Those pushing towards the use of capital punishment argue that hate crimes are especially unacceptable, and to not issue such a drastic form of punishment would be setting an example of letting these crimes go without recognition or penance. The argument that hate crimes are absolutely unacceptable is an idea that both facets of the issue can agree with. There have been far too many heinous crimes committed under the name of hate crimes, deserving some punitive form of chastisement. One horridly infamous example of a mass hate crime that had deep impacts all over the world is the Holocaust, a genocidal lash out against anyone seen as impure in the eyes of the fascist leader and party that held control (“History of Hate Crime”). Despite the
The Klu Klux Klan, one of the most recognised hate groups in US history, was founded in 1865. They were under the impression that people of color were less valuable than white people, some even believing that they weren't human. Something people don’t realize is that groups like that are still around today, and just as active as ever. Hate groups, and just random unorganised hate crimes are just as real as me and you, and they are still an active threat. Hate Crime is relevant, and as a society, we should be doing our best to snuff out the flames of prejudice and resentment that burn in the hearts of anyone willing to participate in such unjust behavior. This kind of activity is not only hurtful emotionally, but sometimes, it turns to violence. Innocent people getting picked off the street simply because of their beliefs, who they love, or the color of their skin. This is something that nobody should stand for, especially now, in this constantly progressing world. All in all, Hate Crimes are a real problem, and in order to stop injustice such as this, we need to work together as human beings to accept people, regardless of who they are.
On June 7, 1998, 49-year-old James Byrd Jr. of Texas accepted a ride from three white men, who then beat him severely, urinated on him, chained him by his ankles to the back of their pick-up truck, dragged him for three miles into the countryside, and dumped his corpse in front of an African-American cemetery (Graczyk). A little over a year later, a jury sentenced ring leader John King to death by lethal injection (“Man Executed for Dragging Death of James Byrd”). While this particular case may give the appearance that perpetrators of hate crimes receive appropriate punishment, almost a decade later, one particular case demonstrates the inequity in the application of hate crime punishments: In 2007, Sean Kennedy of Charleston, South
In the public eye today, the expression "Capital punishment" mixes up a great deal of discussion and feelings. At whatever point the word comes up, in-your-face extremist from both sides hollers out contentions to bolster their position. One side says "eye for an eye", the other side says there 's a capability of executing a pure man; one says equity, reprisal, and discipline; the other side says execution is homicide. Wrongdoing is a clear a portion of society, and everybody knows that something must be done about it. A great many people know the danger of
This speech grew to action, which led Nazi leaders to implement the “Final Solution,” and the massacre of six million Jews. But what about hate crimes today in the United States, how are hate-based murders different from a murder of a random individual. The answer to that question is in the brutality of the crime. Hate crimes are, for the most part, inherently more brutal because of deeply rooted ideals between two opposing groups. This brutality has led many, including former president Bill Clinton to call for legislation against hate crimes (Hellwege).
Forty-Five years ago, Arthur Goldberg and Alan Dershowitz described death penalty as "unusual" under the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, saying, "Most commentators describe the imposition of the death penalty as not only haphazard and capricious, but also discriminatory. "' Noting that capital punishment impacts "disadvantaged minorities,"' Goldberg and Dershowitz delivered a prescient message:
The death penalty is a controversial topic in the United States today and has been for a number of years. The death penalty is currently legal in 38 states and two federal jurisdictions (Winters 97). The death penalty statutes were overturned and then reinstated in the United States during the 1970's due to questions concerning its fairness (Flanders 50). The death penalty began to be reinstated slowly, but the rate of executions has increased during the 1990's (Winters103-107). There are a number of arguments in favor of the death penalty. Many death penalty proponents feel that the death penalty reduces crime because it deters people from committing murder if they know that they will receive the death penalty if they are caught. Others
When a person is charged with Capital punishment we automatically think they are a dangerous criminal, but what if someone was charge simply because of their race. Well, there have been many researches done along with statistical evidence to confirm that this may be in fact the case for African-Americans. The United States Constitution was established so that every Citizen in America is guaranteed their basic rights which include; guarantee a fair process in all hearings and equal treatment under the law. African-Americans have struggled throughout our history with unfair treatment and equality. For example, the decades of slavery and the struggle of passing the equal voting rights bill in 1965. This may have passed us, but many African-Americans are still dealing with racial discrimination and this time it’s with the Criminal Justice system in particular, Capital Punishment. There have been intensive studies and evidence coming up showing how race can in fact play a major role when determining if you get a sentence to Capital Punishment or not, even if you are in fact innocent. We are to believe with our Constitution, bill of rights, and laws that every citizen no matter what race you are will be treated equally fair and justice will hopefully be served, but throughout our history up until now we are finding out that ultimately what will decide the outcome of a citizens fair and equal trial is the color of their skin.
This paper examines the topic of capital punishment as a relevant public policy that is related to criminal justice. The history, justification and evidence for the policy, factors that have influenced the policy, competing positions and stakeholders, negative consequences of the policy, and evidence based changes to the current policy, will all be discussed. Relevant examples will be provided within each appropriate section. A comprehensive approach will be used to identify all key elements in regards to capital punishment. Finally, a concluding paragraph will summarize all salient information and takeaways from this topic.
Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is a form of punishment that has been used as far back as the Colonial Era in America. Although it has been around for the entirety of American history, most of the scrutiny and controversy involving capital punishment arose in the 1972 Supreme Court Case of Furman v. Georgia, in which it was abolished, but quickly returned in 1977. It is evident that many citizens have ambivalent stances on capital punishment; some believing it is necessary form of punishment while others believe that the death penalty is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Although capital punishment has been used throughout history and is seen by many as a form of justified punishment, there are many reasons in favor of ending the death penalty completely. Capital punishment is an unnecessary evil that should be found unconstitutional because of it is not practical, it is corrupt, and it is unable to deter further homicides from being committed.
Hate crimes should be illegal because they pose a specific threat outside of the realm of traditional forms of abuse. Acts of hate should be criminalized because they represent a threat to society. It's not enough to treat a criminal the same as any other criminal who might be guilty of assault, robbery, murder, etc, if they're driven by the idea of hate. Targeting a specific individual for a crime based on a hateful idea creates broader social problems than random ones.
The primary purpose of the criminal justice system is to protect society. All features of the system; detaining delinquents, trials, and punishments all have costs. Reduction in any part of the criminal justice system can potentially result in a harmful society. The question most asked about the death penalty is, “Why should honest, hardworking taxpayers, have to pay for murderers for the rest of their life instead of executing them?” Actually the death penalty is the most expensive part off the system. According to Dr. Ernest Gross, a Creighton University economics professor, who conducted a study in August 2016, the death penalty cost an average 23.2 million more per year than alternative sentences (Gross). The study found that states with the death penalty spend about 3.54% of overall state budgets on court, corrections and other criminal justice functions associated with the death penalty, while states without the death penalty spend about 2.93% on those functions (Gross). The death penalty is more expensive than life without parole because the constitution requires an extensive and complex judicial process for capital crimes. This is to ensure that innocent men and women are not executed for crimes they did not
Capital punishment, in reality, does not single out the worst criminals and exclude them from society. The death penalty, ultimately, singles out a random group of criminals based on fears of the public, and then sends those criminals to death row. “With respect to race, studies show that a death sentence is far more likely where a white person is murdered than a black person.” (Death Penalty Information Center 2). We see that capital punishment could also be considered discriminatory in certain situations.
I once was a strong proponent of capital punishment, trusting the criminal justice system would do the right thing. Moreover, I assumed that the justice system involved honest, ethical people all working together for the good of all mankind. I often argued the need for capital punishment and believed that it increases public safety, and acted as a deterrent to other would be heinous crimes and possibly saved countless lives while acting as a deterrent. As faulty as this thinking may have seemed these were my assumptions, and like most I truly believed in the criminal justice professional, after several years in law enforcement I have learned that there are unethical, criminal justice professionals that use the peoples power
A rarity exists in a single topic that can cause a degree of controversy so large that it attracts politicians, judges, community organizers, economists and even religious officials to discuss it. This issue is one that some support and others oppose; that is, the issue of capital punishment. Capital punishment is loosely defined as the execution of an offender who is sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law for a criminal offense (Encyclopedia Britannica). This execution of an offender model exists in many nations and also in many forms. For instance, in the country of Zimbabwe, executions are carried out for individuals convicted of treason and drug trafficking, and is exclusively in the form of hanging (Death Penalty Worldwide 2015). Although capital punishment exists around the world, the focus of this paper will be centered on the United States, on the state level. Capital punishment is legal in some states, but the legality does not imply that it is free of problems. There have been growing concerns and strong evidence of the problem of capital punishment. However, the two issues featured in this paper will be issues on racial bias, questions of innocence. These concerns will be analyzed in the following sections: definition of the problem, unit of analysis, analysis of political coalitions, analysis of policy