Introduction
The Death penalty has attracted several opinions from all who have had to share their views about it. People have had controversial, even multifaceted ideas on this, with many feeling social pressure anytime they have had to discuss the subject of capital punishment. In most cases, yet researchers have employed simple, even close-ended questions when studying the same, missing its complex nature in the process. It is common to hear someone aver to the death penalty when the defendant is a relative, but will in other cases, claim to be against it (Schadt & Matt DeLisi 255-257).
It is a clear revelation that not all stakeholders’ have given their opinion in dealing with this fascinating, controversial, and complex topic in criminal justice. The reason for this could be the social pressure associated with discussing such a question that is sometimes accompanied by emotions and requires a personal opinion. Sadly though, this hiccup derails not just the understanding of this issue, but may also prevent law students from gaining from this exciting discipline (Schadt & Matt DeLisi 257-260). This persuasive essay will seek to advance reasons why the death penalty should stop, as it takes on the side of the liberals.
History of the Death Penalty in the US
The death penalty in America was much influenced by Britain, who, when they came to settle, brought the practice along. It is on record that the first execution was that of George Kendall, an American Captain, executed for spying for the Spaniards in 1612. Governor Dale of Virginia would later enact laws that allowed death sentences even for minor crimes like stealing of grapes and trading with Indians (Silos-Rooney 1-5). The execution laws did, however, vary from one colony to the next. In Massachusetts, the first execution happened in 1630, in New York, it came into existence in 1665.
American liberals always have opposed execution laws. To them, it has not been how inhumane the practice is, but the cruelty that comes with it. This group has always cited the Eighth Amendment, which is against unusual and cruel punishments meted on convicts (Silos-Rooney 7-24). The problem has been how to define cruelty and ‘unusual.’ The people of America, and more so the Supreme Court, have wavered on the execution laws are cruel. In 1972, the Court found the laws unconstitutional when ruling Furman v. Georgia, stating that the death penalty was applied too arbitrarily. One of the judges even noted the randomness with which various states used the laws. Since 1976 when the Supreme Court reversed itself, various states have always sponsored their executions (Silos-Rooney 25-35).
Standing with the Liberals
The death penalty, according to the liberals, is an onslaught on the enhancement and protection of freedom. They argue that one primary basis for a just society that people should have a right to the due process, which is heavily compromised by the death penalty (Tiplitz 129-131). Several factors they note stands in the way of the judicial process when it comes to guaranteeing a due process to the accused. Such factors include an individual’s economic status, race, and accessibility to legal representation. The liberals are in agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union who opines that there is a notable unfairness and injustice when it comes to the application of the execution laws in America (Tiplitz 131-134). The use of the law usually considers how wealthy one is, their races, how skilled their lawyers are, and the place of the crime. The union adds that the coloured are much more likely to face execution compared to the whites, more so if the victim was a white person (Tiplitz 135).
The liberals have always taken the stand that death is a weird and cruel method of punishment. In contrast to the conservatives who believe in the old biblical practice of ‘an eye for an eye,’ the former opines that execution laws have been invented by the state as an execution weapon, and is an insult to the people’s inalienable right to life (Tiplitz 136-140). Their argument echoes the US Catholic Church, which states that no wrong can solve another wrong and that an eye for an eye will ultimately leave all of us blind. The liberals have also noted that the death penalty cannot be an anecdote to violent crime in society. Most professionals in the law enforcement sector confirm that capital punishment cannot curb violent crime. Most police chiefs in the entire country believe that the death penalty was one of the least ways to employ in reducing violent crime. The FBI did find that those states practicing the death penalty, ironically recorded the highest rates of murder cases (Tiplitz 141-145).
The liberals continue to argue that the execution laws have no legitimate role in terms of penology, which could not be otherwise met by employing appropriate rehabilitation and incarceration. What function in the society then does the death penalty serve? There may be a few in support of this measure, but still, this cannot justify a government policy with such a magnitude of consequences to the society (Tiplitz 145-147). Most Americans are reportedly opposed to it currently. Research conducted by the Pew Research team in 2016 found out that about 49 percent endorsed death penalty for those convicted of murder against the opposition of 42 percent. There has been a decline in support of the execution laws recorded since the 1990s. Such is attributable to the fact that many people have become aware of the actual innocence of an accused person. The survey reported that almost 73% of Americans agreed that there is a likelihood that an innocent person may be convicted and put to death (Tiplitz 146-150).
Two years ago, a survey placed the percentage of those in support of capital punishment at 50 percent. Capital punishment laws have received quite a bit of help. The political class feels good ridding on it on the campaign trail due to the satisfaction out of evoking retribution, while voters also feel it is an excellent road to take. It is worthy of note that the fact that there is some concurrence does not necessarily make it a sound practice (Tiplitz 151-160). The majority must always make their decision based on some respect for minority rights, however little. The execution laws have been a tool of trade in most of the repressive governments around the world, including in China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia, and the US in that descending order. The United States did execute 25 people in 2017, compared to the leading, China, at 1,000 people. The US has, however, been among the top five leading executing nations in the past decade, a position that is quite a shame to the world superpower, founded on the principles of fear of human rights, which includes the inalienable right to life (Tiplitz 162-171).
Such regimes have always used the death penalty as a social control tool, both to eliminate those people the leadership feel are a threat to them, and also to instill fear among the citizenry, so as not to foster opposition that may threaten their poor leadership. The death penalty is a result of this used as a way of reminding the people of the state’s immense powers and control ability. Such a system employs systemic fear to curtail real freedom among its subjects. America should also work to eliminate this seemingly repressive tool as it ends up instilling fear and reducing freedom among its people, just as it is happening among the authoritarian nations in other parts of the world (Tiplitz 172-120).
Ethical Concerns
The anatomical science body has, for centuries, used the remains executed for research purposes. Since science has embraced ethical and moral education, they must look at the source of the remains and how to get them for research (Whitt & Alan 263-265). It is unethical that the department for centuries has been using such bodies, obviously without permission and prior knowledge of the victims or their relatives. The act is similar to stealing and is equally a crime. Such an act by a respected research body is a slide into unethical behaviour. Even though they have used the unclaimed bodies or those donated, a lack of documentation is still evident (Whitt & Alan 266-268).
Another case of unethical behaviour is when the death row victim faces unnecessary pain and anguish. A case happened in Arizona involving Joseph Wood III, who got convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend and her father in 1989 (Whitt & Alan 269-271). The execution was, however, botched when he had to go through pain for two hours. The injection, which was supposed to kill him fast enough, left him snoring, chocking, and even physically resisting the injection for a miserable couple of hours! Such an unprecedented act saw many criticize the procedure used by the state of Arizona in the execution, and whether it was okay or not to administer drug mixes not tested to carry out the killings. Wood’s case is now similar to those of Clayton Lockett of Oklahoma and Dennis McGuire from Ohio that has also recorded improper drug administration during death penalty executions. In each case, the victims went through prolonged suffering in the process (Whitt & Alan 272-275).
Another problem of the death penalty is its adverse effect on the families of the accused and the murder victims. Research indicates that studies in psychology have reported that the death penalty negatively affects the friends and families of the murder victims, also called ‘co-victims.’ A study by the University of Minnesota recorded that just about 2.8% of co-victims indicated having achieved a closure due to capital punishment. Some 22.1%, however, suggested that the execution process did not assist them in healing. The suggestion was because healing is not an event, but a process hence takes time (Whitt & Alan 279-281).
Another study conducted in 2012 by Marquette University Law School observed that co-victims had shown improvement in their psychological and physical health, even greater satisfaction with the law when perpetrators got life sentences, and not when they got death sentences. The researchers noted that the co-victims might prefer to have the defendant fall into quick obscurity, and the case comes to an end, unlike continued publicity that a death penalty would generate for an unspecified period (Whitt & Alan 282-288). A therapist working with the families of murder victims noted that even those who have lost their loved ones do not experience satisfaction out of the process as they thought they would feel after the execution. They, however, realize this very late after the death sentence gets fulfilled.
Many co-victims showed they sympathized with the family of the executed. The death penalty process is also a polarizing factor, causing a hindrance to heal for both families. The impact of the execution is comparable to the result of life minus parole, arguing that after the execution, the weight of the judgment falls on the family left behind. The situation ends up affecting children and women the most. The whole process ends up beating the logic that the justice system is meant only to punish the guilty. The death penalty, therefore, can be said to cause pain to all who work with, knows, or cares for any death row inmate (Whitt & Alan 288-290).
Race and Gender Disparity in Sentencing
There exists notable evidence of the existence of racial discrimination when it comes to punishment in American prisons. In 2015, blacks were 14% of the population in the US, but 40% of them were inmates in federal and state prisons. The Hispanic population stood at 18% of the total US. Population, but 25% of them in prison. In contrast to these, white non-Hispanics formed 64% of the population, but just 35% were in prison.
