1

Opposing Capital Punishment in The United States

Alexis Lozano

Texas State University

Dr. H. Jaymi Elsass

CJ 4334.251
 2

Since the early sixteenth century, capital punishment has been supported, opposed,

misconstrued, misused, and undermined in every form. The initial idea of capital punishment

was rooted in the belief in fighting evil with evil or an eye for an eye. Over the vast majority of

time, capital punishment has spiraled into a massive phenomenon that many people do not agree

with. Especially in today’s society, we are living in times of increased technology usage and

coverage on the topic of capital punishment. With this, many unknown factors that come along

as a result or consequence of the death penalty have also come to light. For these reasons, I have

chosen to base my paper on the opposition and abolition of the death penalty.

Based on the first chapter of Bohm's “Deathquest: An Introduction to the Theory and

Practice of Capital Punishment in the United States,” the first documented execution that took

place in the United States was accounted for in 1608, when Captain George Kendall was found

spying for Spain. Although the offense would seem disproportionate to the punishment now,

back during that time it was punishable by death. After that first execution, the number of deaths

carried out by the states only spiraled into something more than anybody could imagine. Since

the legalities surrounding the death penalty and capital punishment were still under development,

many states carried out these executions under the standards they saw fit. The usage of the death

penalty and its presence in the public eye raised many concerns for philosophers all over the

nation. One prominent figure that was concerned about the severity of the death penalty was

Cesare Beccaria. In 1764 Beccaria and Voltaire published a brief titled “On Crimes and

Punishment.” sharing their thoughts on capital punishment. For the majority of the passage,

morality was a huge factor in the opposition to death sentences. Specifically when it was stated,

“The useless profusion of punishments, which has never made men better, induces me
 3

to inquire, whether the punishment of death be really just or useful in a well-governed

state? What right, I ask, have men to cut the throats of their fellow creatures?

Certainly not that on which the sovereignty and laws are founded” (Beccaria & Voltaire, 1764).

Their uncertainty between the right of men and their power to enforce the death penalty was a

clear indicator that the death penalty was excessive in numerous cases. Beccaria reinforced the

notion and idea that men do not have the power to justify the death of another individual. His

argument displayed a sense of opposition that no one really endorsed at the time. Looking back

at his stance now and reflecting on where we are in today’s society, Beccaria would have held

much more ground in shifting the way capital punishment is carried out.

Aside from the moral perspective provided by Beccaria, Kas, Yim, Traore, and many

other authors shared the data they found covering lethal injections and the ineffective nature

surrounding their usage. Out of all of the five forms of execution within the states that are still

legal being, hanging, firing squad, electrocution, and gas chamber, lethal injection is the one

method that is used the most. During their research, it was discovered “Review of

Executions during 2014 clearly revealed the incidences of unintended adverse events (agitation,

prolonged gasping for air, and prolonged time needed for the death of prisoners) associated with

the use of midazolam (Kas et. al, 2016).” This causes for significant reevaluation when

considering lethal injections being carried out with Midazolam being the widespread drug of

choice for many states. Not only is Midazolam unreliable, but in the event of its ineffectiveness,

more drugs are added into the execution process in hopes to successfully carry out the job it was

initially used for. Even after adding more drugs, that only leaves room for more suffering to the

inmate going through their final hours. For example, Raymond Landry died 40 minutes after he

was strapped to the execution gurney and 24 minutes after the drugs first started flowing into his
 4

arms. Within two minutes of the drugs being administered into his veins, the syringe exploded

out of his vein, causing the drugs used to spray the witnesses surrounding him. Following that,

the medication had to be reinserted in the vein near the groin. Ultimately his execution was

labeled as a “blowout” after an hour of painful suffering. Stephen McCoy had such a violent

physical reaction to the drugs that resulted in having heaving chest, gasping, choking, back

arching off the gurney, etc.) It was so excruciating to watch that one of the witnesses fainted,

crashing into and knocking over another witness who was present. Emmitt Foster's execution

stopped seven minutes after the lethal chemicals began to flow into Foster’s arm, when it was

halted after the chemicals stopped circulating. The problem was caused by the tightness of the

leather straps that bound Foster to the execution gurney; it was so tight that the flow of chemicals

into the veins was restricted. He died thirty minutes after the execution had started and after

gasping and struggling to breathe from the start (Radlet, 2024). These are only a few instances of

inmates who severely suffered during their executions by lethal injection, provided by the Death

Penalty Information Center. It is devastating how much further inmates suffer and how little this

issue is truly covered in society. The process of carrying out lethal injections alone is extremely

inefficient. Due to medical officials refusing to carry out executions, most correctional officers

are appointed to do a job they were not medically trained to do. That reality alone serves as an

example of why executions should not continue. Additionally, most of the inmates on death row

come from long backgrounds of drug abuse. This results in numerous cases where these

correctional figures are poking and prodding inmates countless amounts of time in order to find a

vein, which is an extremely painful process alone.

In regards to the political laws and statutes put in place concerning the death penalty,

Furman v. Georgia was labeled a landmark case to look at. In 1972, Furman was found
 5

burglarizing a home when a family member discovered him and in an attempt to flee, he tripped

and fell causing the gun he was carrying to go off and kill a resident of the home. He was

convicted of murder and sentenced to death (n.d, Oyez, 2024). The case presented to the

Supreme Court was questioning whether or not carrying out and imposing the death penalty in

these cases constitutes as cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments. Ultimately is was decided that yes, it was in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth

amendment constituting cruel and unusual punishment. Furman v. Georgia was monumental due

to the fact that states could no longer sentence individuals to death as a result of an accidental

death. It initiated a movement in other states to abolish the death penalty altogether. It is no

secret that the number of executions that are being carried out has continued to move in a

downward trend, but the ones that are happening provide more reasons to get rid of the death

penalty altogether. Moreover, another case that surprisingly was not carried out sooner was

submitted in 2005, being the case of Roper v. Simmons. In the case, the Supreme Court ruled

that the execution of people who were under 18 at the time of their crimes violates the federal

constitution against cruel and unusual punishments. I think this case along with the few that had

been amended to get to this verdict in the years prior, was important to protect the youth of our

nation. To think about all the young lives that had been sentenced to death prior to this ruling is

completely unjust.

With the different outlooks provided by research and society over the years, I have found

an article that presents the political foundation in America heading toward the abolition of the

Death Penalty. In the article, “Death Penalty: The Political Foundations of the Global Trend

Towards Abolition,” it is mentioned that “Many abolitionists argue that the institution of the

death penalty violates fundamental human rights…abolition of the death penalty is the logical
 6

result of a process of humanizing the penal system (Neumayer, 2007).” This perspective of the

death penalty opens doors to viewing our political system in another light. By Neumayer

introducing the fact that more abolitionists will only continue to fight for the death penalty to be

removed, puts the appearance of our governmental system in a new vantage point. I believe the

whole idea surrounding abolishing the death penalty supports humanizing inmates and offenders.

By humanizing inmates, we remove the death penalty which also allows for a movement that

does humanize the penal system. Once that is done, the entire structure surrounding our

governmental system will be viewed in the same manner. This movement alone could result in a

new movement where outsiders support the government. I truly believe that the ideas that are

supported in the article, could be the potential future for America if it was followed through.

Referring back to the philosophical perspectives on capital punishment, one well-known

philosopher who outwardly supported capital punishment was Immanuel Kant. An article I found

highlighting the inconsistencies Derrida found in Kant’s belief for supporting capital

punishment, revealed that “Kant says ‘If . . . he has committed murder he must die’. Moreover,

‘anyone who commits murder, orders it, or is an accomplice in it – must suffer death’ (Kant

1996). This is the only way to make the punishment sufficiently similar to the crime, Kant

argues. Yet Kant undermines the idea of commensurability by allowing the death penalty for

crimes against the state (LaCaze, 2009). I think it is important to reinforce the inconsistencies

found in Kant’s original statements made regarding capital punishment, because it further proves

that the justification of capital punishment was built on a foundation that can easily be

deconstructed. Especially, when the original basis for capital punishment was meant to punish

those who committed murder, but as we know that has not always been the standard based on the

crimes commited and the individuals who have been sentenced to death. Due to this notice in
 7

Kant’s findings alone, I can only imagine how much of the other evidence based justificiations

for Capital Punishement are inconsistent with reality.

At the end of the day, it is clear to me that there is no real benefit to capital punishemt.

Over the years it has become evident that the death penalty does not serve as a detterent, but

more as a severe punishment. Although we are living in much more progressive times, I think it

will take a large movement to jumpstart the abolition of the death penalty. However, I do not

think it is impossible. I can only hope for a future where the country follows the same motive of

rehabilitation rather than incapacitation. The Death Penalty is a place holder for those who seek

an easy way out. No matter the offense, there is always another option.
 8

References

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2193/Beccaria_1476_EBk_v6.0.pdf
https://canvas.txstate.edu/courses/2228980/pages/current-issues-with-capital-punishment-lethal-
injection-procedures-the-decline-in-death-sentences-and-executions-and-arbitrary-applications
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/botched-executions
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/69-5030
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12142-007-0044-0#citeas