Introduction
The use of death penalty has been debated by many legislators and policy-makers who find the most optimal solutions to different social problems. Various professionals attempt to determine whether capital punishment is an effective policy or a costly mistake.
This is the main issue that should be discussed in this paper. Overall, it is possible to argue that this policy should be abolished because it is not an effective method of crime prevention. This is the main thesis that should be illustrated. In particular, one can say that this policy does not deter people from committing felonies, especially homicides.
There is no relationship between such variables as capital punishment and the level violence in the society. Secondly, this form of punishment can pose a threat to innocent people who may be falsely convicted. Furthermore, the economic costs of this policy should not be overlooked because in many cases they are excessive.
Yet, one should consider the arguments of people who support capital punishment. Much attention should be paid to the claim according to which death penalty is the only possible punishment for some crimes such as genocide or mass killings. These are the main questions that should be discussed more closely.
Death penalty and deterrence of crime
The supporters of death penalty argue that this policy can be viewed an effective deterrent of violent crime. To some degree, this argument is based on the premise that individuals always evaluate the positive and negative consequences of their decisions. Therefore, a person is less likely to commit a felony if he/she knows that this action may lead to his/her death.
The validity of this argument has been examined by many scholars. First, they note that many homicides do not entail capital punishment (Fagan, Zimring, & Geller, 2006, p. 1803). For instance, one can mention the murder that can be committed in the state of emotional distress or intoxication (Fagan et al., 2006).
Therefore, one should not include the statistical data about such felonies when speaking about the deterrent effects of capital punishment (Fagan et al., 2006). In turn, the use of this policy does not contribute the decline of homicides that are condemned by the community.
Among these felonies, one can mention the killings of police officers or children. The main issue is that the use of capital punishment does not deter such felonies (Fagan et al. 2006, p. 1803). Researchers have not found any evidence suggesting that the use or abolition of death penalty can influence the level of violent crime in the community. This is one of the details that can be identified.
Furthermore, in many cases, the murders that are punishable by death do not involve premeditation or rational choice (Hance Kay, Larson & Lewis 2013). In other words, a person does not always consider the consequences of his/her decision which is often spontaneous. These examples indicate that death penalty can deter crime in a society. So, it does not serve its intended purposes.
Finally, it is critical to remember the level of violent crime in a community can depend on such factors as the economic situation in the country or unemployment levels, rather than the severity of punishment. This is one of the reasons why this form of penalty should be abolished by the state.
Judicial errors
Another limitation is the possibility of judicial error. The policy-makers should take into account that even the most impartial investigation can miss some crucial piece of evidence that can eventually exonerate a defendant. Additionally, one should not overlook the risks of biased attitude toward a person.
In this case, much attention should be paid to such a problem as racial prejudices because they can affect the attitudes of legal professionals. So, in many cases, the outcome is strongly dependent on the accuracy of investigation or impartiality of jurors. In other words, there is always a risk of mistake that can take the life of a person and produce disastrous impacts on his/her relatives or friends.
These arguments are supported by scholars who identify the shortcomings in the functioning of the criminal justice system. For instance, one can mention the research article written by Jean Blackerby; this author argues that at least one of ten people executed for a serious felony can be falsely convicted (Blackerby, 2003, p. 1179).
In addition to that, DNA tests show that the results of many investigations conducted in the past were inaccurate (Blackerby, 2003). Very often, people, who are placed on the death row, are exonerated. Yet, it is quite possible that this exoneration will come too late. This is the most crucial limitation of this policy.
Moreover, one should not forget that the outcome of trials strongly depends on the competency of defense attorneys. They are able to shape the opinions of judges or jurors and identify the limitations in the arguments of prosecutors. However, some people may not afford the services of such professionals.
Therefore, it may be more difficult for them to defend their rights in the court. Therefore, it is not possible to disregard the role of social and economic inequalities can create additional difficulties for many people. Additionally, one can say that life imprisonment can be a better solution because it reduced the risk of fatal mistakes.
The economic costs of death penalty
Apart from that, it is important to speak about the economic costs of death penalty. To illustrate this problem, one can look at such a state as California which has to spend millions on the maintenance of death row inmates (Hance et al. 2013). In contrast, the government spends a lesser amount money on people who are sentenced to life imprisonment (Hance et al. 2013). This is one of the points that can be made.
One should also bear in mind the executions of death penalty are often delayed. Sometimes, these people can stay on the death row for more than a decade. This policy is critical for eliminating the risk of a judicial error. Many of the inmates can die of natural causes, but the government has to spend more money for the needs of these people (Hance et al. 2013).
In the long term, these practices can result in billion dollar expenditures (Hance et al. 2013). Thus, life imprisonment can be a more reasonable solution that legislators need to consider. Furthermore, capital punishment trials are usually more expensive than life-without-parole cases (Hance et al. 2013). Therefore, one can say that the use of death penalty is very expensive, and these costs are not justified.
This issue should also be considered by policy-makers because they need to make the most efficient use of tax-payers’ money. Admittedly, economic considerations are not closely related to ethical and judicial questions. However, they form an important part of governmental policies.
Capital punishment and retribution
However, there are some arguments that can be advanced in support of death penalty. They are based on the premise that a punishment should be proportionate to the crime committed by a person (Finkelstein, 2003, p. 12). For instance, it is not possible to compare the felony committed in the state of emotional distress and the cold-blooded murder of a child. Moreover, one can mention mass killings of people.
Therefore, under some circumstances, capital punishment can be viewed as the only possible retribution that should be imposed on a criminal. This is one of the justifications for practicing capital punishment. Moreover, one should not forget about the experiences of victims’ relatives who may believe that death penalty is the only means of restoring justice (McKee & Feather, 2008).
Additionally, there are situations when the accusations are based on numerous testimonies, video recordings, or other materials leave virtually no room for doubt. The advocates of death penalty can mention such people like Anders Breiwik or Timothy McVeigh who killed more than two hundred people. There are no extenuating circumstances that can be used by defense attorney.
Therefore, the advocates of capital punishment can refer to these cases in order to justify this policy. Moreover, one should not forget about such crimes as genocide or ethnic cleansings (Black, 1999). The sentences that were passed during the Nuremberg Trials have not been disputed even by the opponents of capital punishment.
These are the cases showing that the validity of a death penalty cannot be fully dismissed since there are situations when this form of punishment seems the only possible response of a society to the crimes of a person. Certainly, these situations can be viewed as rare exceptions but they should not be disregarded. Nevertheless, these cases do not justify the use of a death penalty by the society.
It should be kept in mind that people, who perpetrate such horrible crimes, may not be deterred by the possibility of capital punishment. The behavior of such individuals cannot be controlled or manipulated. In many cases, they accept the possibility of this outcome.
This is one of the details that should be considered. Therefore, one cannot refer to exceptional situations in order to justify the effectiveness of capital punishment. Such an approach can lead to the adoption of laws which may harm people. This is one of the pitfalls that should be avoided.
Conclusion
Overall, this discussion suggests that the ethical and legal standards of capital punishment still remain a subject of heated debates. Yet, the examples presented in this paper show that the use of this penalty is not effective for the prevention of crimes such as homicide.
Moreover, one should not suppose about the costs of these policy. Finally, it is vital to remember about the possibility of a judicial error. Therefore, it is not reasonable to continue this policy. There are certain exceptional cases that can be used to justify the effectiveness of capital punishment. Yet, these exceptions are not sufficient for justifying this policy. More likely, this strategy can victimize many innocent people.
Reference List
Black, P. (1999). Do circumstances ever justify capital punishment? Theological Studies, 60(2), 338-345.
Blackerby, J. (2003). Life after death row: Preventing wrongful capital convictions and restoring innocence after exoneration. Vanderbilt Law Review, 56(4), 1179-1226.
Fagan, J., Zimring, F., & Geller, A. (2006). Capital Punishment and Capital Murder: Market Share and the Deterrent Effects of the Death Penalty. Texas Law Review 84(7), 1803-1867.
Finkelstein, C. (2002). Death and retribution. Criminal Justice Ethics, 21(2), 12-21. Hance, B., Kay, K., Larson, J., & Lewis, V. (2013). Death of the death penalty? An examination of California’s capital punishment system. Journal Of Legal Issues & Cases In Business, 10(2), 10-21.
McKee, I. R., & Feather, N. T. (2008). Revenge, retribution, and values: Social attitudes and punitive sentencing. Social Justice Research, 21(2), 138-163.