Retributive Death Penalty

One in twenty-five people sentenced to death by capital punishment end up being innocent. Errors that are later discovered about someone being punished to death are always possible, yet it is impossible to make restitution to a recipient of wrongful capital punishment. Restorative justice is a form of criminal justice that focuses on the rehabilitation of criminals primarily through justice for the victims rather than incarcerating or putting the offender to death. Wrongdoing is not only a violation of laws, but also a violation of interpersonal relationships as well, making restorative justice the key for a victim to heal. Although many believe justice is served when the law provides it, such as in capital punishment or incarceration, justice can only be provided by the victim themself .

A conglomerate of criminals who have put in the time to produce public good while also improving their own well being will ultimately create a safer society for everyone, regardless of the initial reluctance people may feel towards criminals operating in the free world. This rebuttal however, only challenges one of the concerns of the community service based punishment system. At first glance the retributivist argument against the proposed alternative punishment system is valid and sound, but with a closer look the average individual can see that there are flaws in this argument. If the goal of retributivist punishment is to truly correct the wrongs of a criminal by acting in such a manner that assuages the negativities produced by a crime, then there should be multiple ways to go about punishing an individual. Who is to say that a person who commits murder deserves death or life in prison as their

The basic tenets of the Criminal Justice system, namely the Correctional System, is to take people convicted of a crime and turn them into productive citizens. Their time in prison is intended to be a personal time of reflection, a period where a person can think about their crimes, recognize they have committed a wrong, and develop a plan to either right that wrong or identify how they can refrain from recidivating. This concept is dubbed rehabilitative justice. The death penalty is not rehabilitative justice.

According to retributivism, the wrong caused to the victim by the offender must also be inflicted on him as a form of punishment. Thus, the justification for such punishment consists of a compensatory measure in response to the offence caused. Furthermore, although some authors argue that this compensation should be painfully done (Flew 1969, check page), it does not necessarily involves imprisonment, since non-custodial alternatives can also cause pain (check reference). Nevertheless, the emergence of the paradigm of restorative justice has brought new contours to this subject (Zedner, Principled Sentencing: 191), mitigating this relationship between punishment and pain.

The retributive rationales present a substantive justice issue because it is based upon what constrains and directs human behavior on many different prospective levels. There can never be a balance between the rights of victims and offenders in today’s society. The law must be fair and just. The Utilitarian rationales are not sufficient because their criteria of reflective equilibrium is lacking in the principles of justice (Amatrudo, 2016). The perpetrator must commit the crime intentionally and not as an accident. Regardless of the effects, criminals are to be sent to prison. The utilitarian justification for punishment relates to what is best for society in general and over a long period of time. For instance, when an individual is sent

Convicted criminals should be limited in their appeals and there should be no stays of execution to draw out their incarceration. Executions should be carried out forthrightly, without delay and with sufficient publicity to get the message across to other criminals. To see a reduction in crime based on the death penalty, society must realize that criminals will, no matter what, be put to death if particular crimes are committed. They need to realize and that there is no hope of absolution. The same that is true for capital punishment, is true in general. Though retributive and utilitarian principles of justice are independent from one other; and though they can sometimes lead us to same conclusion on what is right and wrong. Both principles are needed because there is no assurance that the decision is the right one, without a system of checks and

The first, retributive justice, is “a system by which offenders are punished in proportion to the moral magnitude of their intentionally committed harms” (Carlsmith & Darley; 2008). This theory co-insides with the theory of “an eye for an eye”, which was established in biblical times, meaning that a person who commits a crime should receive equal treatment, or punishment, that reflects how they effected the other person, or victim. It is important to remember, however, that retributive justice is not to be used in the way of revenge, but is “the rationally supported theory that a criminal deserves a punishment to fit the gravity of their crime” (Pojman;

Unlike the utilitarian theory of punishment, the retributivist theory does not have to make reformation a possible end goal to the punishment of a criminal. Bedau argues that, “the simple ‘life for a life’ conception plays little role in our criminal justice system” (237). The death penalty does indeed account for a small portion of the criminal justice system, and perhaps he means that it does not offer any benefit within our criminal justice system, but I disagree. Bedau’s argument stems from believing it does not deter crime (238), and while that may be true, retributive punishment does not concern itself with preventing crime. It concerns itself with its backward-looking stance to punish past wrongdoings. At any rate, van den Haag states that, “… an above zero-effect cannot be demonstrated statistically” (837) when it comes to proving or disproving the deterrent effects of the death penalty. Bedau also asserts that a long prison sentence is just as effective as the capital punishment when it comes to preventing future crime (237), however the retributive punishment theory again does not need to prevent crime, only give a punishment that does not go light enough to give them reason to do it again with the thought of getting a soft sentence. The death penalty would ensure that they do not get off

For lawmakers, keeping crime low is a two part problem: prevent convicted felons from breaking out or being released from preventing more crimes, and discourage people from committing crimes in the first place. All around the United States, the death penalty is debated, scrutinized, revealed, torn apart, and praised. Death as a capital punishment sparks so much attention because of its extreme logistical and ethical problems: Is it efficient? Does a human have the moral authority to decide if another may live? These are the questions asked by many, and ask they must if we wish to have any hope of reaching a solution to the ever-present question: Is the death penalty an effective means of justice? The death penalty, whatever its moral faults, is an effective method of employing and ensuring justice across the United States judicial system because the prospect of death acts as a deterrent for criminals as well as an assurance that those criminals sentenced will never go on to

Many people begin their morning with a cup of coffee and the daily news, whether attained by social media, television, or the radio. News coverage of death penalty cases, grabs the attention of an audience. The death penalty is an emotional issue for individuals to ponder. In fact, America’s opinion of capital punishment depends on its constitutionality, deterrence, retribution, and the irrevocable mistakes made by sending an innocent defendant to death row. The death penalty also known as capital punishment is legal in thirty-one states and illegal in nineteen states, to include the District of Columbia, (“History of,” 2015.) There has been 1,418 executions in the United States since 1976, the most recent execution was in Texas on October 2015, (“Executions by,” 2015). First, the Supreme Court sets the perimeters on the legality of the death penalty. Second, consider the pros and cons of the death penalty as a deterrent to murder and retribution, not revenge, (“Top 10,” 2009.) Third, the lethal injection drugs that are available for some states to use are brought before the U. S. Supreme court because of the complaint of inmates on death row of the “risk of severe pain,”(“Lethal Injection, ”n.d.) The death penalty is an allowed form of punishment for defendants that are convicted of murder or other capital crimes as long as it does not violate the Constitution.

These standpoints go hand and hand when discussing capital punishment. One point of view states retribution is punishment given to someone for committing a wrong or criminal act. According to Pat Buchanan, “The decision to execute a murderer is an act of just retribution, not revenge. If the death penalty were truly vengeful, criminals would be executed by the same means that they used to kill their victims” (Mitchell, 99). Further described by Louis P. Pojman, “Retributivism is the theory that the criminal deserves to be punished and deserves to be punished in proportion to the gravity of his or her crime” (ProCon.org, 2). Both explain that the death penalty is not a vengeful act, but more of an eye for an eye theory. Which states that a person should be penalized to the same degree as their crime. An example from the Law of Hammurabi says, “If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death...” (Fieser, 2). Retribution ties in closely saying an eye for an eye is in this case a life for a life. Through capital punishment the state partly “pays back” what the criminal has permanently taken away, a human life, which can never be created again (Mitchell, 1). In addition Buchanan states, “Retribution means paying back, making restitution to a victim of what has been unjustly taken away” (Mitchell, 1). In summary, both of the viewpoints of capital punishment is retribution and capital punishment is an eye for an eye are both arguable

Gradually, states are abolishing the death penalty, as it has little to no effect on people involved in dangerous crimes. Thirty-nine states enforce the death penalty and nineteen states have abolished; “Personal involvement with the horrible crime of murder renders the academic arguments for or against capital punishment” (Polites). As many studies have shown, the death penalty also has little to no effect on the crime rate in the country. Many questions people answer address whether they are supporters or opponents of the death penalty and whether they believe it is effective to the US. Both these issues have been ongoing debates for many years. Contrary to some thoughts, life imprisonment without parole has had a bigger effect on inmates simply because they suffer from the feeling of guilt. The US benefits because the cost of the death penalty cost three times more than the cost expense of prison.

The death penalty is a controversial issue that has caused some confrontational debates between opponents and supporters of this long existing sentence. In legal term, the death penalty is defined as a sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes. In support of death penalty, Koch, Edward, Ex- mayor of New York argues in his article “Death and Justice: How capital Punishment affirms Life” that “Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm this fact. Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of these murderers, they might well have stayed their hand” (Koch, 484). On the other hand, Bruck, David, clinical professor of law and a stanish opponent of capital punishment asserts in his article “ Death Penalty” that “neither justice nor self-preservation demands that we kill men whom we have already imprisoned” (Bruck, 493).

The Retributive Justification involves the highly debated concept of revenge. Simply put, if a crime is committed then punishment should provide the offender with “what they deserve”. The retributive justification involves the mindset of society and its determination of the punishment for specific crimes. For example, a person could get convicted of drug trafficking and another could get convicted of attempted murder. Both of these people could end up serving the same amount of time behind bars due to specific circumstances such as criminal history. The punishment does not seem to fit the crime in the

Though the state has the right to inflict the death penalty, we question whether the state should exercise the use of that right. In a world filled with violence, one more act of violence, we believe, only serves to make society less sensitive to the intrinsic value of human life. Usually, punishment is meted out to criminals as an example to deter others from acting in a like manner; or to allow an opportunity for the convicted individual to reform; or for the sake of retribution. However, it seems that the deterrent value of capital punishment is, at the most, doubtful; that the plea for retribution, when the death penalty is involved, reflects a more primitive form of justice than we in the United States would like to claim as our own. Indeed, the taking of the life of another person hardly restores the imbalance created by the original homicide. Rather, it promotes further violence.