Complex Capital Case Examples

Capital punishment and the practice of the death penalty is an issue that is passionately debated in the United States. Opponents of the death penalty claim that capital punishment is unnecessary since a life sentence accomplishes the same objective. What death penalty opponents neglect to tell you is that convicted murders and child rapists escape from prison every year(List of prison escapes, 2015). As I write this essay, police are searching for two convicted murders who escaped from the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, New York on June 6th, 2015. The ONLY punishment from which one cannot escape is the death penalty.

In 4 Ways to Fix a Broken Legal System Phillip K. Howard describes America as a land of once being free, now becoming a “legal minefield”. He focuses primarily on teachers and doctors, explaining ways in which their work is increasingly hindered due to fear of legal repercussions. While, Howard’s approach to fix these dilemma is simple and makes complete sense, it is nearly impossible to achieve in today’s America.

Capital punishment and the practice of the death penalty is an issue that is passionately debated in the United States. Opponents of the death penalty claim that capital punishment is unnecessary since a life sentence accomplishes the same objective. What death penalty opponents neglect to tell you is that convicted murders and child rapists escape from prison every year(List of prison escapes, 2015). As I write this essay, police are searching for two convicted murders who escaped from the Clinton Correctional Facility in New York on June 6th, 2015. The ONLY punishment from which one cannot escape is capital punishment.

The death penalty has been a controversial topic among society for ages. An issue often brought up when discussing the legality of capital punishment is wrongful convictions. Advocates of the death penalty say that, while wrongful convictions are an issue, those few cases do not outweigh the need for lawful execution of felons who are, without a doubt, guilty. On the other hand, the opponents argue that the death penalty is wrong from both a legal and moral standpoint, an ineffective form of punishment, and should, ultimately, be outlawed. With both advocates and challengers constantly debating on this topic, the death penalty and wrongful convictions continue to be hot buttons issues for Americans and people throughout the world.

Life experience coupled with professional experience has enriched the level of cultural competency that I function at daily. Starting my first career in the legal arena, almost twenty years ago, I carried more bias toward certain groups, often thinking in black and white rather than a rich rainbow of grays. Being empathetic to individuals that committed crimes against society and others was rarely accepted in my naïve viewpoint. After my first year of working with criminal clients, I began to understand that one simple act cannot define or give explanation to the beauty of multiple stories that fill the chapters in an individual’s life. I learned that I could not fully understand what led to the story that was playing out before me without

“The use of the death penalty in the United States has been rapidly declining since the end of the 1990s” (Dieter, 2015). This is contrast to the believes of the Founding Fathers where “the death penalty was widely accepted at the time the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified” (Gardner & Anderson, 2014). While the crimes have not changed, aspects of capital punishment which were once viewed as constitutional, today are deemed cruel and unusual. The prevailing liberal view sees the death penalty as morally unjustified and a vengeful form retribution. “It is the most brutal form of state power, requires massive state administrations and it costs significantly more than life imprisonment which is both more humane and equally effective” (Davidson, 2015). They point to the lack of deterrence it provides and highlight the racial and gender biases of the criminal justice system and the potential for the execution of the innocent by the State. In contrast, those in favor of capital punishment see it as a valid, moral and constitutional punishment as punishments should be imposed in proportion to the crime. The death penalty is reserved for the most violent of crimes in society and without it, justice is not achieved for victims and their families. The death penalty must be viewed again as a valid, moral and legal

For years the death penalty has been one of the most controversial topics in the judicial field. The death penalty has been abolished in 18 states leaving 34 states that allow it. It is argued that the death penalty goes against moral and religious beliefs along with being unconstitutional. I’m against the death penalty not because of sympathy for criminals but because it isn’t effective in reducing crime, cost more than it would to incarcerate a person for life, and worst of all it risks executions of innocent people. Capital punishment is an increasingly argued issue in today’s society. The main focus of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate criminals and to protect society from those who are not. Ernest Van Den Haag argues that,

There are about 121 innocent people sitting on death row tonight. A study by the National Academy of Sciences reports that conservatively, 4.1 percent of defendants sentenced to death are indeed innocent. Capital punishment is abolished in many parts of the developed world, but is still carried out daily. In this day and age, its existence may seem questionable. After World War II, crime rates increased in the United States, peaking from the 1970s to the early 1990s. Violent crime nearly quadrupled between 1960 and its peak in 1991. Sure enough, thirty-two states, the federal civilian and military legal systems permit the death penalty. Its application is limited by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution to aggravated murders committed

The death penalty is arguably one of the most controversial issues of our time. Currently, only eighteen states and Washington D.C. have abolished the death penalty. However, the question remains: what does research say for or against the death penalty? In 2009, a study was done that found the statistic that 88% of criminologists believed that capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder (Radelet and Lacock, 2009). The majority of research also points to the conclusion that the journey from arrest, to trial, to execution is extremely expensive, even more so than that of a life sentence. Finally, who considers the people tasked with performing the execution? What about their mental health? Through examining the death penalty’s facts, deterrence,

Aristotle once said “the generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fear rather than reverence, and to refrain from evil rather because of punishment that it brings than because of its own foulness.” Capital punishment has been intertwined in United States history for centuries with a number of crimes that could lead to the death penalty if convicted, many of them are some form of murder. Since 1977, three thousand and ninety-five defendants have been on death row and of that, only one thousand thirty eight defendants have actually been executed. But the perilous question is whether or not the defendants were sentenced based on solely the facts and nature of the crime or crimes, or were there other contributing factors that influenced the severity of the verdict. There are several social controversies that surround the people who are sent to death row, predominately bias and discrimination issues which are based on ethnicity, gender, and mental health.

In recent years, the death penalty has been a frequent topic of discussion, as our recent technological advancements have evidently led individuals to consider the “new found” legitimacy of our court systems, as statistics display that our previous racial bias and the apparent morality of the practice itself have a miniscule impact on our conviction rate. Both the advancements and ethics that the death penalty provides become apparent through the utilization of anecdotes and statistics, as the death penalty has prevailed as an effective and reliable tool in regards to the conviction process.

In Stephen Bright’s article, “The Death Penalty as the Answer to Crime: Costly, Counterproductive, and Corrupting” Bright asserts that capital punishment does not work because it is racially biased, the quality of the lawyers and attorneys supplied by the state to poor defendants is unfair, and that the law system currently in place does not accomplish its true goals. Bright defends his claim with logos and ethos by examining the opinions of judges and district attorneys, and by describing experience within the fields of human rights and law himself in order to persuade the reader to take up more cases for those on death row. Given the language used in this article Bright is writing to an audience with intermediate to professional experience within the field of law, and a willingness to adopt a new idea on the constitutionality behind the death penalty.

The death penalty is still a valid form of punishment in the United States and the debate of whether or not this is a just act has been of popular discussion. The controversy surrounding capital punishment and its morality has been an argument since the formation of the anti-death penalty movement. Many abolitionist argue the morality and constitutionality argument of capital punishment stating that “it [is] morally wrong, and even unconstitutional (Sween).” This is because anti-death penalty organizations like ones in Maryland claim that not only is it unjust to kill a person, but that “capital sentencing… is prone to racial bias and fails to deter crime (McLaughlin).” In addition, the death penalty could be construed as cruel and unusual punishment and would be therefore unconstitutional. While people who are pro death penalty argue that a twisted form of justice should be served. Although the abolitionist movement has been around for centuries, little headway has been made in the name of ending capital punishment in America. That is until the argument of economics within the death penalty was popularized in the nineties (McLaughlin). This argument of finances is structured around the inefficiencies of the economics of administering the death penalty along with the process of the death penalty. In addition, there are many flaws within the system of capital punishment. “Columbia University published a report on capital punishment in 2000, which found that 68%

“The entire legal profession has become so mesmerized with the stimulation of the courtroom that we tend to forget that we ought to be healers of conflict. Our system is too costly, too painful,… As healers of human conflicts, the obligation of the legal profession is to provide mechanisms that can produce an acceptable result in the shortest possible time, with the shortest possible expense and the minimum of stress on the participants. This is what justice is all about.”

The death penalty ensures fair retribution for the loved ones of the criminal’s victim. In 1977, Clarence Ray Allen was convicted for murder after arranging the death of a witness against him in a burglary case and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. In 1980, Allen organized the killings of the witnesses who had worked against him in his previous conviction. Finally, Allen was sentenced to death, but it wasn’t until 2006 that he was executed (Ardaiz). During those twenty-six painful years, the families and loved ones of the victims had to spend their days knowing that the one who had torn apart their family was still alive. As James A. Ardaiz, a former judge, and the prosecutor on the case of Allen, said, “Retribution is not only a need of society; it is a right of those victimized.”