      A popular issue within the judicial system is one that has been argued over for years, but thanks to recent complications, has been brought to the forefront of political issues. That issue is the United States’ capital punishment. Capital punishment, otherwise known as the  death penalty, can be seen as effective in many different ways. For instance, it fits within a textbook definition of punishment through retribution, better known as an eye for an eye. However, the death penalty has its faults. Times have changed just as legislation in regard to the death has. But has the legislation appropriately reflected the public’s wants while also punishing criminals and deterring crime? Capital Punishment legislation should be reformed by reevaluating the current judicial process as well as current execution methods because the death penalty is an inadequate and immoral way to punish offenders. There have been many questions raised about the death penalty, but before you being to question, you must understand the basics.

Capital punishment is a way of punishing offenders for capital crimes. In other words, the worst crimes receive the worst penalty, which in the United States is death. There are many ways to execute a criminal offender, techniques which have evolved and changed over time. The first death penalty laws were established by Hammaurabi of Babylon in Eighteenth Century B.C. In the United States, Britain was the biggest influence on the American’s death penalty, the first of which came in colonial Williamsburg in 1608. This execution was more than likely a hanging, an assumption made based off the fact that hanging was the method used most commonly in Britain (“Introduction to the Death Penalty”). Fast forward more than 350 years later, the ways of execution have changed, kind of. Since 1976, there have been 5 methods of execution used. Firing squad, hanging, gas chamber, electrocution, and the method that is currently used- lethal injection. Lethal injection is perhaps the most controversial method of execution. The United States has recently begun using combinations of drugs, called cocktails, for lethal injection. Numerous executions were botched as a result. A couple terms are important to know when discussing the death penalty. One being a bifurcated trial. A bifurcated trial is a trial for capital offenses in which there are two stages- one to determine the guilt of the offender, and one to determine sentencing. The other term that is import to know is deterrence. When studying ways of punishment in criminal justice, the most important factor is its ability to deter crime. This just means it’s ability to prevent future crimes for happening. 

Capital punishment is now being discussed among the public for many reasons. One reason that has been brought to many people’s attention is its inadequacy both in punishing the offender as well as preventing crime. As someone who currently studies criminal justice, I have found issues in the way the judicial system treats defendants. For instance, defending yourself with counsel is a constitutional right via the Sixth Amendment. More recently, the landmark case of Gideon vs. Wainright guaranteed counsel even to those who cannot afford it. The Judiciary Act of 1964 was established as a result, which created Public Defenders and a way to pay for them. Public Defenders, though they may be fantastic lawyers, are perceived to not work very closely with their defendants due to their large case load. Essentially, if you are too poor to afford a lawyer, you’re not going to get a very good lawyer. Oppositely, the richer you are, the better lawyers you can buy. So, in short, the judicial system, perhaps unintentionally, plays to those with more money. Additionally, there is no way to 100% guarantee that the defendant is guilty in any given case. Though, as a result of Furman v. Georgia in 1971, capital crimes are given a bifurcated trial, there is still no way to guarantee that an individual is guilty. 

An additional flaw in the adequacy of the death penalty is its inability to formulate to a common theory in the judicial system. Cesare Beccaria, a highly respected criminal justice figure, created the idea that punishment must be swift, certain, and severe in thought that it “will give the government control over the peoples’ choices ad behavior, deterrence and the use of incarceration and punishment to prevent crime” (“Cesare Beccaria”). This theory has largely been proven true, which is why it is an issue that the death penalty does not adhere to it. While the death penalty is certain and sever, it is not the least bit swift. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, offenders who have been sentenced with the death penalty typically sit on death row for about 10 years, with some offenders being there for over 20 years. Additionally, the death penalty has not been proven to stop crime. In 2 different studies, one in 1996 and one in 2008, criminologists were polled on many different questions- one of which related to the effect of the death penalty on crime. In summarizing the results of their data, Michael L. Radelet and Traci L. Lacock stated “88.2% of the polled criminologists do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent, up slightly from 83.6% in 1996” (Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates, 501).

Immorality is also an important reason that the death penalty legislation needs to be reformed. The capital punishment only punishes those who commit capital crimes, which is limited almost completely to murder. Every state who still practices the death penalty has the choice as to whether or not they will put someone on death row. Richard Bourke, a capital defense attorney, talks about this choice through firsthand experiences. He cited multiple cases in which he represented clients that were up for the death penalty, some of which lives, others who died. Bourke also talks about his daughter who nearly died during the mother’s pregnancy, as well as his father who recently died. At the end of his TEDx talk in Sydney, Bourke summarizes all of those experiences into one realization. Bourke says “during this work, I learned something that I thought that I already knew. We are all going to die, and we have no choice about that. But we do get to choose whether to kill or not, and it’s wrong to kill people” (“Killing People Is Always Wrong”). Bourke makes a powerful argument that was to say that there is a difference between natural death and the death of a healthy being. The latter of which, in this case, is chosen to be. There is a hypocrisy that lies within the death sentence. In essence, we are teaching people that killing others is bad by killing those who kill. 

On top of the simple morality of choosing to kill someone, is the way in which we kill someone. Recently, the United States has become “somewhat desperate and not in control” according to Matt Ford of The Atlantic. Since the European Union trade embargo on such drugs that are used for executions, the United States has been forced to make adjustments. This explains why the year 2014 was such an important year for executions. Botched executions due to cocktails, or mixture of drugs used for the purpose of execution, are the main reason that the death penalty has been increasingly popular in national media. One case in which cocktails were the reason for a botched execution was a case involving Michael Wilson of Oklahoma. His execution was graphically described by Matt Ford: “… on January 9, Oklahoma executed Michael Wilson using three drugs, including a paralyzing agent. ‘I feel my whole body burning,’ Wilson said out loud, shortly after the executioners began pushing the drugs into his arm” (Crair, “2014 Is Already the Worst Year”). Another execution that was carried out on Dennis McGuire of Ohio was the longest execution ins Ohio’s recent history. McGuire’s executioners used a two-drug cocktail made with midazolam and hydromorphone, a combination that had never been tested before. This is because of those adjustments made by the United States as a result of the EU embargo. Essentially, European drug manufacturers did not want the United States using their drugs for executions so they stopped selling them. This forced the United States to start using mixtures of drugs, called cocktails, to execute capital offenders. McGuire’s execution lasted 25 minutes, and according the Father Lawrence Hummer, “‘Over those 11 minutes or more he was fighting for breath, and I could see both of his fists were clenched the entire time’” (qtd. in Ford). McGuire was sentenced to death, which was formerly meant to be by a painless execution. However, this time, it was not. McGuire suffered through an excruciating execution which violates his constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment. Aside for the fact that choosing to kill someone is immoral in itself, the EU embargo has made the matters worse. However, the embargo is not at fault for these botched executions, but rather the United States’ failed attempts at trying to find alternative ways for lethal injection.

There are many arguments that can be made in support of the death penalty. Some say that it is an effective way to punish criminals as well as a way to prevent future crimes from happening. Both these points have been previously disputed earlier in my argument. The former because it is not an effective way to punish criminals. It is not a speedy way to punish them because criminals who are sentenced to death are waiting on death row for a minimum of 10 years. The latter of the two points was disputed when criminologists at large stated that the death penalty had no effect on homicide rates, the very crime it is meant to punish hand prevent. However, supporters of the death penalty also tend to agree with the retribution aspect of execution. Punishment through retribution is essentially defined as ‘eye for an eye’ punishment. Supporters believe that since the offender killed someone, they should also be killed. While it is more of a personal opinion and a case by case basis as to whether or not retribution is actually satisfying, many tend to disagree with the notion that retribution is effective. My father is currently the Supervisory Assistant Director of Criminal Programs with the Department of Justice and has formally served in roles such as Assistant U.S Attorney in the southern district of Texas and State Prosecutor in the state of Florida who handled misdemeanor and felony criminal prosecutions. He only tried on death penalty case, which was in 1982. The defendant was originally sentenced the death penalty. In an email to me, he explained the victim’s family’s reaction to the sentencing when he said “Thinking back on the experience, what struck me most was that there was very little satisfaction with the death penalty verdict at the time it was handed down.  The victim’s family didn’t feel any better.” The sentence was later overturned when appealed to the State Supreme Court, an overturn that did not upset my father. When asked how he feels about the death penalty, he said 

My view on the death penalty has evolved over the years. I used to feel that it was clearly justified and good public policy. I’m not so sure any more. I question whether the death penalty is a deterrent to most violent criminal activity. If it is not a deterrent, what are the justifications for it?

This is a perfect account of someone with vast amounts personal experience within the justice system, who has changed his opinion. This parallels the general public’s opinion on it as well. According to a chart released by the NCADP, or the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, the percentage of people who oppose the death penalty has risen from 16% in 1995 to 35% in 2013. At the same time, percentage of people who support the death penalty has fallen from 80% to 60% in the same time span.

Some supporters of the death penalty are supporters because they feel as if it is a solution to the overcrowding of federal prisons. The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, or ACLU, suggested that life in prison is perhaps worse than the death penalty, describing California’s prisons as “overcrowded” and “dangerous” and that “dying there, is a horrible experience. This is especially true given the unconstitutional failure to provide adequate health care to California’s prisoners” (qtd. In Ridgeway and Castella).  This can be proven true- California’s jails have had issues with appropriate health care. However, health care is an issue in these prisons largely because of the prisons being overcrowded. With large numbers of prisoners, it becomes difficult to provide adequate health care to all. So, by saying that life in prison is worse than the death penalty because of prisons being overcrowded and prisons providing inadequate health care, the ACLU is creating a circular argument. Solving one of those issues in effect would solve the other. By saying offenders should not be put to live in prison because jails are overcrowded, they are suggesting that placing them on death row would fix the problem of being overcrowded which would also effect the health care provided to the prisoners.

However, this is not true. As previously stated, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, “Death-row prisoners in the U.S. typically spend more than a decade awaiting execution. Some prisoners have been on death row for well over 20 years.” This means that offenders who are sentenced to death are not being immediately executed, but rather are sitting in jail for at least 10 years, contributing to the overpopulation of federal prisons.

The inadequacy and immorality of our current death penalty legislature screams of the need for reform by reevaluating the current the current judicial process as well as our execution methods. Armstrong Williams explained it best in his article in the New York Amsterdam News. In this article he talks about conservative and liberal views on the death penalty. William’s explains that stereotypically conservatives are pro-death penalty and liberals are anti-death penalty but that the consensus should fall somewhere in the middle. He also explains that if someone who is educated and knows about the details of legislature/recent cases involving capital punishment, that capital punishment needs to be reformed and we should focus on reform rather than deciding whether or not to completely get rid of it. The argument Williams makes in this article is stating obvious facts, but facts that we need to hear and understand. If we begin to understand that the death penalty is not effective, we can begin to draft up new studies as to ways the will effectively deter crime. Reformation does not have to be about abolishing the death penalty completely, but this issues of adequately punishing criminals and creating a more moral way to do so are issues that very relevant in the argument against the death penalty. What seeking reformation looks like on a personal level is voting for judges or legislators that support reformation within the judicial system as well as in regards to the death penalty itself. Before election day, talks with current legislators has always been a way to express one’s opinion. The death penalty was once seen as an effective way to punish criminals and prevent crime, but as time evolves, so does our understanding of different aspect of the criminal justice system. The death penalty is an inadequate and immoral form of capital punishment and needs to be reformed.
