Hi, Hello, Good day.
Today, I will be discussing chapter 3 and chapter 4 out of Debating the Death Penalty. For the sake of consistency, I will again be providing a synopsis of both chapters.
Chapter 3 - Why the Death Penalty is Morally Permissible by Louis P. Pojman
Louis P. Pojman is the author of this next essay. Right off the bat, Pojman claims that the death penalty is morally permissible, and he hoped that his essay will shed more light on misconceptions and help to properly inform individuals on the matter. He argues that the electric chair is completely justified and argues that we should revert back to it because a painless death through injection is less fitting to an individual who shed innocent blood. Pojman assesses that due to the damage that these murderers cause, they deserve nothing short of a harsh punishment - while there should be a ceiling on what types of punishments should be enacted, there should also be a floor. Additionally, he also claims that the death penalty should be extended to crimes that aren’t physically damaging, but still may cause emotional trauma; white collar crimes, while removed from the aspect of murder or rape, can have the potential to destroy lives and cause swift but lasting damage to people. By admitting those who commit white collar crimes in the criteria for criminal activity that qualifies for the death penalty, Pojman claims that we make the death penalty more fair. He proposes two claims on why the death penalty is in fact justified: the retribution theory and the deterrence theory.
The theory of retribution states that all the guilty deserve to be punished, that only the guilty deserve to be punished, and that the guilty deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime. Retribution should not be confused with revenge - the revenge is inflicting harm on someone out of anger of what the perpetrator has done, but retribution is the idea that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of the crime. Benefiting society, legal retribution prevents society from taking matters into private hands in the form of “lynch mobs, vigilante justice, which can result in an anarchistic and insecure state of justice”. In the end, the death penalty reminds individuals that there are consequences to our actions.
The theory of deterrence is the idea that by executing convicted murderers, would-be murderers (assuming they are ratinonally thinking) would be deterred from committing murder. However, this theory is not supported or backed by evidence in either way (it neither shows that the death penalty does deter or that it does not). However, Pojman says that using common sense, it seems more likely that knowing that you will be executed for murdering someone would likely deter someone from committing that act. He argues that making executions of those guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a public manner would remind people considering murder that the action is not worth the cost. Additionally, because “people fear deat more than anything else, the death penalty is the most effective deterrent”.
Pojman concludes by saying that rounding out the end of his argument, the Best Bet argument, created by Ernest van den Haag, further supports the need for the death penalty. This idea states that despite not knowing for certain that the death penalty deters additional murders, we can assume that it does. Every social policy taken is a gamble, but he says that given the severity of this gamble, the bet that it will deter murder (and thus save lives) far outweighs the bet that it would not.
Chapter 4 - Reflections on Race and Capital Punishment in America - Bryan Stevenson
Bryan Stevenson writes the next essay that argues an anti-death penalty position. As a lawyer representing people on death row in the state of Alabama through the Equal Justice Initiative, he faces racial bias and racism often. He argues that regardless of how one feels about the death penalty in principle, US citizens should be aware of how it is being administered in our country today, and thus, reflect (intellectually) on whether or not we should really practice the death penalty in the United States at all. To begin his argument, he first claims that crime has been sensationalized by the media which leads to the desire for harsher punishment - we have become a society that feeds of the brutalization of people who have committed crimes and until we change the narrative, we will continue to exploit the injustices that people face in the criminal justice system.This leads policy makers to create policies or laws that are ill informed and tougher on individuals who may have committed crimes. However, the media can also be used for spreading positive news when used correctly. As news reports about the wrongful convictions of people are shared online and through mass media, more and more people are aware of the true reality that many people of color or poor individuals face in our nation. In this way, Bryan Stevenson compares the death penalty to a lottery: it is a punishment shaped by race, gender, socioeconomic status, local politics, and geography. Be any of the “wrong” characteristics (ie black, brown, poor, uneducated) and you have lost. The system, he claims, is riddled with unreliability, unfairness, racial bias, and at face value, undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system.
One big issue that Stevenson tackles in his essay is the issue of poor individuals being unable to receive adequate legal representation. Stevenson claims that this issue is a core problem surrounding the capital punishment in our country. This, however, is only a piece of the puzzle. Racial bias can be seen throughout the entire American criminal justice process, from jury selection to conviction, to sentencing. Stevenson cites a study by David Baldus who collected data showing that out of 27 of the 37 to use the death penalty, 90% of the jurisdictions showed patterns of racial bias in capital charging or sentencing of defendants accused of killing white victims. Jury selection is a particularly covert way of exhibiting racial bias in the criminal justice system. Despite racially biased challenges to exclude individuals of color off of juries being outlawed, prosecutors continue to practice a ploy of tactics to remove POC off the juries in attempt to win a favorable conviction.
The problem is exacerbated when a person of color who also happens to be poor is unable to secure adequate legal counsel and is thus at the mercy of the prosecutor. Because the public elect prosecutors and district attorneys, the desire to win votes incentivizes prosecutors to pursue the harshest punishments for a crime. The use of racial stereotypes are employed toward juries in an attempt to remind them about the “true nature” of the black individual when determining what sentence is appropriate. Without proper (or maybe caring) counsel, the individual faces little chance of being able to escape the penalty that the jury deems appropriate based on racial biases. While racism is considered illegal in our society, it was shocking to discover that not only is it still practiced today in covert ways, but the United States Supreme Court has gone as far as justifying racism in practice. The United States Supreme Court justified the use of racial slurs stating that “racial based sentencing disparities are ‘an inevitable part of our criminal justice system’” which is in direct contrast to the pursuit of equal and fair justice for all. All in all, we have to admit that the death penalty is disproportionately affects those of color and those with little money. In conclusion, Stevenson argues that the most logical and progressive thing we can do to signify the pursuit of the end of the racism is to end the death penalty. Only after the death penalty is abolished will we have a judicial system based on fairness and a commitment to just application of the law.
Today, I will be discussing chapter 3 and chapter 4 out of Debating the Death Penalty. For the sake of consistency, I will again be providing a synopsis of both chapters.
Chapter 3 - Why the Death Penalty is Morally Permissible by Louis P. Pojman
Louis P. Pojman is the author of this next essay. Right off the bat, Pojman claims that the death penalty is morally permissible, and he hoped that his essay will shed more light on misconceptions and help to properly inform individuals on the matter. He argues that the electric chair is completely justified and argues that we should revert back to it because a painless death through injection is less fitting to an individual who shed innocent blood. Pojman assesses that due to the damage that these murderers cause, they deserve nothing short of a harsh punishment - while there should be a ceiling on what types of punishments should be enacted, there should also be a floor. Additionally, he also claims that the death penalty should be extended to crimes that aren’t physically damaging, but still may cause emotional trauma; white collar crimes, while removed from the aspect of murder or rape, can have the potential to destroy lives and cause swift but lasting damage to people. By admitting those who commit white collar crimes in the criteria for criminal activity that qualifies for the death penalty, Pojman claims that we make the death penalty more fair. He proposes two claims on why the death penalty is in fact justified: the retribution theory and the deterrence theory.
The theory of deterrence is the idea that by executing convicted murderers, would-be murderers (assuming they are ratinonally thinking) would be deterred from committing murder. However, this theory is not supported or backed by evidence in either way (it neither shows that the death penalty does deter or that it does not). However, Pojman says that using common sense, it seems more likely that knowing that you will be executed for murdering someone would likely deter someone from committing that act. He argues that making executions of those guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a public manner would remind people considering murder that the action is not worth the cost. Additionally, because “people fear deat more than anything else, the death penalty is the most effective deterrent”.
Pojman concludes by saying that rounding out the end of his argument, the Best Bet argument, created by Ernest van den Haag, further supports the need for the death penalty. This idea states that despite not knowing for certain that the death penalty deters additional murders, we can assume that it does. Every social policy taken is a gamble, but he says that given the severity of this gamble, the bet that it will deter murder (and thus save lives) far outweighs the bet that it would not.
Chapter 4 - Reflections on Race and Capital Punishment in America - Bryan Stevenson
Bryan Stevenson writes the next essay that argues an anti-death penalty position. As a lawyer representing people on death row in the state of Alabama through the Equal Justice Initiative, he faces racial bias and racism often. He argues that regardless of how one feels about the death penalty in principle, US citizens should be aware of how it is being administered in our country today, and thus, reflect (intellectually) on whether or not we should really practice the death penalty in the United States at all. To begin his argument, he first claims that crime has been sensationalized by the media which leads to the desire for harsher punishment - we have become a society that feeds of the brutalization of people who have committed crimes and until we change the narrative, we will continue to exploit the injustices that people face in the criminal justice system.This leads policy makers to create policies or laws that are ill informed and tougher on individuals who may have committed crimes. However, the media can also be used for spreading positive news when used correctly. As news reports about the wrongful convictions of people are shared online and through mass media, more and more people are aware of the true reality that many people of color or poor individuals face in our nation. In this way, Bryan Stevenson compares the death penalty to a lottery: it is a punishment shaped by race, gender, socioeconomic status, local politics, and geography. Be any of the “wrong” characteristics (ie black, brown, poor, uneducated) and you have lost. The system, he claims, is riddled with unreliability, unfairness, racial bias, and at face value, undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system.
The problem is exacerbated when a person of color who also happens to be poor is unable to secure adequate legal counsel and is thus at the mercy of the prosecutor. Because the public elect prosecutors and district attorneys, the desire to win votes incentivizes prosecutors to pursue the harshest punishments for a crime. The use of racial stereotypes are employed toward juries in an attempt to remind them about the “true nature” of the black individual when determining what sentence is appropriate. Without proper (or maybe caring) counsel, the individual faces little chance of being able to escape the penalty that the jury deems appropriate based on racial biases. While racism is considered illegal in our society, it was shocking to discover that not only is it still practiced today in covert ways, but the United States Supreme Court has gone as far as justifying racism in practice. The United States Supreme Court justified the use of racial slurs stating that “racial based sentencing disparities are ‘an inevitable part of our criminal justice system’” which is in direct contrast to the pursuit of equal and fair justice for all. All in all, we have to admit that the death penalty is disproportionately affects those of color and those with little money. In conclusion, Stevenson argues that the most logical and progressive thing we can do to signify the pursuit of the end of the racism is to end the death penalty. Only after the death penalty is abolished will we have a judicial system based on fairness and a commitment to just application of the law.
Comments
Post a Comment