Law & Society: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary?

In this latest installment of Law and Society, in which I have a chance to explore and ponder my response to some of the issues we face today, in the form of a law class homework response, one of the questions I received was this: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary? The following is my response to this question, and hopefully, it will cause some questions or debates to go off inside your head. Enjoy.


Question: Is the Death Penalty good, or even necessary? 

Response: The use and effect of the Death Penalty has been debated ever since it has been used, in essence, form the beginning of time. However, as time progressed, opposition against the death penalty has grown, and today, there is huge debate whether to continue applying the penalty or to abolish it. Most states today have abolished the death penalty, or have not applied it to use in along time. New York State, for example, has outlawed the death penalty since 2005. Some states continue to allow the active use of the death penalty, and some take their relaxed restrictions to the extremes (see Texas). Globally, the United States is part of shrinking group of countries that actively uses the death penalty, and the countries we share company with in that group are the complete opposites of us, such as Iran, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus and Indonesia, to name a few, and almost all have serious human rights violations. 

The Death Penalty is an unnecessary, barbaric, and unjust way to punish crime and their results. As Justice William Brennan stated in his concurring opinion in the case Furman v. Georgia, 

“Death is truly an awesome punishment. The calculated killing of a human being by the State involves, by its very nature, a denial of the executed person's humanity. The contrast with the plight of a person punished by imprisonment is evident. An individual in prison does not lose "the right to have rights." A prisoner retains, for example, the constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion, to be free of cruel and unusual punishments, and to treatment as a "person" for purposes of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. A prisoner remains a member of the human family. Moreover, he retains the right of access to the courts. His punishment is not irrevocable. Apart from the common charge, grounded upon the recognition of human fallibility, that the punishment of death must inevitably be inflicted upon innocent men, we know that death has been the lot of men whose convictions were unconstitutionally secured….the punishment itself may have been unconstitutionally inflicted….yet the finality of death precludes relief. An executed person has indeed "lost the right to have rights." As one 19th century proponent of punishing criminals by death declared, "When a man is hung, there is an end of our relations with him. His execution is a way of saying, `You are not fit for this world, take your chance elsewhere.'” 

In essence, while death is an extreme punishment, the very notion of the state planning the death of one person is virtually denying their humanity. And the death penalty isn’t applied equally. A study known as the Baldus Study has shown that minorities who have committed a violent crime and face the death penalty have a bigger chance of being punished with death the white and Caucasians criminals do. It also discovered that minorities who were accused of killing a white person also had a great chance of receiving the death penalty then did a white person who was accused of killing a minority. As Justice William Murphy said, 

“Only by zealously guarding the rights of the most humble, the most unorthodox and the most despised among us can freedom flourish and endure in our land....” 

Death as a punishment does not guard our freedoms- it revokes them from us, and we need to protect our rights, even if it means guarding the rights of the most violent criminals. And the death penalty doesn’t address the root cause of crime in the first place- most criminals come from poor, broken families, and killing the guy doesn't pull the person out of poverty. When people are poor, they will do anything to get out, and some will resort to crime. Instead of executing, we need to help those families who are poor and need assistance, to help receive a good upbringing, with a quality education, without the stigma of being poor. And the death penalty doesn’t do that. It doesn't solve anything- if one guy is executed, another will be there to take his place. It is barbaric, inhuman, and it is cruel and unusual punishment for any crime, even for murder. I therefore respectfully dissent against the use of the death penalty, and in favor of repealing it as a method of punishment.     


Law and Society: This the second in a series of articles in which we explore the effects of law on society, and the effects of society on the law.   

Have certain punishments been more effective then others? Has any punishment been effective at all?

So, I'm taking a law class at my current high school, and we get homework everyday, in which we have to explore some of the current issues facing law and society today. As such, this gives me a chance to explore and ponder my response to some of the issues we face today, in the form of a law homework response. One of the questions we got as an assignment one day was this: What punishment do you think accomplished it's goal? Why? The following is my response to this question, and this marks the beginning of new segment in this blog, titled Law and Society, in which I will periodically share my responses to certain homework questions I received in my law class. Enjoy, and I hope all you have a Happy Holidays.
--------------------------------------------
Question: What punishment do you think accomplished it's goal? Why?


Response: The goal of punishments is to achieve a perfect society in which rules and laws are respected, under the threat of severe punishment for those who break them, in order to deter people from committing crimes. If were to look at the question from that perspective, then all punishments, have simply put, utterly failed to reach that goal. If punishments really did achieve their goal, then there would be no crimes, no human being would ever be harmed, and there would be peace, love and equality (in all forms), all over, and we would be living in a utopia, or a prefect society. It can come close to achieving it, but we will never see it happen, because we, as humans, are imperfect. It is in our nature to skirt or break rules and laws to achieve some (and hopefully very few) of our goals. 


However, if were to look at it from a different perspective, then punishments haven’t completely failed in the goal, and we could have a small glimmer of hope. From that perspective, then each type of punishment have widely varying rates of success. For example, some punishments, such as fines, deter most people from breaking laws because they are a nuisance to receive and shake off (think of traffic tickets), especially towards your wallet. Probation also is effective in most, but not in all cases, because it keeps the person in line while under the watch of a probation officer- if the person steps out of line, and if the offense is great enough, then the person will be given a more severe sentence, such as a hefty fine, a stricter set of probation guidelines, or some instances, even jail time. 


Incarceration, on the other hand has a much more mixed track record. On one hand, the average citizen fears going to jail, and the threat of going to jail for most crimes is enough to deter most people from doing serious crimes. On the other hand, the U.S. has one of the highest incarceration and re-incarceration rates in the world, and the threat of jail is often insufficient enough to deter career criminals from committing major, and often violent crimes. Usually, only the threat of long and severe prison sentences (Life, life without parole, 20 to life, as such) serve as a determent to most people, and even then, some criminals continue committing crimes. We must also note that people are sometimes thrown in jail for (sometimes) ridiculously small reasons as well, and that has helped the prison population rate to explode to record levels. Some offenses, such as carrying very small amounts of marijuana or using very, very small amounts of controlled substances, are given mandatory (and often long) prison sentences, while in reality, it could be better suited to send that person to rehabilitation. 


Lastly, there is the death penalty, usually used in extreme and violent cases (such as a violent robbery, murder, or an extremely violent sexual assault) and as such, in most states, it’s use is severely restricted, while in others, restrictions are more relaxed (for an extreme example, see Texas). Still, other states prohibit the use of the death penalty, calling it ‘barbaric’ and ‘unjust.’ New York State has prohibited the death penalty as a form of punishment. Some claim that this punishment, if used effectively, will deter people from committing serious and violent crimes under the threat of death, while others say that it is an ineffective and costly way to punish, stating that is applied unequally, and that there will always exist a small chance of error for executing a person for the wrong crime (it has happened), and that no life, no mater how despised, should be taken away, even if they are violent criminals. Still others point to it as cruel and unusual punishment, and point out that in societies where the death penalty is (or was) used commonly, the people there are disenchanted, oppressed, or both, and in most cases, the extreme use of it has led to rebellion. 


In short, no punishment has ever completely reached it’s goal- but they haven’t completely failed either. Each have widely varying degrees of success, but we can safely say that all are on the varying levels in terms of progress. Some punishments are more widely used and more effective, while others are less used, and then others are rarely used but sometimes effective or ineffective. Yet, they have all made some progress in coming closer to achieving the goal of a well-regulated and a perfect society, but we still have a long way to go. 


Law and Society: This the first in a series of articles in which we explore the effects of law on society, and the effects of society on the law.