when the death penalty is carried out, the people do. In-conclusion, the death penalty is a moral form of punishment because it is omitted by the government of the people of the United States. By imposing the death penalty as a form of punishment for heinous crimes the people of the United States are making a commitment to the sanctity of human life, not condemning it. The Supreme Court has no reason to abolish the

William Price

death penalty because the ratio of those for and against the death penalty is still heavy on the side of for, around 60% (deathpenaltyinfo.org). Unless more of the people, if ever, start seeing a moral dilemma with this form of punishment, the Supreme Court may not even consider the case. Some people may believe the cost his to high. According to Mocan, speeding up executions by only 2.75 years would not only increase the deterrent factor, but it would save the state millions upon millions of dollars (washingtonpost.com). As Sunstein stated in his paper, Refusing to impose the death penalty condemns the lives of numerous innocent people to death.

William Price

References

www.law.cornell.edu/wex/death_penalty www.californiainnocenceproject.org www.washingtonpost.com Cass R. Sunstein, Is capital punishment morally required?, working paper, University of Chicago law.

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org en.wikipedia.org/wiki/eddie_slovik