Arguments for the Death Penalty

The most common arguments for retaining the death penalty in the United State are examined below:

Incapacitation. Supporters argue that death is the "ultimate incapacitation" and the only one that can ensure that convicted killers can never be pardoned or paroled or escape. Most states that do not have capital punishment provide the sentence of "life in prison without the chance of parole." However, forty-eight states grant their chief executive the right to grant clemency and commute a life sentence, and may give "lifers" eligibility for various furlough and release programs.

Death penalty advocates believe that the potential for recidivism is a serious enough threat to require that murderers be denied further access to the public. Stephen Markman and Paul Cassell analyzed the records of 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder and found that 810 had previously been convicted of homicide and that those recidivists had killed 821 people following their first conviction. About 9 percent of all inmates on death row today have had prior convictions for homicide. If all these people had been executed after their first conviction, many innocent lives would have been saved.

Deterrent. Proponents of capital punishment argue that executions serve as a strong deterrent for serious crimes. Although capital punishment probably could not deter the mentally unstable, it could have an effect on the cold, calculating murderer, for example, the hired killer or someone who kills for profit. Proponents believe that studies, such as the one by Stephen Layson, indicating that executions can produce a substantial decline in the murder rate, are evidence that potential killers are swayed by the threat of capital punishment.

Morally Correct. Advocates of capital punishment justify its use on the grounds that it is morally correct because it is mentioned in the Bible and other religious works. Although the Constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishments," this prohibition could not include the death penalty since capital punishment was widely used at the time the Constitution was drafted. The "original intent" of the Founders was to allow the states to use the death penalty; capital punishment may be cruel, but it is not unusual.

The death penalty has been accepted by criminal justice experts who consider themselves "humanists," concerned with the value and dignity of human beings. As David Friedrichs argues, there are a number of reasons capital punishment is not inconsistent with a progressive humanistic perspective. Friedrichs main­tains that a civilized society has no choice but to hold responsible those who com­mit horrendous crimes. The implementation of the death penalty provides the greatest justice for the victim and helps alleviate the psychic pain of the victim's family and friends. The death penalty makes a moral statement: some behavior is so unacceptable to a community of human beings that one who engages in such behavior forfeits his or her right to live.

Proportional. Putting dangerous criminals to death also conforms to the requirement that the punishment must be proportional to the seriousness of the crime. Since we currently use a system of escalating punishments, it follows that the most serious punishment should be employed to sanction the most serious crime. And before the brutality of the death penalty is considered, the cruelty with which the victim was treated should not be forgotten.

Reflects Public Opinion. Those who favour capital punishment charge that a majority of the public believes that criminals who kill innocent victims should for­feit their own life. Recent public opinion polls show that up to 80 percent of the public favors the death penalty, almost double the percentage of twenty years ago. Public approval is based on the belief that the death penalty is an impor­tant instrument of social control, that it can deter crime, and that it is less costly than maintaining a murderer in prison for his or her entire life.

Public opinion in favor of the death penalty was a critical factor in the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the use of the death penalty in Gregg v. Georgia. And in an important study, Maria Sandys and Edmund McGarrell show that leg­islators in a death penalty state (Indiana) who vote in favour of capital punishment are swayed by their perception of their constituents' attitudes; most of the officials surveyed do not personally favour capital punishment.

Unlikely Chance of Error. The many legal controls and appeals currently in use make it almost impossible for an innocent person to be executed or for the death penalty to be used in a racist or capricious manner. Although some unfortunatemistakes may have been made in the past, death penalty proponents argue, the current system makes it virtually impossible to execute an innocent person. Federal courts closely scrutinize all death penalty cases and rule for the defendant in an estimated 60 to 70 percent of the appeals. Such judicial care should ensure that only those who are both truly guilty and deserving of death are executed.

In sum, those who favour the death penalty find it to be a traditional punishment for serious crimes, one that can help prevent criminality, is in keeping with the tra­ditional moral values of fairness and equity, and is highly favored by the public.

Text 5. Read and translate the text: