Death Penalty

Name Instructor
Course
Date
Death Penalty
The debate about capital punishment has been raging for quite some time. This has brought to the fore the push by some states for its restriction while others are exploring additional ways of the death penalty’s deployment. In the US, the death penalty applies to not only murder cases but also offenses like rape, arson, kidnapping and armed robbery. Death penalty falls in the jurisdiction of a state’s criminal justice structure and not the federal system. It is important to note that a majority of those sentenced to death are male. The mode of its application also varies to include hanging, public shooting, lethal gas, electrocution and fatal injection (Marcus 838).
Arkansas is an example of states that are proponents of this form of punishment. The state made history in April 2017 when it oversaw the execution of four people in a record eight days. This was against a planned target of eight executions over 11 days, a fete curtailed by the supreme and federal district courts. As a result, of this action the approval ratings for this form of punishment dipped to an all-time low. Citing imminent expiry of the drug midazolam, a sedative, the state sought back its actions. Consequently, pharmaceutical companies have rallied to bring to an end the use of their products in carrying out lethal injections (McLeod 1).
Illinois abolished the death penalty in 2011 after the passage of legislation signed by Pat Quinn the state’s governor. Pat argued that no death penalty system eliminates the prospects of wrongful execution through perfect design.

The abolition was a culmination of sustained efforts of various groups spanning three decades. Mary Alice Rankin was a vocal crusader against this form of punishment who formed a coalition meant to fight the vice. She opined to arbitrary employment of the lethal injection and racial discrimination lacing its application, a clear violation of the eight amendments. Public education of the cruelty and unusual nature of the punishment became a bane for Mary. Instances where inmates underwent near-death experiences yet they were innocent gave impetus to this coalition against the death penalty. Other states that have taken cue from Illinois include New Jersey, Connecticut and New Mexico (Warden 246).
Disuse of the penalty is high in states like California where the number of death row convicts number over seven hundred yet since 2006 there have been no executions (Dieter 1). The fiscal implications incurred by the state of California hit the four billion dollars mark against a paltry thirteen executions by 2012 since 1978. A replacement of the capital punishment with life without parole is on the cards. In addition, a fund to the tune of one hundred million dollars earmarked for the solution of murder and rape trials has been floated by a coalition known as SAFE (Warden 286).
Opponents of the practice acknowledge that despite the high public support for lethal injection its application is dwindling in practice and point to the low levels of new death sentences recorded. Their main cause of disagreement is the costs implications involved at the trial, sentencing and proceedings that take place after conviction. The jurors seem to be swayed by the extended period between sentencing and subsequent execution coupled with the risk of unintended killing of innocent people. Proponents attribute these misgivings to obstructionism practiced by defense lawyers in these cases. Inception of the use of DNA by convicts to prove their innocence years after trial has given a boost to the opponents who articulate against erroneous convictions. Further credence has come from exoneration of individuals handed the death earlier in states like Florida and Illinois.
The notion that capital punishment negates the standards of decency for example when applied to intellectually unsound victims and juvenile killers, has gained ground in some states. Religious and spiritual angles have complimented this moral argument. The Catholic church has been at the forefront of this crusade urging its followers to be part of organizations that frown upon and fight its application. Pope John Paul II deemed the death penalty as cruel and unnecessary since violence cannot pacify violence. Critics have not spared the jurors mandate that gives them the unbridled discretion to determine whether to apply capital punishment or life without parole (Marcus 840). The democracy coupled to social justice touted by the American system take a back seat to those who support the use of lethal injection (Warden 286).
Those who support the vice however argue that the implications of capital punishment were not lost on the framers of the US constitution. They are of the opinion that practice of capital punishment in all the states preceded ratification of the eight amendments and all that there is need for adequate guidance of the jury in the execution of their mandate. To them it serves as a model of deterrence towards violent crime and they believe that capital punishment is not comparable to murder. That there are set civic standards against which there is personal responsibility for earning freedom and existing since every decision has consequences.
Works Cited
Dieter, C.R. The Status of the Death Penalty in the United States. Brussels, 2007. Print.
Marcus, P. Capital Punishment in the United States and Beyond. Melbourne, 2007. Print.
McLeod, E. Death Penalty: Will Drug Shortages Continue to Hamper Executions? CQ Press, 2017. Web. 4th Feb. 2018.
Warden, R. How and Why Illinois Abolished the Death Penalty. Illinois, 2012. Print.