Since the democratic evolution of the United States, capital punishment has been a controversially used method of retribution. Although there are many that continue to strongly support the death penalty in the United States, there has been increased opposition to the movement on the basis of the Eighth Amendment, claiming that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The debate rages today not only as a result of the diverse political beliefs between Democrats and Republicans of both the past and the present, but the divide amongst citizens in the United States based on socioeconomic class, psychological wellbeing of offenders, and influence of history on personal predilections. As a result, conflict arises as to whether the death penalty is an unconstitutional form of punishment and should be abolished in the United States, as it has been in other democratic nations alike, or if it shall remain as it has in the nation’s past. Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is an adequate alternative to the death penalty because it ensures that both parties involved are granted with “liberty and justice for all,” while maintaining international recognition for being one of the strongest and most powerful criminal justice systems in the world. Moreover, altering the punishment for capital offenses will bring about a newfound understanding for the ever-changing societal standards and norms that allow for the criminal justice system, along with policy, to better fit the needs and trends found amongst the vast majority of citizens in the nation.
Introduction
The death penalty is a barbaric, heinous practice that has plagued the United States criminal justice system since its establishment in the early 1600s. Although there are many that support its imposition in society due to its historical timelessness and use in other democratic nations, it is important to note the alternatives to such a controversial practice. In order to ensure that justice is being brought to both the families and friends of those lives lost as a result of such crimes, as well as to the individual who committed the act, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is an effective and righteous replacement to the practice of the death penalty in the United States. It is vital that the government begin to take into consideration the complications associated with the death penalty physically, politically, and socially, and replace the broken system of capital punishment with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole to assure that all engulfed in the penal system are ensured “liberty and justice for all.”
In this paper, I will justify the aforementioned through the acknowledgement of four vital policy lenses: economic, racial, moral, and socioeconomic. I will also provide an overview of the research that I have conducted throughout the semester on both the death penalty and the alternative of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. To elaborate on my interest in the topic and the steps that I consciously took to defend the belief that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is a just alternative to the death penalty, I will briefly analyze the data and statistics that are of substance to the argument and provide a detailed analysis of my findings. I will then conclude the paper with a summary of the aforementioned statistics and provide information pertaining to future legislation on the matter.
Methodology
Since my initial exposure to the criminal justice system, I have found the Eighth Amendment and the concept of cruel and unusual punishment of utmost significance. Although other protections in the Bill of Rights, such as the guarantee of free speech found in the First Amendment, are noted in society at greater lengths, the Eighth Amendment’s provision regarding cruel and unusual punishment is of as much importance in today’s society as it was decades ago. Despite the federal government lifting the nationwide moratorium following the Furman versus Georgia decision in 1976, all citizens in the United States have a duty to their fellow Americans to ensure that the Constitution is being held to the highest of standards and its liberties are properly implemented hundreds of years after its composition. Because of the lack of acknowledgement by my fellow classmates, as well as fellow Americans, and the minimal change that has occurred to make the death penalty as painless and quick as possible, I find the topic and the provision against “cruel and unusual punishment” in the Eighth Amendment fascinating, prompting me to write and research the topic further for the purposes of this paper.
In navigating the library system to pick proper sources to support my ideology, I relied heavily on the search bar and the drop down menu that appears after you insert a topic to find the sources that are most related to my topic. In most instances, I used the resources provided when I search “death penalty,” but I often used other postings, including “life imprisonment or capital punishment, death penalty in the United States, and death penalty statistics.” Following my searches, I narrowed down my sources strategically, and some of the most significant findings are a result of these works that will be seen throughout my paper; a one sentence analysis of each one does not do the information that will soon be provided justice. In the rare instances in which the Rutgers Libraries Database did not have the sources that I needed, I would use Google Scholar, where I was exposed to a variety of publications regarding the death penalty and life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Without these works, I would have struggled to effectively convey my immense urge for the government to implement life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as the ultimate punishment for capital offenses in the United States.
Findings
Life imprisonment without parole is a necessary alternative to the death penalty because of the number of botched executions that have occurred over time. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, “It is estimated that 3% of U.S. executions in the period from 1890 to 2010 were botched” (“Botched Executions,” n.d.). Moreover, Debbie Siegelbaum (2014) notes, “Some of the botched cases have arisen from problems with dosing, the difficulty executioners experience getting hold of good quality drugs, and the varying level of training given those administering the fatal injection.” William Happ’s execution is often noted because it was one that can be deemed “botched.” Stern (2015) noted that, “William Happ shook his head, blinked, and opened his mouth during his execution. Witnesses had no way of knowing whether he was in pain, but he appeared to remain conscious longer than offenders given sodium thiopental or pentobarbital.” The innumerable problems that are presented to those executing an inmate as a form of retribution present a moral and ethical dilemma that can only be solved by eliminating its use in the United States. Despite society’s technological advancements over time that could be used to eliminate the likelihood that a botched execution would occur, they have not been used or tried, which signifies that there are abusive deaths occurring under the discretion of the government. Because there is the possibility of a torturous death involved when using the death penalty, it violates the Eighth Amendment protections against “cruel and unusual punishment” and the morale of the American people and should no longer be used as a form of retribution in the United States.
Against contrary belief, evidence provided by the American Civil Liberties Union proves that life imprisonment without parole is not only a more just form of punishment, but a more cost-efficient option for the government: “Simply housing prisoners on death row costs California tax payers an additional $90,000 per year, above what it would cost to house them with the general prison population, which is $59 million a year” (“The Truth About Life Without Parole: Condemned to Die in Prison,” n.d.). As the debate rages as to where the citizens of California’s tax dollars are being spent, it is peace of mind for many to know that their funds are not being used to put an individual to death at the government’s discretion. To elaborate further on the cost of the death penalty, Peterson and Lynch (2012) state, “…pretrial and trial costs [are] $20 million annually, $54.4 million each year for the cost of state-level appeal and habeas proceedings, and confinement costs at $63.3 million annually” (p. 1241). It is not only morally and ethically acceptable to house capital offenders in prison for the remainder of their lives, but it is economically efficient to do so, as well. As a result of the findings regarding the costs of life imprisonment in comparison to the death penalty, advocates and those in government should promote federal legislation that abolishes the death penalty.
The socioeconomic status of the defendants in capital trials, in comparison to the defendants and the juries, is often misrepresented in society today. J.H. Fortenberry (1979) notes, “Defendants of lower socioeconomic status were usually represented by a public defender or a court-appointed attorney…Discrimination based on socioeconomic status appeared to operate in relation to the factor of education.” In other words, the imposition of the death penalty is significantly heightened for those offenders who have a vastly different socioeconomic upbringing than their upper-class counterparts, or those who can afford their own legal representation. Moreover, Conway (1996) elaborates on the aforementioned by concluding that “…the odds of receiving a death sentence are 10 times greater for a black defendant than for a white defendant who has the same socioeconomic background and whose case has the same aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” Not only are the racial disparities between African-Americans and whites an immense factor in determining whether or not the death penalty will be imposed on an offender, but the socioeconomic backgrounds of the two are of utmost significance to juries. Thus, the socioeconomic status of capital offenders plays an immense impact in determining the imposition of the death penalty in each individual case.
One of the most significant defenses for those promoting the alternative of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is on the basis of race. It has been affirmed by Katherine Beckett and Heather Evans (2014) that, “Although findings regarding the race of the defendant are more mixed, studies indicate that the race of the defendant continues to impact sentencing outcomes in death-eligible cases over and above case characteristics (such as the number of victims) in some, though not all, locales” (p. 1). Hans Zeisel (1981) elaborates on the aforementioned by noting,
“Forty-seven percent of black defendants arrested for murdering a white victim were sent to Florida’s death row; only twenty-four percent of the white defendants arrested for murdering a white victim received the same sentence. When both the victim and offender were black, the ratio san to one percent. There were no white persons on death row for killing only a black person…” (p. 460).
In other words, a white citizen who is convicted of committing a capital crime is more likely to be sanctioned to time in prison as opposed to being sentenced to the death penalty, whereas an African-American citizen would most likely receive a death sentence. The influence of race not only affects the likelihood of being sentenced to the death penalty, but it also affects the manner in which the individual who is sanctioned will be executed. Carol S. Steiker and Jordan M. Steiker (2015) account for the aforementioned by stating,
“…blacks were much more likely than whites to be subject to the most extreme modes of execution. Although the majority of executions of both whites and blacks were by hanging until the twentieth century, much more terrifying and torturous methods were occasionally employed during the colonial era and into the nineteenth century” (p. 246).
The timelessness of American history proves significant in the death penalty debate, as the race of the defendant continues to have the same impact as it did since the democratic evolution of the nation. Contrary to popular belief, the death penalty debate is heavily reliant upon the race of the defendant, which often favors a non-lethal sanction for whites, as opposed to their African-American counterparts.
Discussion
As a result of analyzing the death penalty through socioeconomic, racial, economic, and moral lenses, one can better understand the trends amongst government, researchers and the public. The government, which includes legislators and justices, has the most significant role in determining whether or not the death penalty will remain a sanction for capital crimes in the United States. The death penalty debate took precedent in the middle of the twentieth century, which ignited its prevalence in society today, as a result of controversial Supreme Court decisions. Furman versus Georgia, the most significant case regarding the death penalty, was decided in 1972, and questioned whether “…the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?” (“Furman v. Georgia,” n.d.). The Brennan Court found, in a per curiam decision, that it was a violation, and “…forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner” (“Furman v. Georgia,” n.d.). In other words, the Supreme Court set the tone for the death penalty debate in the twentieth century, which was later complicated by anomalous cases, like Atkins versus Virginia (2002). Although there have been a number of circumstances in regards to the death penalty that have been brought before the Court, there has yet to be a case to determine whether or not the death penalty in its entirety is unconstitutional and should be abolished nationally. Because the Supreme Court and other government officials have utmost importance in the death penalty debate, as they interpret and implement the policies applying to such, it is vital that they adhere to the ever-changing societal standards and impose national legislation that affirms that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is the harshest sanction an individual can receive for capital crimes.
Researchers are immensely vital in the death penalty debate in regards to their knowledge and studies pertaining to the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock (2009) affirm that, “The results indicate that only a small minority of top criminologists—10% or less, depending on how the question is phrased—believes that the weight of empirical research studies supports the deterrence justification for the death penalty” (p. 490). Empirical evidence done by researchers, like Radelet and Lacock, defy the preconceived notions held by most Americans that killing America’s most heinous offenders will result in an immense decrease in the murder rates in the United States. The Pew Research Center for U.S. Politics and Policy, in their study regarding death penalty trends, notes, “About six-in-ten (61%) say the death penalty does not deter people from committing serious crime; 35% say it does deter serious crime” (“Less Support for Death Penalty, Especially Among Democrats,” 2015). As a result of the work done by researchers, the public’s misconceptions regarding the death penalty will be altered on the basis of accurate and effective evidence. With the trends amongst researchers consistently proving that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, the United States will have a more educated public and government, which will result in the implementation of a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as a federal policy initiative.
A key analysis of the public’s perception, not only as a result of the evidence that researcher’s provide, but the sanctions that the Supreme Court consistently upholds, as well, will demonstrate American’s shift in opinion and international opposition to the death penalty as a sanction for capital crimes in the past. Margot Friedman (2010), in her study for the Death Penalty Information Center, found that, “A clear majority of voters (61%) would choose a punishment other than the death penalty for murder, including life with no possibility of parole and with restitution to the victim’s family (39%), life with no possibility of parole (13%), or life with the possibility of parole (9%)” (“Polls Show Growing Support for Alternatives to the Death Penalty; Capital Punishment Ranked Lowest Among Budget Priorities,” 2010). Not only is there a shift in opinion amongst Americans of different time periods, but there is a global move towards abolishing the death penalty in democratic nations. Eric Hack (n.d.) states, “To date, the abolition of capital punishment has become so popular that 140 nations around the world have formally abolished it partially or entirely (DPIC 2015)” (“The Changing Global Perception on the Death Penalty,” n.d.). In other words, the global shift in the perception of public policy over time should promote the United States to want to maintain their status as one of the most dominant democratic nations with the strongest and justly criminal justice systems in the world by abolishing the death penalty. The government would be appealing to the trends of the American people in doing so. Thus, the public and international shift in perception, which supports punishments like life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, should indicate to the federal government that there needs to be a policy change.
Conclusion
As a result of the barbaric and heinous nature of the death penalty, which has been a prominent punishment in the United States’ criminal justice system since the democratic evolution of the nation, advocates and legislators today should promote the alternative of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. It is vital that government officials ensure that all citizens engulfed in the penal system are granted “liberty and justice for all,” rather than favoring defendants or plaintiffs on the basis of outside factors, which include race, socioeconomic status, economic favoritism for a specific sanction, and the morality of one punishment over the other. Although the death penalty has transcended American history, trends in the Supreme Court, specifically alluding to the Furman versus Georgia decision, represent the significant shift in American ideology. Because of the ever-changing societal standards of both Americans and citizens of other democratic nations alike, it is vital that those in power set aside their political affiliation and enforce a moratorium that can lead to permanent legislation abolishing the death penalty. Implementing a moratorium prior to enacting legislation that fully abolishes the lethal punishment will prove to those who are in opposition that there is no significant deterrent to crime as a result of the death penalty being instated, which would promote them to support the alternative of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. However, we can no longer remain complacent in regards to the death penalty debate; the longer the government waits, the more citizens will be executed, and the chances for racial bias and botched executions to become prevalent in society will be drastically heightened. Without the alternative of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the United States’ likelihood of affirming the question, “does history repeat itself,” would be far greater, and would greatly impact our standing as one of the most powerful criminal justice systems in the world.