The Death Penalty Debate

-- By BriannaGordon - 26 Apr 2022

Introduction

Discussions of the death penalty and its subsequent morality has been a prevalent conversation within the United States legal system for centuries. Proponents of capital punishment often highlight retributive ideologies and the notorious sentiment of “ an eye for an eye” in their support of the death penalty. Whereas, opponents to the practice, highlight the flaws present throughout its administration, the impractical consequences and the history of discrimination that has plagued the process. Although moratoriums have become prominent throughout the nation with many states pausing executions, many call for the permanent abolition of the death penalty. The crux of this debate usually relies on the answer to one question- Is the death penalty morally unjust? While the answer to this prompt is highly debated, additional factors elucidate why, regardless of one’s view on its morality, the death penalty should be abolished. Capital punishment, in its current state, is unfair, arbitrary and impractical.

The Discriminatory and Detestable History of the Death Penalty

Capital punishment is no stranger to opposition. It is a highly disputed practice and its constitutionality has been often legally challenged. Capital punishment was ruled unconstitutional in 1972 during the supreme court case, Furman v. Georgia. Reinstated four years later, as a result of modifications made to the death penalty statute, Greggs v. Georgia revised the statutes re-implemented the death penalty wich is practiced in 30 states to this day. Along with these challenges, the death penalty has a long history intertwined with racism and discrimination that is still visible today in its practice. Parallelling the acts of lynching from white supremacist groups such as the KKK who normalized the persecution and murder of African-Americans, the way in which the death penalty is administered is highly disproportionate to African-Americans.

Studies have shown that the race of the victim has an influence on the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty. Those who murdered Whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered Blacks. A disproportionate amount of Blacks are incarcerated and on death row. Texas and Pennsylvania have the largest percentage of minorities on death row - 70% and 69%, respectively even though blacks and Hispanics only account for about 30% of the population. The concepts of the race also feed into juror selection. As jurors are the decision makers of an an individual's fate at the penalty phase, it is crucial that a prosecutor and lawyer strategically ensure that their jury is how they would like it to be to work in their favor. In many cases prosecutors systematically exclude individuals of the same race as the defendant as it is more likely than an individual of the same race would be less inclined to impose a death sentence. Race is undeniably a crucial component of capital punishment and it often contributes to the continuing arbitrariness and unfairness of the death penalty.

Unfairness & Arbitrariness

The issues surrounding race translate into many parts of the judicial system, specifically within juror selection. Elected to enhance fairness and advocate for the citizen’s voices, jurors possess a tremendous amount of power in the decision of an individual’s conviction. Whereas attorney’s have endured several years of education and are well versed in the legal system and its nuances, jurors are often not. Jurors are usually not engaged within the legal system or familiar with the system but are tasked with deciding whether or not an individual should be sentenced to death. Jurors arguably one of the most important parts of a capital case, can easily be extremely misinformed and incorrectly destroy the rest of an individual’s life. Jurors tend to possess immense amounts of pressure and feel as though they should be able to bring back a verdict without asking any questions. Slightly prepped, then bombarded with arguments and evidence from both the prosecution and the defense,Jurors often have many unasked questions. However, the culture of the court system does not allow for the seamless exchange of dialogue between jurors and the judge. After being sent to a different location to deliberate, it is hard to reassemble every time someone has a question. This factor tends to lead jurors to try to figure it out on their own, which leads to consequential errors in deciding the verdict.

No legislation or precedent has been set to revisit a juror’s deliberation if someone did not understand something. This is extremely dangerous as it is evident that a juror may not possess all the knowledge required to make an informed decision, but their votes will still be upheld regardless. This does a disservice to the fairness of the justice system and continues to contribute to the arbitrariness of the death penalty.

The Death Penalty is not a Deterrent

Actual executions of individuals do not cause an overall decline in crime rates where capital punishment is practiced. In fact, the death penalty does the opposite. Prosecuting people for killing people and punishing them with death highlights a contradiction and only helps to perpetuate the belief that someone’s life is not valued. This is described as the brutalization effect. The brutalization effect explains the relationship between states with the death penalty and their crime rates - The death penalty increases both homicide and violent crime markedly, seriously increasing the danger to society in states where it is used with any degree of frequency whatsoever. The death penalty only continues to occur solely for revenge, political gain and “justice for a victim’s family” even though many co-victims have condemned the executions of their relative’s murderers. The effects of capital punishment have a negative effect on crime control and bettering society as a whole.

Conclusion

In all, the death penalty in its totality contradicts the very intentions of the legal system, which is purportedly to achieve the fair administration of justice.While we look to the justice system to help achieve this, it is evident that law and justice are not synonymous especially in the administration of the death penalty.