The debate on the death penalty in the United States has existed since the colonial period. By 2017 it remains a legal punishment in 31 states, the federal government, and the military criminal justice system.
Gallup, Inc. monitored support for the death penalty in the United States since 1937 by asking "Do you support the death penalty for someone convicted of murder?" The opposition to capital punishment culminated in 1966, with 47% of Americans opposed to it; by comparison, 42% supported the death penalty and 11% had "no opinion." Death penalties increased in popularity throughout the 1970s and 1980s, as crime increased and politicians campaigned to combat crime and drugs; in 1994, the opposition rate was less than 20%, less than in the other year. Since then, crime rates have declined and anti-death penalty movements have come back strong. In a October 2016 poll, 60% of respondents said they were supportive and 37% opposed.
Video Capital punishment debate in the United States
Histori
Periode kolonial
Abolitionists garner support for their claims from the writings of European Enlightenment philosophers such as Montesquieu, Voltaire (who are convinced the death penalty is cruel and unnecessary) and Bentham. In addition to various philosophers, many Quaker members, Mennonites and other peace churches opposed the death penalty as well. Perhaps the most influential essay for the anti-death penalty movement was the 1767 essay of Cesare Beccaria, About Crime and Punishment . Beccaria strongly opposes the state's right to take life and criticize the death penalty for having such a deterrent effect. After the American Revolution, influential and famous Americans, such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, and Benjamin Franklin made efforts to reform or eliminate the death penalty in the United States. All three joined the Philadelphia Society to Reduce the Woes of Public Prisons, which opposed the death penalty. After the colonial period, the anti-death penalty movement has been increasing and falling throughout history. In Against Death Penalty: The Dead Anti-Punishment Movement in America , Herbert H. Haines explains the presence of the anti-death penalty movement as it exists in four different eras.
The first abolitionist era, mid to late 19th century
The anti-death penalty movement began to increase in the 1830s and many Americans called for the abolition of the death penalty. Sentiments of anti-death penalty increased as a result of the Jacksonian era, which condemned the gallows and advocated better treatment of orphans, criminals, the poor, and mentally ill people. In addition, this era also produces enlightened individuals who are believed to have the capacity to reform the deviants.
Although some call for the abolition of the death penalty completely, the removal of public ornaments is the main focus. Initially, abolitionists opposed the public hangar because they threatened public order, caused sympathy for the condemned, and bad for people to watch. However, after several countries restrict the execution of prisons or prisons, anti-death penalty movements can no longer exploit terrible execution details.
The anti-death penalty gained some successes in the late 1850s as Michigan, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin graduated the elimination bill. The abolitionist also has some success in banning the law that places the mandatory death penalty for convicted murderers. However, some of these restrictions are aborted and the movement decreases. The conflict between North and South in run-up to the American Civil War and Mexican-American War took the attention of the movement. In addition, the anti-gallow group responsible for lobbying for weak elimination legislation. The groups lack strong leadership, as most of its members are involved in advocacy for other issues as well, such as slavery removal and prison reform. Members of the anti-gallow group do not have enough time, energy, or resources to make a substantial step towards elimination. Thus, the movement declined and remained latent until after the post-Civil War period.
The second abolitionist era, the late 19th and early 20th centuries
The anti-death penalty gained momentum again at the end of the 19th century. The populist and progressive reforms contribute to the resurgent sentiment of anti-capital punishment. In addition, the "conscious Christian" form and the growing support of "scientific" correction contribute to the success of the movement. New York introduced the electric chair in 1890. This method should be more humane and calm the opponent's death penalty. However, abolitionists condemn this method and claim it is inhuman and similar to burning someone at the stake.
In 1898 opened in the New York Times, prominent physician Austin Flint called for the abolition of the death penalty and suggested a more criminology-based method should be used to reduce crime. The activism of anti-death penalty in this period was largely state and local based. An organization called Anti-Death Penalty League founded Massachusetts in 1897. However, national leagues, such as the Anti-capital Punishment Society of America and the Capital Punishment Committee of the National Committee on Prisons, were developed shortly thereafter.
Many judges, prosecutors and police opposed the abolition of the death penalty. They believe the death penalty has a strong deterrent capacity and the abolition will result in more violence, chaos, and the death penalty without trial. Despite opposition from these authorities, ten states banned execution by law at the start of World War I and many others came closer. However, much of this victory was reversed and the movement was once again dead because of World War I and the economic problems that followed.
However, the American Civil Liberties Union, developed in 1925 and proven influential. The group focuses on educating the public on the moral and pragmatic issues of capital punishment. They also organized campaigns for legislative abolition and developed a team of researchers who looked into empirical evidence around issues such as the prevention of capital punishment and racial discrimination in the process of capital punishment. Although the organization was not very successful when it came to removal, they garnered many members and financial support for their purposes. Many of their members and presidents are prison wardens, lawyers, and renowned academic scholars. These influential people write articles and pamphlets that are distributed throughout the country. They also gave speeches. Along with other social movements at the time, however, the group lost momentum and attention due to the Great Depression and World War II.
The third abolitionist era, the mid-20th century
Movements in the 1950s and 1960s shifted focus from legislation to court. Although public opinion continued to support the execution (in addition to the mid-1960s when pro and anti opinion were more or less the same), judges and juries executed fewer people than in the 1930s. The decline of the death penalty gives strength to various new anti-capital punishment organizations. Among these groups are: California Citizens Against Legalized Murder, Ohio Committee for Abolish Capital Punishment, New Jersey Council for Abolish Capital Punishment, California People Against Capital Punishment, New York Committee for Abolish Capital Punishment, Oregon Council for the Elimination of Death Penalty, and the National Committee for the Elimination of Federal Death Penalties. In addition to the growing organization, the movement also benefited from the abolition of the abolition of the death penalty in Europe and from the controversial executions of Barbara Graham and Caryl Chessman. Success increased in the late 1950s when Alaska, Hawaii, and Delaware removed the death penalty. Oregon and Iowa followed in their footsteps in the 1960s. Many other countries add legislation that limits the use of capital punishment except in cases of extreme serious violations. Abolitionists began to strongly oppose the constitutionality of the death penalty in the 1960s. Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund launched a major campaign that challenged the constitution of the death penalty and urged a moratorium on all executions while in the process. The United States executed zero people from 1968 to 1976. The greatest victory of the anti-death sentence movement of this period was the Supreme Court Case, Furman v. Georgia , in 1972. The Supreme Court found the current state of the death penalty unconstitutional due to the "arbitrary and discriminatory manner" of its application. The courts, however, left countries with the option to change their laws and make them more constitutional. Twenty-eight countries did so and the court finally allowed the death sentence again through a series of cases in 1976, collectively known as Gregg v. Georgia .
Contemporary anti-death penalty movement
The anti-death penalty movement is rising again in response to the restoration of the death penalty in many states. In court, the movement's response has resulted in certain restrictions on the application of capital punishment. For example, adolescents, mentally ill, and intellectual disabilities can no longer be executed. However, the Supreme Court also made it more difficult to accuse racial discrimination in the death penalty process. During this era, the movement diversified its efforts beyond litigation and lawyers' efforts, to include organizations that attacked the legislative death penalty. Some of the most influential organizations that continue to work against the death penalty today include Amnesty International USA, the American Civil Liberties Union, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the National Coalition for the Elimination of Death Penalty. The works of these organizations have brought various restrictions on the use of capital punishment at the state level, including several moratorium in the state and the death penalty ban. As a result, some experts consider the American death penalty to be relatively vulnerable in this contemporary period. Through litigation and activism, the anti-death penalty movement specifically targeted lethal injections as an unacceptable method of execution. By suppressing pharmaceutical manufacturers and raising awareness about a protracted, painful, or "failing" execution effort, activists have achieved some success in limiting the number of executions performed. Contemporary activism and advocacy have also highlighted the possibility of executing innocent people, a problem that has gained significance as DNA testing has established innocence from several death row convicts. The Innocence Project has gained wide recognition for its efforts to erase beliefs using DNA evidence. Finally, many contemporary arguments focus on the greater cost of capital punishment than alternative punishment, which has attracted strong support in some state legislatures.
Rather than having leaders and members who may be beneficiaries of the success of the movement, the anti-death penalty movement consists of "moral entrepreneurs" who speak for those who are under threat of being executed. Membership is not as strong as a mass movement because it often consists of "paper membership," meaning members with groups representing other problems as well or members are involved in some other issue-oriented project.
Public opinion
In a poll completed by Gallup in October 2009, 65% of Americans support the death penalty for people convicted of murder, while 31% are against and 5% have no opinion.
In the US, surveys have long shown that the majority support the death penalty. An ABC News survey in July 2006 found 65 percent support the death penalty, consistent with other elections since 2000. About half the Americans say the death penalty is not often enough and 60 percent believe it is fairly applied, according to Gallup. polls from May 2006. But the survey also shows the public is more divided when asked to choose between the death penalty and life without parole, or when dealing with teen criminals. About six out of 10 people told Gallup that they did not believe the death penalty prevented the killings and the majority believed that at least one innocent person had been executed in the last five years.
By comparison, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Latin America, and Western Europe, the death penalty is a controversial issue. However, several cases of mass killings, terrorism and child killings have sometimes led to a wave of support for recovery, such as the case of Robert Pickton, Greyhound bus strikes, Port Arthur massacres and the Bali bombing, although neither of these events nor actual similar events causing the death penalty to be repeated. Between 2000 and 2010, support for the death penalty in Canada fell from 44% to 40%, and opposition to it increased from 43% to 46%. The current Canadian government "has absolutely no plans to return the death penalty." Nevertheless, in a 2011 interview given to Canadian media, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed his personal support for capital punishment by saying, "I personally think there are times when the death penalty is appropriate." According to some polls, by 2012, 63% of Canadians surveyed believe the death penalty is sometimes appropriate, while 61% say the death penalty is justified for murder. In Australia, a 2009 poll found that 23% of the public supported the death penalty for murder, while a poll of 2014 found that 52.5% supported the death penalty for a fatal terrorist attack.
A number of polls and research have been conducted in recent years with various results.
In the penalty phase of the federal capital case against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in 2015 for the Boston Marathon bombing of 2013, the convicted person is given the death penalty. A poll in the state of Massachusetts, where crime and trial took place, "indicates that the population is very fond of life in prison for Mr. Tsarnaev.Many respondents say that living in prison for such a young person will be a worse fate than death, and some worried that the execution would make him a martyr, but the jury in his case would have to be 'qualified death' - that is, they should all be willing to impose the death penalty for serving the jury, so in that sense the jury does not represent the state.
Maps Capital punishment debate in the United States
Prevention
The publicity impact of capital punishment on individual criminal activity can be seen from the 'counterfeiting argument'. In the United States, the 'denial argument' is one of the most common justifications for continuing to use the death penalty. Basically, the barring argument puts the idea that executing criminals prevents others from engaging in criminal activity. The existence of the deterrence effect is debatable. Studies - especially older ones - differ, whether the death penalty prevents other potential criminals from committing murder or other crimes. The validity of the prevention argument has been the subject of social science research since the 18th century, studied by many scholars, including Baldus & amp; Cole in 1975; Beccaria in 1764; Bentham in 1830; Sellin in 1955, 1961, and 1967; Schuessler in 1952; and Tarde in 1912. Until 1975, such research agreed that executing convicted criminals and publicizing the execution did not significantly deter other individuals from committing crimes, thereby refuting the denial argument.
In 1975, however, Ehrlich famously opposed the existing social science literature by seemingly proving the validity of the prevention argument. Although Ehrlich's study seems to indicate that executing individuals and publicizing the execution resulted in lower crime rates from the 1930s to the 1960s, his findings provoked criticism, due to the inability of other researchers to replicate his research and findings. Since the publication of Ehrlich's controversial findings, research has become increasingly contradictory. As the research findings become more and more contradictory, the validity of the deterrence argument becomes even more challenged. In fact, the most recently published article on the validity of deterrence effects problematizes previous studies, arguing that econometric estimates of prevention of execution are easily manipulated and, by extension, erroneous.
One of the reasons that there is no general consensus on whether the death penalty is a deterrent or not is rarely used - only about one out of every 300 killings actually results in execution. In 2005 at Stanford's Legal Review, John J. Donohue III, a professor of law at Yale with a doctorate in economics, and Justin Wolfers, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote that the death penalty " rarely so that the number of murders that may have been caused or blocked is unreliable regardless of the big year-end changes in the murder rate caused by other factors.... The evidence available for prevention... is extremely fragile. "Wolfers stated, "If I was allowed to do 1,000 executions and 1,000 exceptions, and I was allowed to do it randomly, focused, I might be able to give you an answer."
Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University, wrote a study looking at 3,054 districts in the US for the death penalty for many different reasons. The study found that every execution prevents five murders. Emory University law professor Joanna Shepherd, who has contributed in various studies on the death penalty and deterrence, said, "I am definitely against the death penalty for many different reasons, but I believe that people respond to incentives." Shepherd found that the death penalty had a deterrent effect only in countries that executed at least nine people between 1977 and 1996. In the 2005 Michigan Law Review, Shepherd wrote, "Prevention can not be achieved with a half-execution program heart. "
The question of whether the death penalty preventing murder usually revolves around statistical analysis. Studies have produced disputed results with disputed significance. Some studies show a positive correlation between the death penalty and the murder rate - in other words, they show that where the death penalty applies, the murder rate is also high. This correlation can be well interpreted that the death penalty increases the level of murder by the brutalization of society, known as the brutalization hypothesis, or that higher murder rates cause the state to retain or reintroduce the death penalty. However, advocates and opponents of various statistical studies, on both sides of the problem, argue that correlations do not imply causation. There is evidence that some of the major studies on the death penalty and deterrence are defects due to model uncertainty, and once this is taken into account, little evidence of deterrence persists.
The case for the great deterrent effect of capital punishment has been significantly strengthened since the 1990s, when waves of sophisticated econometric studies exploit newly available data forms, called panel data. Most recent studies show the deterrent effect of the death penalty statistically. However, critics claim a severe methodological weakness in this study and argue that empirical data provide no basis for a good statistical conclusion about the deterrent effect. A similar conclusion has been reached by the National Research Council in the 2012 report "Prevention and Death Penalty", which states that "the current research on the effect of capital punishment on murder rates is useless in determining whether the death penalty increases, decreases, or does not affect this level. "In 2009, a survey of leading criminologists found that 88% of them did not think that capital punishment was an effective deterrent to crime.
Surveys and polls conducted over the past 15 years suggest that some police chiefs and others involved in law enforcement may not believe that capital punishment has a deterrent effect on individuals who commit violent crimes. In a 1995 poll of police chiefs randomly selected from across the United States, the ranking officers rated the latest death penalty as a way to prevent or prevent violent crime. They rank behind many other forms of crime control including reducing drug abuse and use, lowering technical barriers when demanding, putting more officers on the streets, and making longer prison sentences. They replied that a better economy with more jobs would reduce the crime rate more than the death penalty. In fact, only one percent of police chiefs surveyed thought that capital punishment was the primary focus for reducing crime.
However, police chiefs surveyed were more likely to choose the death penalty than the general population.
In addition to statistical evidence, psychological studies examine whether killers are thinking of the consequences of their actions before they commit crimes. Most killing is a spontaneous, spontaneous, and impulsive act emotionally. Killers do not weigh their choices with great care in such arrangements (Jackson 27). It is doubtful that the killers are very concerned about the punishment before they kill (Ross 41).
But some say the death penalty should be upheld even if the deterrent effect is unclear, like John McAdams, who teaches political science at Marquette University: "If we execute murderers and in fact there is no deterrent effect, we have killed a group of assassins." If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so will actually prevent other killing, we have let the killing of a group of innocent victims. I prefer to risk the former. This, to me, is not a difficult call. "
Maimonides argues that executing a defendant on something less than absolute certainty will lead to a slippery slope to reduce the burden of proof, until we will only punish "according to the judge's judgment." Caprice of various types is more visible now with DNA testing, and digital computer search and discovery requirements open DA files. Maimonides's concern was to maintain a popular respect for the law, and he saw that commission misconduct was more threatening than omission errors.
Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, both of Harvard's law schools, however, argue that if there is a deterrent effect it will save innocent lives, which give the tradeoff of life-life. "The problems familiar with the death penalty - the potential for error, irrevocability, arbitrariness, and racial inclination - do not support abolition, because the world of murder suffers the same problem in a more acute form." They concluded that "a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may force, rather than prohibit, the form of punishment." Regarding any attempt to make a utilitarian moral argument for the death penalty, Albert Camus writes:
The death sentence is the most planned murder, which can not be compared to the crime, however calculated. Since there will be equality, the death penalty must punish a criminal who has warned his victims about the date on which he will cause terrible death to himself and who, from that moment, has restricted him at his mercy for months.. Such a monster does not have to be found in personal life.
The extent to which the denial argument is well-founded, however, is far from the only interesting and important aspect of this general justification of capital punishment. In fact, the current conceptualization of the prevention argument is also important, insofar as they implicitly operate under the assumption that media and publicity are integral to shaping individual awareness and understanding of the death penalty. In other words, the current conceptualization of this prevention argument assumes that most people are made aware of the execution by media coverage of the execution, which means that the choice of media to be executed, as well as media coverage of the execution, is necessary for the prevention effect to occur. In this case, in contemporary society, the prevention argument relies on an implicit understanding that human understanding and action - including actions that can deprive individuals of life - is influenced by the media. While it is increasingly unclear whether media coverage has affected criminal behavior, it is necessary to examine how media coverage of executions and, more abstractly, the holistic constructions of capital punishment have shaped the actions and understanding of communities associated with this controversy. practice.
Use of capital punishment on defense bargain
Supporters of the death penalty, especially those who do not believe in the deterrent effect of capital punishment, say the threat of capital punishment can be used to force the defendants to plead guilty, testify against the accomplices, or reveal the location of the bodies. Norman Frink, a senior deputy attorney in the state of Oregon, considers the death penalty as a valuable tool for prosecutors. The threat of death makes the defendant enter into a plea agreement to live without parole or live with a minimum of 30 years - two other penalties, in addition to death, that Oregon allows a murder that is aggravated. In a plea agreement reached with Washington state prosecutor Gary Ridgway, a Seattle area man who claimed 48 murders since 1982, received life imprisonment without parole in 2003. The prosecutor rescues Ridgway from execution in exchange for his cooperation in leading the police to the remains of the still-missing victims.
Media and death sentence debate
Media plays an important role in the production and reproduction of cultural discourses, and it is essential to be reflexively shaped and shaped by cultural beliefs and attitudes. In this case, media messages and, with extensions, beliefs and attitudes toward practices such as capital punishment may have considerable consequences for convicted criminals, but also for juries, lawyers, politicians, victims' families, and debates public broader than corporal punishment. Thus, it is important to understand how the execution media framework has massaged the public's understanding and their support of the death penalty, and how this framing affects individual involvement in criminal activity.
Framing the death penalty media
Journalists and producers play an integral role in shaping the media framework of capital punishment. But the frame evolved through various actors and social stakeholders. In the case of capital punishment, the media framing of Timothy McVeigh's execution is interactively conducted by various people. In particular, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which has historically avoided media attention, responded to increased oversight through the registration of media advisory groups to help shape the media framework over the execution of McVeigh.
Despite the fact that media frames are everywhere, the public is not always aware of the particular frames with which they are bombarded. This is largely because the media frames the problem in a way that, more often than not, keeps people from fully aware of the word frame. For example, examining media coverage of the three executions of Nebraskan revealed that the death penalty was tricked in a very positive way, to ensure media coverage would be in line with the growing public support for the death penalty at the time. This means that journalists do not focus on the problem or tension in each case, nor do they publicly demand hard on the question of a case or the death penalty more broadly.
The media template can dramatically simplify complex social issues. More specifically, the media simplify complex cases by ensuring the news below them in accordance with cultural understandings of capital crimes that are generally considered pre-existing and pre-existing. More specifically, the media framed the death penalty in a very negative and inaccurate manner, almost exclusively covering cases involving minority offenders, 'decent' victims, and especially vile crimes; this is especially true for capital crimes involving female sexual degradation. A thematic content analysis 209 Associated Press articles found that the media framed the death penalty in a way that depicted the death penalty as too fair, tasty, and simple. To achieve a discursive positive illustration of the death penalty and individual execution, reporters frame the story around the choice of prisoners. In order of popularity, another common framework used by journalists to frame executions and death penalties relates to competence, legal procedures, politics, religion, state-assisted suicide, and the suffering of inmates.
Although much of the literature suggests that in general, the media frames execution and capital punishment profitably by minimizing the complexity of each case, and vice versa, some research indicates that the media frames execution and death penalty in a way that is too negative. Both conditions are achieved by reducing and obscuring the complexities embedded in capital crime cases. Content analysis reveals that the New York Times < Washington Post , and the Associated Press have framed the death penalty negatively by focusing on exceptions that challenge acceptance: innocence of some people convicted of capital crime, wrongly accused and punished, and convicted lack of individual competence.
Analysis of the formal content of articles in Time , Newsweek , Progressive , and National Review found that the frame is used in the left-leaning Progressive and right wing National Reviews contribute to the bias of each magazine. Left and Newsweek , however, are highly centric in their approach to social issues, including capital punishment. Although these biased frames may appear insignificant, the death penalty media framework has significant implications.
Effects on public opinion
The media plays an important role in shaping people's understanding of capital punishment. This is especially true as the increasing media focus on false beliefs of innocent people has resulted in the public becoming less supportive of the death penalty. These findings are supported by more recent research, including research involving content analysis of articles and public opinion about the death penalty. The increased media focus on the innocent faith belief, referred to as the 'innocence frame', has highlighted the greater fall in the judicial system; this has contributed to the decline in public support for the death penalty. Furthermore, the examination of whether individual exposure to press coverage has the ability to change their understanding of the death penalty reveals that the way in which the media depicts public support of the death penalty has a bearing on the support of the death penalty public. More specifically, if the media indicates there is widespread support of the death penalty, something that the media has been guilty of, the individual is more likely to support the death penalty.
Not only the abstract 'general public' is affected by media coverage of the death penalty. Media framing of cases involving female sexual degradation affects the conceptualisation of district attorneys on these cases, resulting in prosecutors more likely to pursue capital punishment in cases involving sexual abuse of women. Cases involving female sexual degradation receive more media attention than others. Prosecutors are consequently more likely to pursue capital punishment for this crime, despite the fact that they are, often, less heinous and horrible than other capital crimes that do not involve female sexual degradation.
News coverage has been found to shape people's understanding of the death penalty and the specific cases of executions that have been punished by the law. Television dramas have also been found to have a significant bearing on the understanding and actions of people relating to capital punishment. Seeing the police reality show and television news programs, serving someone's criminal drama affects their support of the death penalty. In fact, people's view of the crime drama has been linked to actually changing the pre-existing beliefs about the death penalty. More importantly, criminal dramas are able to re-arrange the case in a manner consistent with broader ideological beliefs, while challenging and changing their particular beliefs about execution. For example, people who identify as liberals have historically opposed the death penalty, but crime dramas such as the Law and Order rearrange criminal cases by linking the death penalty with other closely held liberal values, such as women's safety and protection. Thus, criminal dramas are able to attract and retain the ideological beliefs of society, while simultaneously influencing and changing their attitudes to capital punishment.
The ability of the media to re-arrange the death penalty and, by extension, affect the support of people against the death penalty, while still appealing to their pre-existing ideological beliefs that may traditionally contradict the support of capital punishment is evidence of the complexity embedded in the formation of community trust media. about the death penalty. How media form the public's understanding of the death penalty can be further complicated by the fact that certain media shape the beliefs and subjectivities of society differently. People exposed to more complex forms of media, such as hard-hit traditional news events, approach death sentences in more sophisticated and sophisticated ways than people exposed to less complex forms of media, including television news magazines. Although the media is a message to some extent, it is also clear that every form of media has some bearing - big or small - on the public support of the death penalty. In this case, questions should be raised about the ethics of capital punishment in an increasingly mediaized society. Furthermore, the public and journalists alike have to pay increasing attention to new investigative techniques that enable them to increase exoneration. These new techniques illustrate the fact that often, the media can play a meaningful role in the problems of life and death.
Race and gender factors
People who oppose the death penalty argue that the arbitrariness that exists in his administration makes the practice immoral and unjust. In particular, they point to the systemic presence of racial, socioeconomic, geographic, and gender biases in their implementation as evidence of how such practices are illegal and require suspension or deletion.
Anti-death penalty groups specifically argue that capital punishment is unfairly applied to African-Americans. African Americans have formed 34.5 percent of the people executed since the death penalty in 1976 and 41 percent of death row in April 2018, although representing only 13 percent of the general population in 2010. Furthermore, the race of victims has also been proved to affect penalties in capital cases, with killings with white victims more likely to result in capital punishment than non-white victims. Advocates are largely unsuccessful in accusing systematic racial bias in the Supreme Court, because of the need to indicate individual biases in the case of defendants.
Some attributes of racial differences in the death penalty for individual factors. According to Craig Rice, a member of the black state legislature of Maryland: "The question is, do more people have the color of death sentence because the system puts them there or does they commit more crimes because of unequal access to education and opportunities? grew up, it always has to be responsible for your actions. "Others point to an academic study that shows African American defendants are more likely to receive the death penalty than other race defendants, even when controlling for murder situations, suggesting that individual factors do not explain racial differences.
By 2017, women accounted for 1.88% (53 people) of inmates in prison, with men accounting for 98.12% (2764). Since 1976, 1.1% (16) of those executed are women.
Lack of capacity
In the United States, there is a growing debate over whether the death penalty should apply to people with reduced mental capacity. In Ford v. Wainwright , the Supreme Court declared that the Eighth Amendment prohibited the state from executing the death penalty for a crazy person, and that properly raised the question of the time-execution sanity must be determined. in a process that meets the minimum requirements of the legal process. In Atkins v. Virginia , the Supreme Court discusses whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of mentally retarded people. The court noted that "national consensus" has evolved against it. While such executions are still permitted for people with marginal backwardness, evidence of underdevelopment is allowed as a mitigation of circumstances. However, the case of Teresa Lewis, the first woman to be executed in Virginia since 1912, proved highly controversial because Governor Bob McDonnell refused to change her sentence to life imprisonment, even though she had an IQ of 70.
Limit for majority
In theory, the opponents of capital punishment may argue that as a matter of principle, the death penalty collides with the substance of Madison's understanding of democratic rule. According to the Madisonian principle, the will of the majority will prevail, but at the same time, minorities must be respected. Therefore, the majority can not pass a law that imposes the death penalty for the simple reason that such legislation completely removes minorities who choose not to obey the law. Thus the question relating to the death penalty is whether the majority has the power to enact the law enforcing the death penalty of a minority that does not comply with the law and performs prohibited acts. As a result, punishment for disobeying the law - that is, the prohibition against killing, can not be a death sentence, because it threatens the existence of a minority.
Cost
Recent studies show that executing more criminals than life imprisonment. Many countries have found it cheaper to throw criminals to life imprisonment than through the time-consuming process and bureaucracy to execute criminal convicts. Donald McCartin, an Orange County, California spokesperson, famous for sending nine people to the death line during his career, said that "10 times more expensive to kill [criminals] than keep them alive." McCartin's estimates are actually low, according to a June 2011 study by former capital punishment prosecutor and federal judge Arthur L. AlarcÃÆ'³n, and law professor Paula Mitchell. According to AlarcÃÆ'³n and Mitchell, California has spent $ 4bn for the death penalty since 1978, and the death penalty is 20 times more expensive than a trial seeking a life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole. Studies in other countries show the same pattern.
Incorrect execution
The death penalty is often opposed on the grounds that an innocent person will be executed. In a study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences in the US stated that 1 in 25 people executed in the US are innocent. Proponents of the object of capital punishment that this life should be weighed against the much more innocent people whose lives could be saved if the killers were blocked by the prospect for execution.
Between 1973 and 2005, 123 people in 25 countries were released from the death penalty when their new evidence of innocence emerged. Are all these releases are actual cases of innocence than the technical release of the defendants due to legal matters in their case which allow their belief to legally cancel the debates by supporters of the death penalty.
Statistics may downplay the true problem of false beliefs because once execution has occurred there is often insufficient motivation and finance to keep a case open, and it becomes impossible at that point that a miscarriage of justice will ever be revealed. In the case of Joseph Roger O'Dell III, who was executed in Virginia in 1997 for rape and murder, a prosecutor openly argued in court in 1998 that if the posthumous DNA was released by O'Dell, "it would shout from the roof... Virginia executes innocent people. "The state applies, and evidences are destroyed.
Nevertheless, some controversial cases have been researched after execution by state authorities, such as post-belief DNA tests ordered by Mark Warner evidence in the case of Roger Keith Coleman in Virginia and review forensic evidence in the Cameron Todd Willingham case. in Texas.
Another problem is the quality of defense in cases where the defendant has a public defender. The competence of defense lawyers "is a better predictor of whether a person will be sentenced to death than the facts of crime".
In 2015, the Justice Department and the FBI formally acknowledged that almost every examiner in the FBI forensics team exaggerated forensic hair for two decades before 2000. 26 of the 28 forensic examiners exaggerated evidence of forensic hair matches in 268 trials reviewed, and 95% of exaggerations support prosecution. The cases involved 32 cases in which the defendant was sentenced to death.
See also
- The death penalty in the United States
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments