Capital Punishment (Death Penalty) Must be Abolished

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Capital punishment (death penalty) must be abolished
Capital punishment is associated with death penalty sentences, and while some states have abolished capital punishment for some violent crimes, other states still uphold the sentences. Even though, capital punishment has been present since the ancient times, there are concerns that it is unjust. In any case, capital punishment merely fulfills the emotions of victim families, but this does not necessarily make it right. Despite proponents of capital punishment arguing that it deters crime, there is no conclusive link between capital punishment and reducing murder rate. Even as capital punishment is meant to be severe, it is meant to show those who have been wronged that justice has been served, even when the state uses counter. This paper supports the abolition of capital punishment.
States support capital punishment for the murders/ violent crimes committed, but inflicting pain and suffering on the murderers forces the victim family to go through the pain again as they have to relieve the reason for capital punishment. Equally, it is not logical to make the murderers suffer disproportionately, given that the state is then forced to kill to prove that the murder’s killing was wrong. There have been cases of botched lethal injections, which have failed to achieve the intended purpose with the death row convicts writhing in so much pain, getting unconscious and expressing agonizing deaths. Such was the case of Clayton Lockett whose botched capital punishment in Oklahoma aroused troubling questions about the effectiveness of the lethal injection procedures (Opposing Viewpoints 1).
There are also growing concerns that the costs associated with capital punishment may outweigh the benefits (Hyden 2). Analysis of the cost implications of the capital punishment compared to life without parole, show that the figures could be higher than previously thought. In California, death row inmates require high security, and in the case of appeals, it is the state that has to set aside resources for the state- appointed legal defense who represent the death row convicts (Opposing Viewpoints 1-2). Hence, the basis of cost benefits analysis it would be better to choose life without history rather the death penalty trials that may drag on for years.
Capital punishment is not only time consuming, but also expensive compared to the typical criminal case (Dieter 3). When the defendants are found guilty, new witness are brought and there is a separate trial to determine whether there is life imprisonment without parole or a death sentence (Dieter 4). The separate trial hearings then require two attorneys for the defense team, while the prosecution also has to use more resources to prove the case. As such, the process is lengthy while it is difficult to contain costs. This is further complicated when the jury selection takes time, while the jurors may hold confirmation bias on death séances meaning that there could be subjectivity in the final judgment (Dieter 3-4).
The federal and state governments increasingly require that officials identify non performing programs and eliminate them. Concerns about government wastage are associated with the need to improve efficiency and cater to the needs of the local communities (Dieter 2). Even as the capital punishment programs have largely been spared form budget cuts, it is likely that more local governments will look to reduce costs. Rather than support the expensive death penalty there have been suggestions that using resources to unsolved cases. As courts and the police get fewer funds, it is difficult to improve the criminal justice system. Even though, eliminating the death penalty is unlikely to eliminate all inefficiencies and problems, the savings from the reduced expenditures would be significant (Dieter 3).
Even as the death row convicts are the worst offenders repealing and eliminating the death penalty would be beneficial. The case for this is that life without parole would be less costly, while faced would be faced with fewer legal challenges (Opposing Viewpoints 2). Capital punishment is still a divisive issue that requires the input of legislators, public officials and the local community. Nonetheless, focusing on the costs and benefits of choosing the life without parole option would highlight that the alternative is better. The offenders would have no chance of getting out of prisons and possibly committing other violent crimes.
In an era where the public is more informed of the growing public debt problem, there is a need to identify ways to improve efficiency in the criminal justice system. Continued enforcement of the death penalty is not only ineffective in reducing crime, but is associated with wastage of resources (Dieter 1). Using more resources on crime prevention programs, the training and hiring of criminologists, police officers and forensic personnel would be effective in improving the criminal justice system. The costly capital punishment system drains resources without substantial benefit to the local community or the victims. As such, redirecting the resources to more effective systems would better serve the local communities as law officers would prioritize crime prevention.
Police reports and studies casting doubt on the impact of capital punishment in deterring crime, show that there is a need to identify more effective law enforcement policies. States that have abolished capital punishment also have lower murder rates (Dieter 1). This is especially when there is an emphasis on increasing the number of judges and police, improving prisons, schools and caring for victim families. In any case, those engaging in the most violent crimes rarely take into consideration the impact of their actions (Dieter 1-2). Some of the death row convicts were opportunistic rarely focusing on possible punishments when committing homicide and murder.
Supporters of capital punishment use the deterrence claim, but then fail to acknowledge the inconsistencies and errors in some of the studies (Collins 1). The studies supporting the deterrence claims follow up on the findings of previous research undertaken by Prof. Isaac Ehrlich in 1975 (Collins 1). However, considering more factors and using different methodologies has highlighted that the study’s assumptions were inaccurate. Consequently, various studies have challenged the findings of Prof. Isaac Ehrlich (Colli...