How should we punish a criminal who conducted extremely terrible actions? Is the concept “eye for an eye” the best solution for those who murdered a person? Do we have the right to decide who should live and who is to die? These questions are the ones people of modern society ask themselves when they are thinking about the allowability of capital punishment. There are different views on this aspect, but commonly people’s ideas divide them into two groups: those who care for and who is against this type of punishment. One more group can gather people who change their minds depending on the case.
To this one refers Scott Turow, a well-known writer, and lawyer. For many years he was sure that the best way to punish a criminal and let peace come into the hearts of the victim’s family is to sentence the guilty one to death. However, after considering some cases in detail, he understood that a lot of mistakes have been made in this process, and it is not as neat as he believed. If an experienced prosecutor changed his mind and reconsidered the issue, maybe we also should deepen into the subject and make sure that our ratiocinations are right and well-weighted. Capital punishment is a sanction of last resort and mistakes are inadmissible. Measure thrice and cut once; human life is too valuable to let it be over because of a random error. It is better to let even the worst criminal live than to kill an innocent person.
Scott Turow wrote his book Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer’s Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty as he wanted to show that the concept of unprejudiced justice, which he supports, is no longer bound with the death penalty. The author shares his thoughts and beliefs regarding several cases from his practice.
Capital punishment, which is also called the death penalty, is the punishment that follows a death sentence and ends with the death of the convict. Scott Turow was firstly directly encountered with such things at the beginning of the 1990th as he took the appeal of Alejandro Hernandez. The man was put into prison for kidnapping, rape, and murder of a ten-year-old girl. He was one of three men indicted to be guilty and soon one of two convicted and sentenced to death.
Of course, such horrible actions as Alejandro Hernandez was claimed to conduct are to be punished with severity, but the guilt is to be proved so that no questions occur when speaking about the case. However, that was not the thing. Scott Turow registers disapproval as the men were indicted even though earlier there was insufficient evidence to blame anyone. Thus, the case was built on the statements of the defendants, who accused each other, with no physical evidence like blood or fingerprints. After several trials Hernandez was sentenced to eighty years in prison, however, his attorneys were sure of his innocence.
That is why Scott Turow thoroughly studied the materials from trials and also came to such a conclusion. Then what can we say about the fair judgment? The man spent almost ten years in prison is not guilty. His death sentence might have been already put into operation. Human life is not a thing that can be restored after the truth came out. This problem also worried Orchia Blessing Iveren, as such information was found: “some of these 78 people spent more than 15 years on death row before their innocence was established 39. Yet, even so, these 78 are the lucky ones, because evidence of their innocence emerged in time to save their lives. We have no way of knowing how many innocent defendants were not so lucky – they were executed and the evidence of their innocence may never emerge” (62).
Considering Scott Turow’s ideas one may conclude that he believes many people think of the death penalty as a utopian solution. They are apt to treat the death of a criminal as the end of the crime committed. However, if we murder the killers, their victims are not coming back and the crimes do not stop. Taking this into account, 15 states (as Alaska, Maine, New York, Nebraska, Michigan, and others) voted to abolish capital punishment (Galliher, Koch, Keys and Guess 210).
In our society, the attention is mostly paid to the criminals, but not to their victims. This approach makes people concentrate on the wrong values. The ritual of killing is shown as an act of justice and deliverance, but is it the best thing we can teach our children? Capital punishment is barbaric, and this idea appeals to many people, the author is one of them (Turow 12). According to the ABC News/Washington Post poll, 52 percent of Americans are against the death penalty, which shows their intention to abolish it.
Several studies showed that even if we sentence a person to death, it will not deter crime (Stearman 21). Scott Turow studies several cases connected with the murder, which proves this fact. For people who are ready to kill, punishment is not the thing to be afraid of.
Among the reasons why capital punishment should be abolished is its price. There was a threefold increase in the costs for prosecuting cases with a death sentence in recent years. Thus, the government spends much money on the death penalty when it is cheaper just to keep convicted criminals in prison without parole. Each death sentence makes do with 3 million dollars, not including administrative costs (Warden 334).
When the citizens are waiting for the guilty person to be found and punished, they place pressure on the prosecutors and police. Under such circumstances, they might not act as they are supposed to (Turow par. 11). This has happened to Brian Dugan, who was suspected along with Alejandro Hernandez. The prosecutor steadily tried to convince others that Dugan was engaged in the murder, however, there was no evidence of this. It was even impossible to prove that the men knew each other. The police informed the prosecutor that the shoe print found at the crime scene was not the size the defendant wore, moreover, it belonged to a woman. Nevertheless, this fact did not reach the defense.
Taking all these into account, we can conclude that the system of capital punishment is not that well-organized and infallible. The death sentence is the mistake that can be rectified only before it comes into action, and if there is a chance of killing an innocent person to punish one for killing, it has no sense. Life in prison is also a way to amerce a criminal, protect others from him/her, and bring peace to the victim’s family, and maybe this one is better.
Works Cited
Galliher, John, Larry Koch, David Keys and Teresa Guess. America Without the Death Penalty: States Leading the Way, Lebanon: UPNE, 2005. Print.
Orchia Blessing Iveren, 2011. Justification for and the Abolition of Capital Punishment Under Human Rights Law. Web.
Stearman, Kaye. The Debate about the Death Penalty, New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2007. Print.
Turow, Scott. To Kill or Not to Kill. 2003. Web.
Turow, Scott. Ultimate Punishment: A Lawyer’s Reflections on Dealing with the Death Penalty, New York: Picador, 2004. Print.
Warden, Rob. “Reflections on Capital Punishment.” Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy 4.2 (2009): 329-359. Print.