After decisions by the Supreme Court imposed new restrictions on capital punishment, which resulted in a temporary cessation of executions, many states revised their death penalty laws and procedures.
Jury members must balance aggravating and mitigating factors in deciding whether a defendant deserves the death penalty. In most states, a hung jury results in a life sentence.
1. It Is Arbitrary
This month, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a man to be executed in Missouri must suffer from the lethal injection, even though his medical condition means that this would cause him excruciating pain. The decision is a reminder that the death penalty is far from humane punishment.
It is impossible to make a rational argument that the death penalty dissuades people from murder, as prosecutors claim. Instead, it has merely served as a way for governments to show their commitment to the rule of law.
In recent years, several studies have highlighted the continued arbitrariness of the death penalty. These include racial bias, geographic disparity, and socioeconomic inequality in selecting defendants to be prosecuted for capital offenses.
In addition, poverty continues to have a profound effect on those sentenced to death. It is a significant barrier to accessing competent legal representation and challenging the evidence used against them at trial and on appeal.
It also influences whether or not defendants can access adequate food and shelter during their time on death row USA. This can be particularly traumatic for poor defendants with no family members to care for them during this period. The US government is wasting money on a practice that is not working, is not just, and is not worthy of retention.
2. It is Unconstitutional
At its peak during the 1930s, executions occurred at an average rate of 167 per year. But by the 1960s, growing moral, legal, and political opposition to capital punishment had become more widespread. There was widespread doubt about its effectiveness as a crime deterrent and concern that courts applied it inconsistently and unequally.
For example, scholars found that the race of victims and defendants often influenced sentencing. In addition, many prisoners convicted based on eyewitness testimony went free after discovering new evidence. In 1972, the Supreme Court declared that under existing laws, the imposition and execution of the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
Until recently, however, most states did not follow the Supreme Court’s ruling. The reason is that the death penalty takes far longer than other cases to administer due to procedural safeguards such as selecting a jury and post-conviction appeals. As a result, many inmates who were not guilty of murder remained on death row, awaiting an opportunity to prove their innocence.
3. It is Disproportionate
The death penalty is applied unevenly and arbitrarily. According to a report from the Death Penalty Information Center, states that have higher murder rates than the national average tend to execute a greater number of people. Moreover, Black men commit a larger percentage of murders than white men and are more likely to be sentenced to death for them. This is a pattern that has persisted across states and election cycles.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment in Furman v. Georgia. The court found that the unequal application of capital punishment was arbitrary and discriminated against African Americans.
For a state to execute someone, the jury must find that they committed the requisite crime with sufficient culpability. In addition, the jury must unanimously agree that the aggravating factors in a case outweigh the mitigating factors. This is a burden that many jurors cannot carry.
4. It Is Exorbitant
Recently, many Americans have become disillusioned with the death penalty as a deterrent to violent crime. More than six in ten Americans say the death penalty does not deter serious crime, and nearly eight in ten believe there is some risk that an innocent person will be executed.
In addition, a growing number of people are concerned that the system is not fair. They point to cases like Parkland high school shooter Nikolas Cruz, who was spared the death penalty when a Florida jury failed to recommend it unanimously. They point to evidence of racial bias, including that Black defendants are far more likely to be sentenced to die than white victims. They also point to a history of botched executions, including three in Arizona and two in Texas this year alone.
Federal prosecutors have numerous legal protections and safeguards against racial discrimination in capital cases. Moreover, they are experienced legal professionals bound by general societal attitudes and specific legal values that explicitly condemn discrimination based on race or ethnicity.
Despite these obstacles, some federal prosecutors continue to make race or national origin their starting point when considering whether to recommend a death penalty in a case. The resulting disparities have led to an unsustainable and unfair system whereby some people are much more likely to be sentenced to die than others.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the death penalty remains a highly controversial and complex issue in the United States. While proponents argue that it serves as a deterrent and provides justice for the most heinous crimes, opponents contend that it is morally wrong, prone to error, and disproportionately affects marginalized communities. Despite efforts to reform the system and address concerns over fairness and accuracy, flaws persist.
As public opinion continues to shift towards alternatives like life imprisonment without parole, it is crucial for policymakers and citizens alike to engage in thoughtful discussions about the efficacy and morality of capital punishment. Only through open dialogue and a commitment to justice can we ensure a fair and equitable criminal justice system for all. Let us work together towards finding more humane solutions that prioritize rehabilitation, accountability, and healing for both victims
