Capital Punishment A deterrent to violent crime
Capital punishment is perhaps the most widely debated issue ofcriminal justice in the United States. Many are for this punishment,citing as their primary reason that it is a deterrent for violent crime.Others argue that inadequate police investigation and court representation,as well as general unfairness in administering the punishment, precludesthe deterring factor. Life imprisonment has been cited as an equal, yetless barbaric, punishment for capital crimes. Support for the deathpenalty has dropped drastically in the last few decades. While themajority still supports the punishment, several issues should be consideredcarefully before jumping at capital punishment as the maximum solution to Studies cited by Grant show that the capital punishment system isoften far from fair in terms of minority groups and the poor. Statisticsfrom the 1920s to the 1960s for example show that unpopular groups such asthe poor and Negroes are disproportionate recipients of the death penalty.This was especially the case when victims of murders or rape were white.The Supreme Court thus found the punishment too severe in the light of thefact that life imprisonment was an eq
Capital Punishment as Deterrent to Crime Grant argues that capital punishment does not serve as a deterrent toviolent crime, but in light of the above, rather serves to aggravate it. In the light ofinternational outrage and social bias however, it appears logical toabolish this punishment in favor of life imprisonment or community servicein the case of less serious crimes. Those most directly affected by capital crimes - the survivors ofvictims - are less satisfied at the results. Grant for examplecites the case of Columbine High School, where a teacher and students werekilled, after which the guilty boys committed suicide. When the above paradigms of unfairness are taken into account,this case seems even stronger. The reports of satisfaction are far fewer than those wishing for a moresevere death or indeed a more severe punishment even without the immediateresult of death. This is indicative of the socialtendency towards violence, which the punishment is supposed to deter. In terms of the poor, an innocent defendant without the funds toafford the same representation as the rich, is more likely to be convictedunfairly. Capital punishment thus serves as no deterrent in thiscase. Many of the options cited in AsianPolitical News should seriously be considered as alternatives in the lightof social health. In cases where the death penalty is carried out unfairly, whether onthe basis of racism, poverty, or other cases where inadequate courtrepresentation occurs, the wish for revenge is fueled in the friends andfamily of the executed. The entire justice systemthen disadvantages those without adequate funds to afford the bestrepresentation available. The problem with this system is that it is not indicative ofthe image of equality and fairness that the United States constitutionstands for. The Purpose of the Justice System Grant emphasizes the need to identify the goal of the justice systemin order to determine the adequacy of its manifestations.
Common topics in this essay:
Crime Grant,
System Grant,
Timothy McVeigh,
Asian Political,
,
Columbine School,
Supreme Court,
Fairness Studies,
Prejudiced Americans,
capital punishment,
justice system,
death penalty,
criminal justice,
violent crime,
life imprisonment,
deterrent violent crime,
deterrent violent,
criminal justice system,
death penalty carried,
afford representation,
punishment serve deterrent,
penalty especially,
capital crimes,
capital punishment serve,
|
Acceptance Essays
