Punishment Case
Essay Preview: Punishment Case
Report this essay
Punishment and sentencing have gone through various phases throughout the history of Western civilization. Siegel and Senna (2009) reveal some changes reflect “custom, economic conditions, and religious and political ideals” (414). Typical punishment in early Greece and Rome was banishment or exile; however, this form of punishment was reserved for the elite, whereas slaves and common folk were subject to harsher forms of punishment. Crimes, such as murder, were viewed as a “private matter” (Siegel 415). In the eleventh century, the development of common law introduced “some standardization to penal practices” (Siegel 415). The wealthy often “bought” their way out of severe punishment, which can be viewed as an early form of restitution. For the criminal poor, however, the harshest forms of punishment were imposed. Common forms of harsher punishment included “execution, banishment, mutilation, branding, and flogging” (Siegel 415). By the end of the sixteenth century, the criminal poor were sentenced to what is recognized today as community service punishment. The criminal poor were “put to work in public or private enterprises” (Siegel 416).
By the nineteenth century many changes in how criminal punishment was imposed came about. Jails and workhouses were reserved for “petty offenders, vagabonds, the homeless, and debtors” (Siegel 417). The death penalty continued as a form of criminal punishment, due to continued rising crime. General deterrence emerged as a form of crime control whereby the criminal justice system depends on the publics fear of criminal penalties (Siegel). Throughout the history of the criminal justice system, just desert has existed in some form or another with the most common form being the “eye for an eye” mentality.
While just desert is a concept still in reference today, the tenants of the criminal justice system have become more structured to include fairness to both the victim and the accused (e.g. constitutional rights). Overall, the concept of and rationale behind criminal punishment is to, first, deter criminal offenses and, second, punish offenders in accordance with the type of crime committed. Nevertheless, some current laws, including the “good time” law often spark controversy, such as the case involving Amy Grossberg. In 2000, Grossberg pleaded guilty to killing her newborn son and was released eight months early from her two and one-half year sentence for “good behavior” (Siegel 422). While the concept of “good time” has merit in some cases, this writer opposes its application in cases of violent crime such as the murder of ones child. As such, this paper further explores capital punishment as a necessary sentencing option for the most violent of offenders whose actions cannot be explained or justified by any sustainable psychological reasoning.
Arguments
The use of the death penalty is controversial in many legal and civilian arenas. However, since 1976, there have been a total of 1,330 executions in the U.S. with the highest number reported in 1996 and the lowest in 2011 (“Facts About the Death Penalty” 3). In McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), the defendant, argued that Georgias use of the death penalty was racially biased. He based his claim on a study conducted by a University of Iowa Professor, David Baldus (1990) which established that defendants accused of killing whites are 4.3 times more likely to receive the death penalty than defendants accused of killing African Americans, and black defendants are more likely to be executed. However, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, between 1976 and 2012, executions in the U.S. included 748 white, 455 black, 103 Hispanic, and 24 other, which disputes the argument of racial bias in most capital punishment cases. Concerning victims, the nationwide percent of murder victims is 50% white and about 76% of murder victims in cases resulting in execution were white (“Facts About the Death Penalty” 1). The figures indicate error in reporting racial bias; however, taking the collective U.S. cases into account, reports indicate whites, rather than blacks, as the majority in defendants and victims. Clearly, as history supports, there are a number of cases originally sentenced as guilty that were later revealed to be innocent (e.g. McCleskey v. Kemp).
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Powell, the Supreme Court accepted the data that documented racial bias in Georgias death penalty but also upheld McCleskeys death sentence, arguing that inequities based on race are inevitable in the administration of capital punishment, and this is something state legislatures need to address. After retiring from the Supreme Court, when asked if he had any regrets, former Chief Justice Powell indicated that if he could change one decision he made, it would be McCleskey. Warren McCleskey, of course, did not benefit from this afterthought since he was executed.
Given the same premise on capital punishment, clearly such issues are not applicable to the Florida case against Aileen Wuornos (2002). Wuornos later admittedly murdered at least six men while working as a prostitute. Given her profession, the jury already doubted at her innocence, especially when Wuornos claimed she was raped by each of the johns. However, given the span of the murders (within two years) and the callous nature of her past, her claim was not believed. A key factor in the decision of her case, based on her initial claims of self-defense, was undermined when facts of other crimes were allowed under Floridas Williams Rule that allows evidence relating to other crimes to be admitted if it helps to show a pattern.
Under the guidelines of Williams Rule, information regarding the other killings was presented to the jury. Wuornoss claim of having killed in self-defense would have been a lot more believable had the jury known only of the first murder. With the jury apprised of all of the murders, self-defense seemed improbable, at best. Furthermore, after the excerpts from her videotaped confession were played, the self-defense claim became even more preposterous. Based on details of the trial and the revelation of all six murders, the jury unanimously recommended that Judge Blount sentence her to the electric chair. Wuornos was sentenced to death by electrocution on January 31, 1992. However, at her own request, the method was later changed to death by lethal injection, which was carried out on October 9, 2002.
When Wuornos requested the change from electrocution to lethal injection, questions rose concerning what could then be perceived to some as “state-administered suicide” and certain aspects of the legality of executions were unclear. In fact, in 2002, a virtual moratorium