Death PenaltyDeath PenaltyCapital punishment and the practice of the death penalty is an issue that is passionately debated in the US today. Opponents of the death penalty believe capital punishment is unnecessary and inappropriate in our modern society. In their minds, such an act by the government serves no positive social purpose and only denigrates life (Death Penalty Focus, 2005). On the other hand, those in favor of capital punishment, including the US Supreme Court, see the death penalty as the proper punishment for certain criminals who have committed specific crimes. Supporters also argue that the death penalty is a necessary deterrent to saving innocent lives (Pro-Death Penalty, 2005). Based on my research of this issue I tend to agree with the death penalty advocates and believe that execution is the appropriate sentence and punishment for capital offenses.
There are six main rationales for abolishing the practice of capital punishment that are commonly heard. One reason is that capital punishment does not deter crime. Anti-death penalty advocates contend that scientific studies consistently fail to demonstrate that executions discourage people from committing crime (Death Penalty Focus, 2005). Another reason for stopping the death penalty is because it can and has been inflicted on innocent people. In addition, abolitionists suggest that the US is unable to prevent such occurrences (Death Penalty Focus, 2005). A third rationale is that the death penalty discriminates against certain ethnic and racial groups. According to Justice Department figures, nearly 80 percent of inmates on death row are Black, Hispanic or from another minority group (Eddlem, 2002). Yet another reason for abolishing capital punishment is that the death penalty is often applied at random. “Politics, quality of legal counsel and the jurisdiction where a crime is committed are more often te determining factors in a death penalty case than the facts of the crime itself” (Death Penalty Focus, 2005). A fifth rationale in opposition is that the death penalty is too expensive or too costly to taxpayers to justify its use. According to those who oppose the death penalty and certain studies, it costs more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life (Death Penalty Focus, 2005). Finally, it is believed by some that the killing at the hands of the state is not a righteous act but instead is on the same moral level as the murderers themselves.
According to capital punishment supporters, many of these reasons of the anti-death penalty movement are false and are now wrongly accepted as fact. The argument that the death penalty does not deter crime is debatable. By executing murderers you prevent them from murdering again. If these people no longer exist then they obviously cannot commit more crimes. In addition, criminals have admitted, in thousands of fully documented cases, that the death penalty was the specific threat which deterred them from committing murder (Pro-Death Penalty, 2005). The opponents of capital punishment claim that the death penalty has caused and can cause the execution of innocent people. However, according to the supporters, no evidence indicates that innocent people have been executed. Upon reviewing 23 years of capital sentences, a Wall Street Journal study indicated that they were unable to find a single case in which an innocent person was executed (Eddlem, 2002). Furthermore,
The proponents of the anti-death penalty have been in denial for some time. In recent weeks, opponents of capital punishment are calling for the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that the death penalty violates the U.S. Constitution, and they use the term “sociopathic insanity and repulsive behavior” (Nyman, 2010). In some states of the country, the death penalty laws have been challenged in the courts. In Florida, for example, it was challenged to uphold an application by a defense attorney in 2006 by a judge against an execution by a lethal injection because he suspected that a person with an unusual mental disorder should be eligible for execution. In Florida, the death penalty case was dismissed in 2003 after his wife, who had a psychotic mother, received death-penalty notice. The appellate court reversed and said that the death-penalty notice lacked sufficient information to convict the defendant of “sociopathy or repulsive behavior,” thus the attorney’s client was not properly notified that, under Florida’s laws, the notice must be given, and his defense attorney was unable to argue that the death penalty violates the state constitution or the defendant’s right to freedom of thought and speech. The judge ruled that the notice’s lack of evidence amounted to “sociopathic insanity.”
Criminal offenders are entitled to life and death without due process because of a range of mental and physical conditions which have contributed to their condition. For example, schizophrenics, while exhibiting mental retardation, are entitled to life and death without due process because of a range of mental and physical conditions, which has contributed to their condition. It is also possible that schizophrenia is some combination of several different conditions, including various psychiatric conditions. However, this is not enough to prove that schizophrenia is a disorder and that it is not a mental disorder. Moreover, no psychiatric disorder that can be considered “sociopathic”; schizophrenia could be a state-mental disorder. An analysis of psychiatric conditions as measured by the SDSI in DSM-IV (NLSM, 1994) found more than 70 percent of psychotic disorders reported from mental disorders diagnosed on the SDSI are associated with at least one diagnosis of schizophrenia, and that 75 percent of the psychotic disorders in DSM-IV are at least severe.
The Supreme Court is likely to rule on this question as quickly as possible if it finds that the death penalty violates the state constitution’s right to freedom of speech.
(ii) The United States Supreme Court may be required to declare if there is a breach of the constitutional right to free speech under a number of state statutes, statutes of limitations for such statutes, or other circumstances. Examples of such violations include:
Statute (Title 6, Section 41, which gives persons with disabilities a presumption of innocence);
Regulation of the public schools where such “schools are operated,” as amended (Title 16, Title 18, Section 1021(c)(3), which requires that the public school board be composed from individuals who had completed the school for which they teach or provide instruction);
Housing discrimination statutes, which prohibit landlords from refusing to use their lease for a private home, or from using the same for other tenants, (Title 20, Title 27, or 28, Part 2 of article IV of title 18) requiring that tenant’s tenancy is terminated by foreclosure, (Title 27, Part 9, or 28 of article III of title 18) requiring an annual application review of the “family court” if such an application is filed;
Providing false or misleading information to federal government agents regarding the existence of such an investigation or discovery process, (Title 9 or Title 27 or 18 of article I, Part 5 of article VI), (Title 29, Part 14, section 2, of article 12 of article 16, in paragraph (3) of subdivision (k) (e)) or