Chapters 5 and 6 of Debating the Death Penalty

Hi. Hello. Good day.

Today, I will be discussing... THE DEATH PENALTY. Shocking, I know. 

Again, I will be summarizing chapters 5 and 6 today. 

Chapter 5 - Truth and Consequences by Joshua K. Marquis 

Alright, stick with me through this because this is about to be a LONG summary (and a bit disorganized due to the nature of the essay). Joshua Marquis had quite a bit to say on this topic, so I will be doing what I can to summarize effectively his argument on why the death penalty is fair and reasonable. To begin, Marquis is a prosecutor and district attorney for the state of Oregon. Marquis first argues that it is a myth to think that prosecutors can be influenced by popular demand. Each case is different and has to be examined as such. Something that Marquis discusses is how race does play an important part in his decision making process- but it is specific to each case and context is everything. Something Marquis fights back on is the idea that the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder. Marquis claims that this phrase inherently claims that the perpetrator becomes a victim of a criminal murder: there is no chance for solemnity, no opportunity to make peace with one’s maker, no chance to say goodbye to loved ones. This, he states, is incorrect. In criminal murder, victims aren’t given the chance to do those things. In a state sanctioned execution, the perpetrator has the opportunity and ability to do each of these things before they officially die. The punishment of death by state is a kinder fate than what a criminal gave their victim. Marquis spends the majority of his essay combatting the claims that many abolitionists make: innocents crowd death row, the death penalty is racist by nature, and the defendants facing the death penalty do not have adequate legal counsel whereas their prosecuting counterparts are privy to an abundance of governmental resources. In this summary, I will touch on those topics, as well as a few other counterpoints that Marquis makes (there is no shortage of them). 

Marquis also states that while America stands alone as the only Western country that continues to practice the death penalty, context about the actual situation in Europe is largely ignored. Germany and Italy were the first to rid their nations of the death penalty, but they had also just come out of a massive world war that had highlighted their gruesome past of state-sanctioned murder and genocide. Additionally, if one takes a look at the actual data showing the percentage of the European population that support the death penalty, one would find that it outweighs those who do not; however, unlike the United States, European officials seeking to be a part of the European Union requires that their members prohibit the use of the capital punishment. 

Another argument that Marquis makes is the idea that our definition of innocence has been tainted and should be redefined. one example he uses for this claim is that of Earl Washington and James Porter. Porter was caught committing an armed robbery in the same area that a murder took place around the same time. Porter was identified by eye-witnesses and convicted of the murder, yet claimed that he did not commit the crime (and even claimed he was not in the park at the time). Porter was eventually released from prison after a journalism class at Northwestern investigated the incident. Washington had burglarized and beaten a woman, and he wrongfully admitted to a similar crime. Both of these men were “innocent” of the crimes they hadn’t actually committed, but they were not innocent men. They had both done brutal crimes in their own regard, but managed to get caught up in another offense. While Marquis argues that neither of theses mistakes justify a wrongful death sentence, one has to be careful of how we use the term “innocent”. 

Another issue that Marquis discusses in his chapter is the idea of setting those who are guilty free. Marquis justifies the death penalty by conceeding that yes, the death penalty is sometimes handed out incorrectly, but pharmicists make mistakes, household appliance makers make mistakes, and automobile manufacturers make mistakes, yet we continue to take medicine, buy and use microwaves, and drive cars. However, despite occasionally making mistakes, the products work most of the time. The same goes for the death penalty, Marquis states. He gives the example of 4 men whose sentences allowed for them to be paroled, and thus enabled them to commit additional murders. 

The race card, as Marquis calls it, is also wrongfully played and depicts an inaccurate representation of the death penalty. While Marquis doesn’t deny the existence of racism in our society and in the criminal justice system, he thinks it is silly to think that the black man is more likely to end up on death row when statistically speaking, the white man is more likely to be sentenced to death and executed in less time. He also concedes that the United States has a long way to go to being completely fair, but great strides are being made: more representation from minorities in law enforcement/jucidicial system, juries are more representative of their communities.

He also discusses the “myth of the sleeping lawyer”. The defense that one’s lawyer is incompetent has led to the requirement of two defense lawyers for each capital case. However, Marquis implies that people claiming incompetency of their own lawyers are usually doing so because of a last ditch effort to prove innocence. He claims that a murder defendant will always claim that their trial lawyer did a lousy job; however, the accuracy of this statement is objectionable due. 

The last claim I want to discuss regarding Marquis’s essay (there are still several others within the book) is the idea of true and fair discrimination. Marquis does not claim to think that the death penalty is perfect, but he does think that it serves a good purpose and can be useful in our society. However, he does make the caveat that discrimination should be used - not race based discrimination or gender based discrimination, but discrimination of those who are truly guilty and deserving of a punishment so harsh. marquis claims that only the absolute worst deserve to belong on death row. He ends his essay with the statement that life is so precious that it should be taken only with the greatest of care. The way to do that is to inflic the death penalty on the most egregious of cases. 

OKAY. The next essay I will be discussing is one that opposes the death penalty. 

Chapter 6: Why the United States Will Join the Rest of the World in Abandoning Capital Punishment - Steven B. Bright

The very first paragraph in this essay hits with a hard punch. He makes several claims: the United States will join other industrialized nations in abandoning the death penalty just like it has done with other primitive modes of punishment. He claims that most people are ignorant to the past and present realities of the death penalty, yet continue to blindly support the idea. The death penalty is a remnant of slavery, lynching, racial oppression, and legal lynchings and racial discrimination maintains status as a prominent feature of the death penalty. The death penalty is inconsistently handed out, dependent on several factors which can reduce the likelihood of the death penalty actually being handed out fairly, not necessary to protect society and punish offenders, and makes the people who execute the criminal no better than the criminal himself. The death penalty, he claims, is degrading to our society because we are engaging the same behavior that the criminal engaged in, and in some cases, people show their glee and celebrate. In what way does that make us better than the criminal when our arrogance, unforgiving and uncaring selves is willing to kill others. 

The United States holds claim that we serve as the leader of human rights across the world. However, the United States is the only NATO country to still allow the death penalty, and one of few nations that still allows the death penalty to be used on children convicted. The United States is one of two nations to not have ratified the International Convent on the Rights of the Child that would prohibit the execution of people who were children at the time of their crimes. Bright argues that the United States shows inconsistency by claiming moral leadership when we still allow for capital punishment in our country.

Bright again states that the death penalty inflicts punishment mainly on the weakest members of our society: minorities, the disadvantaged, the disabled, minorities, children, veterans, etc. He argues that the appropriate response to these populations committing crimes is to put them in mental health facilities where they can be properly treated and cared for, not the execution chamber.

The next topic that Marquis tackles is the corruption within the court system. Carrying out executions has become a bigger priority than actually carrying out justice, according to Bright. The goals have become less about making sure the correct individual has been put away and more about how fast someone can solve the case to help them look good for election season.

For Bright, the death penalty is a far cry from true justice. In the end, the American people will recognize that the death penalty is a remnant of the era of slavery and segregation, and we will join the rest of the world in abolishing the death penalty.