Capital Punishment Research
Whenever the word "death penalty" comes up, extremists from both sides of the spectrum begin to wildly express their opinions. One side says deterrence, the other side says there's a potential of executing an innocent man. One says justice, retribution, and punishment, the other side says execution is murder. However, all arguments aside, the best way and the only way to truly make a rational decision about capital punishment is to examine the purpose of our criminal justice system. Once the purpose of the criminal justice system is established, one must find out the purpose of capital punishment. This paper will show that the purpose of capital punishment is consistent with and embodies the purpose of the criminal justice system. Then, this paper will determine whether or not the present form of the death penalty is fulfilling its purpose, and what could be changed to make the death penalty more efficient and effective. The first question that must be faced is, "What is the purpose of the criminal justice system and does the death penalty help to fulfill that purpose?" In The Law, Frederic Bastiat says that humans have inalienable rights that existed outside of and before government. These rights are life, liberty,
"Death Penalty Statistics," North Carolina Attorney General's Office. 1997. 2. A second problem is that first-degree murder is hard to prove. Premeditation and deliberation must be proven in order for a murder to be classified as first-degree murder. This may seem simple, but let us take a look at what the prosecution has to prove in order to convict the defendant of first-degree murder. First of all, premeditation means "the act was thought out beforehand for some length of time," and second of all deliberation means "an intent to kill carried out in a cool state of blood, in furtherance of a fixed design for revenge or to accomplish an unlawful purpose and not under the influence of a violent passion, suddenly aroused by lawful or just cause or legal provocation," ("Justice For All" 2). Both elements are hard to prove because they involve the mind of the criminal, they have complex definitions, and they can usually only be proven by circumstantial evidence. However, this is only the beginning of the complex legal maze that prosecutors must get through to get a conviction. Some other things prosecutors must consider in proving murder in the first degree are that defendant's emotion must not have disturbed his faculties or reason, whether or not the killing occurred during the course of a quarrel or scuffle, previous hostile feelings and prior assaults, nature and number of wounds, unseemly conduct toward and concealment of the body, vicious and brutal slaying, whether or not the defendant consumed alcohol beforehand, and many other limiting factors. Due to the complicated process, a trial for first-degree murder lasts approximately six weeks. Duff, Charles. A Handbook on Hanging. Boston: Hale, Cushman, and Flint. 1929. 54 In 1971, in McGautha v. California and Crampton v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that states need not specify in statutes the factors to be considered by the jury in issuing the death penalty. This case also held that while bifurcated trials (trials with two stages) are preferred, they are not required (O'Brien 1100). Ironically, only one year later this ruling was overturned. In 1972, in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in the way that it was being implemented. The eighth and fourteenth amendments were cited, especially regarding the due process and equal protection clauses (O'Brien 1101). The death penalty was declared unconstitutional because it was not being issued fairly or evenly. The Supreme Court had ruled that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment in the way that it was being carried out. In order to reinstate the death penalty, the states had to have uniform standards and guidelines for the jury to use in determining the death penalty. After Furman v. Georgia, a few states set up mandatory death penalty statutes for certain crimes. However, in Woodson v. North Carolina, these laws were overturned. Florida, Georgia, Texas, and twenty-two other states wrote new laws reinstating the death penalty with specific aggravating and mitigating circumstances (O'Brien 1101). Aggravating circumstances were reasons why the defendant should receive the death penalty. Mitigating circumstances were reasons why the defendant should not receive the death penalty. Lockett v. Ohio ruled that states may not limit the kinds of mitigating circumstances that juries can consider (O'Brien 1102).
Some common words found in the essay are:
McClesky Zant, Lockett Ohio, Hyam Barshay, Frederic Bastiat, North Carolina, Supreme Court, Wesley Lowe, Markman Cassal, , death penalty, Penalty Statistics, first-degree murder, criminal justice, justice system, criminal justice system, capital punishment, north carolina, homicide rate, opponents death, second-degree murder, opponents death penalty, purpose criminal justice, innocent person, supreme court ruled, court ruled death,
Approximate Word count = 4268
Approximate Pages = 17 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
