Why Capital Punishment should be abolished in USA

Why Capital Punishment should be abolished in USA
Name:
Course title:
Instructor:
Institution:
Date Due:


Introduction
Capital Punishment relates to the infliction of death as a consequence of violating capital laws. It can also be referred to as the death penalty. Until recently, the subject of whether capital punishment should be legalised or illegalised has hotly been debated in the global perspective. The custom of putting lawbreakers to death is not a new phenomenon. It has indeed existed since time immemorial. Different methods that were employed in the past include stoning, crucifixion, hanging, burning and even beheading. While most industrialised countries are advocating for the abolition of capital punishment, a majority of the US states are still practising the trend (Bedau, 1983).
When America was established more than two centuries ago, jails were rare. The practice of capital punishment had been introduced by the colonisers, who had transferred it from England and Europe. As I write this paper, two thirds of the nations around the globe have abolished the capital punishment. It is high time for America to follow this trend. This is because it is a fundamentally defective public policy, which is no longer relevant in the present perspective.
Justification for Abolishing the Death Penalty
Wrong Judgement and Convictions
Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court freed more than 150 death row victims in USA after their appeal found them innocent. This is a clear indication that the system could be subject to human error. Since the judges are also human beings, the courts could err in their judgment and therefore, make wrong rulings. With a gloomy and chilling sensation, we read in the media, about one Carlos, who was sentenced and executed in USA for a crime he actually did not commit. A Columbian law professor and his team conducted an investigation on the case of Carlos and his analysis revealed that the Texas court had sentenced Carlos De Luna for a crime committed by Carlos Hernandez. Unfortunately, the revelations came too late since the executions had already been done (Sridevan, 2012).
Since the Supreme Court threw capital punishment back to the states, a majority of their advocates have in essence changed their minds about its efficacy and legality. Justice Stewart Potter, who was appointed by President Kennedy in 1976, regretted his vote in the case of HYPERLINK "/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0428_0153_ZS.html"Gregg v. Georgia. In 1994, Justice Blackmun Harry appointed by President Nixon, observed in the case of  HYPERLINK "/supct/html/93-7054.ZA1.html" Callins v. Collins that he was "no longer tinkering with the machinery of executions." In the year 2008, in HYPERLINK "/supct/html/07-5439.ZS.html"Baze v. Rees, Justice Paul John Stevens, who was appointed by Ford expressed that executions were pointless (Cohen, 2012). This trend of the advocates changing their minds over the death penalty concept could have been triggered by their own experience in the same dogma. In essence, we can point out that justice has placed conscious over philosophy, experience over beliefs and reality over doctrine. In a system where federal courts have been labelled as haughty dispensers of common truths, these medium justices have instead shown the aptitude of learning from their own errors, to concede the effect of their own experiences in administering the capital punishment. This also indicates that they are aware of the erroneous judgements they sometimes make.
Racial Factor in Death Penalty
If we really want to have a sound national debate concerning race and justice, and if we are interested in using case evidences as a totem for what we perceive to be unjust or wrong concerning the justice system in our country, then it would be better if we considered the happening in North Carolina to a man called Marcus Robinson or the happening in Florida to a man called George Zimmerman. “Self defence laws” that have been put forth to save George Zimmerman can be used in today’s perspective in which laws are manipulated to attain particular outcome. In particular, these "affirmative defences" gives room to more murderers to emerging without being made to pay for their crimes. In comparison to the country’s ancient history of racial partiality in selecting judges, but compared with all the capital punishment cases that have been manipulated in the like manner, the new laws that are justifying homicide are only beginning to do their work (Cohen, 2012).
In Robinson’s case, Cumberland County Senior Presiding Judge Gregory Weeks detailed in his ruling why Robinson who is a black guy deserved to be relieved under the racial justice act, a credible legislative endeavour created to justify the rights of capital defendants whose proceedings are manifested by racial partiality. Weeks was contented by the evidence that prosecutors had used dogmatic challenges at Robinson’s murder trial to methodically remove blacks from his jury pool.
As a form of apology and at the same time a warning, Judge Weeks declared; In the first instance to improve an evidentiary inquiry under the RJA, Robinson pr...