Is the Use of the Death Penalty Justice and Is It Fair Essay Example for Free

Is the Use of the Death Penalty Justice and Is It Fair EssayIt is fair to say that peachy penalty is under attack, particularly in the South where it is to the highest degree comm scantily now practiced. Not only have serious criticisms been raised by scholars in felonious umpire, criminology and related disciplines, only if newspapers have published scathing news reports suggesting that innocent people have been sentenced to cobblers last and even executed, and alleging racial discrimination in jacket penalty practice. According to Robinson (2011), quadruplet basic facts establish the realities of the Statesn capital punishment. The first is that capital punishment is practiced in most but non all United States jurisdictions. Specifically, in that respect are 34 states with the finis penalty, and 16 without. The federal government excessively maintains capital punishment, as does the military, but the District of capital of South Carolina does not carry out execu tions. However, of these death penalty jurisdictions, only nine regularly carry out an execution, meaning they have honestd at least angiotensin converting enzyme execution a division since 1976 when capital punishment was reinstated thus only about one-quarter (26%) of death penalty states (nine of 34) and 18% of all states in the country (nine of 50) average one or much executions per year.Further, only one state has carried out at least ten executions per year since 1976, Texas. In fact, only about 10% of counties with the death penalty imposed a death sentence between the years 2004 and 2009. Justice is typically defined as administering and maintaining what is just or right. Robinson (2011) says that there are three broad issues discussed and debated by scholars of nicety theory freedom, welfare, and virtue. Some legal expert theorists argue that what matters most for deciding what is right or just is freedom whether individual rights are respected and protected.Another school of thought is the egalitarian libertarians. These scholars suggest that what matters most for justice is equality of opportunity in society and winning care of the least advantaged citizens. Other justice theorists focus on welfare, or general well-being and happiness of people in society. They argue that what matters most for justice is the welfare of society, or its overall happiness. Finally, other justice theorists argue that what matters most for justice is virtue, or moral goodness and righteousness.The purpose of the death penalty is incapacitation, deterrence, and retribution. Incapacitation is understand as removing the ability of offenders to commit future crimes. Incarceration is the typical descriptor whereas execution is the ultimate fix. Deterrence refers to creating idolise in would be offenders through punishment to prevent future crimes. Capital punishment can only be aimed at preventing crime by would-be murderers, general deterrence, since it cannot create fear in murderers who have already been executed, specific deterrence.Retribution refers to righting or rebalancing the scales of justice through punishment in order to achieve justice for crime dupes. Executions are frequently depicted as retribution for the crime of murder, as well as a source of closure for murder victims families. Robinson (2011) claims that criminologists and capital punishment scholars overwhelmingly sign that the death penalty fails to achieve these goals, mostly because of the rarity of death sentences and executions. Logically, if death sentences and executions were more common, capital punishment would be more likely to achieve these goals. to date we also know that the more frequently the death penalty is used, the greater the costs associated with the policy, including not only additional financial costs but also a greater risk of convicting, sentencing to death, and executing the innocent. This ultimately has great significance for the justice of capital punishment. caravan hideout Haag (1986) says that the death penalty is an effective form of deterrence because it is feared more than behavior imprisonment. Many of the convicts under death sentence appeal their sentence and try to get it reduced to life imprisonment.Van Den Haag argues that even though there is no factual evidence that the death penalty deters would be criminals more than life imprisonment, the fact that more people fear the death penalty makes it a better deterrent. Reiman (1985) agrees with Robinsons view that the use of the death penalty is not successful as a deterrent. He gives four main reasons that refute Van Den Haags argument. His first reason is that although people fear the death penalty more than life in prison, zippo wants to spend life in prison either.People do not have the mentality that they can commit a crime because they will only get sentenced to life in prison. Although the person will be alive, they will have all freedom taken f rom them, which after awhile, can be seen just as horrible, if not worse, than death. Reimans second point is that if a person is contemplating committing a crime, they are already facing an enormous risk of being killed in the process. Roughly 500 to 700 suspected felons are killed by police in the line of duty every year and many Americans own their own guns.When taking that into account, it does not seem very likely that the would be criminal will be able to commit the crime without at least being wound by the police or the would be victim. His third reason against Van Den Haags view is that using the death penalty is hypocritical. The law states that a person cannot take the life of another, but when they do, their punishment could be death. It is not possible to say murder is illegal and then have it as a possible punishment. He argues that not having the death penalty better exemplifies that idea that murder is wrong.His last point is that it is illogical to practice the deat h penalty simply because it is feared more than life imprisonment. He says that people would fear death by torture more than lethal injection, so does that mean we should begin the practice of death by torture because more people are afraid of it? Unless it can be proven that the death penalty is a better deterrent than life in prison, Reiman (1985) argues that the death penalty should be abolished. Robinson (2011) says that as for the issue of innocence, there is little dubiousness that people are wrongly convicted of murder every year and that a handful are even sentenced to death.More than 130 people have been freed from death row during the era of super due process that began in 1976 when the US Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment. Wrongful convictions often occur due to honest errors such as mistaken eyewitness testimony and imperfect forensic evidence, but when they occur due to issues such as false confessions, lying informants, government misconduct, and ineffecti ve defense counsel. at that place is also little doubt that innocent people have even been executed, although most of the known cases are from prior to the era of super due process in capital sentencing.There remain at least eight widely known cases where men have been recently executed despite serious doubts about their actual guilt. On the issue of executing the innocent, Van Den Haag (1986), makes the argument that the advantages of using the death penalty as a punishment outweigh the unintended losses. He states, Miscarriages of justice are offset by the moral benefits and the usefulness of doing justice (139). His argument is that mistakes have and do occur in innocent people being sentenced to death, but the benefits of using it are more important. It would be more of a detriment to society to stop the use of the death enalty than it is when an innocent person is executed.In regards to race, Americas death penalty has always been plagued by serious racial biases. Little evide nce remains of the historic discrimination by race of defendant, although state-specific anecdotal evidence suggests blacks are still occasionally discriminated against, especially when accused of killing whites and when juries are overwhelmingly white. Robinson (2011) says that most experts now point to a race of victim effect, whereby killers of whites are far more likely to be sentenced to death and executed than killers of other races and.For example, a comprehensive study of race and the death penalty in North Carolina showed that killers of whites were more than three times more likely to receive death sentences than killers of blacks. In the state, 80% of those people executed since 1976 killed white people only about 40% of North Carolina homicide victims are white. Further, a study of capital punishment practice in the state from 1999 to 2006 found that blacks who killed whites were 14 times more likely to be sentenced to death than whites who killed blacks.Also, there wer e six executions of blacks who killed whites during the time period, yet zero executions of whites who killed blacks. Van Den Haags (2011) stance on the distribution of the death penalty being discriminatory is that punishments are imposed on persons, not on racial or economic groups (138). The death penalty is not specifically issued to certain races. It depends on the crime that the person committed. Van Den Haag also says, Justice requires that as many of the guilty as possible be punished, disregarding of whether others have avoided punishment.To let these others escape the deserved punishment does not do justice to them, or to society. But it is not foul to those who could not escape it (139). Van Den Haag does not view the fact that black people or other minorities receive the death penalty more than whites as being unjust. However, what is unjust is the white people who were not sentenced to death when they should have been. Given these important empirical realities of the death penalty, the next issue to address is which of them are relevant for the justice of capital punishment practice.As noted earlier, it depends on which theory of justice is being referred to. Libertarians ask whether capital punishment respects liberty or freedom. The most important question for egalitarians is whether capital punishment practice is equal or applied in an equal fashion. For utilitarians, the most important question is whether capital punishment increases overall utility or happiness in society. Finally, for virtue-based theorists, the question is whether capital punishment respects and promotes our values, our moral goodness, and whether it is the right thing to do.The questions above do not have universal answers. Everybody will have his or her own opinions on whether the death penalty respects a persons freedom or whether it is the right thing to do. Reiman, Robinson and Van Den Haag all made successful and convincing arguments so it is hard to determine one v iew as more convincing than the other. It comes down to a personal choice and what a person chooses to believe as to whether the death penalty is fair and a proper form of justice.