Hi. Hello. Good day.
So here we are. At the end of this book. Chapters 7 and 8. The end. It’s been a long time coming, and we are almost done! Woot Woot!
Without further ado, I am just going to jump right into the discussion.
Chapter 7 - In Defense of the Death Penalty by Paul Cassell
Paul Cassell is a co-editor of this book, along with Hugo Bedau (if you will remember back, Bedau is against the death penalty). In his chapter, Cassell aims to provide the underpinnings of the death penalty and to examine the administrative challenges to the death penalty.
To dive right in, Cassell justifies the death penalty for two reasons: incapacitation and deterrence. Incapacitation is the idea that by killing murderers, we are saving innocent lives by preventing convicted murderers from killing again. General deterrence is another important factor when considering why the death penalty should be left activated. According to Cassell, there are three sources of evidence to support the deterrence effect: logic, first hand accounts, and social science. Logically, the death penalty is the best and most effective form of deterrence. The public response to increase criminal penalties associated with crimes almost always increases after a major crisis (domestic violence, kidnappings, terrorism, etc). We can safely assume that increased penalties will deter some prospective criminals which makes the penalty worthwhile. Firsthand accounts of deterrence shows that people will work to avoid the death penalty if they are planning on committing a crime (carrying an unloaded gun to a robbery, etc). Statistically speaking (from social studies reports), the states that have an active death penalty punishment report lower rates of homicides than states that do not. All things equal, it is safe to assume that the drop in murder rates can only be attributed to the death penalty.
Cassell also argues that the death penalty is “just punishment”. The death penalty can be viewed as a just punishment because it is proportionate to the crime committed. In this way, by having a death penalty, the government is preventing vigilantism or members of society taking the responsibility of punishing the guilty into their own hands.
Cassell pushes back on the idea that the death penalty has administrative issues. In this section of his essay, he discusses how the death penalty is in fact not infected with racism and that each case presented in the abolitionists’ perspectives were special instances and cannot be assumed as representative of the whole. Next, he claims that innocent defendants have never been executed. He admits that there have been many “close calls”, but in each case, the innocent has always been freed before their execution date. He claims that the argument should be made for the reverse: more innocent people have been murdered as a result of not pursuing the death penalty than people on death row who have been executed.
Chapter 8: “‘I Must Act’” by George Ryan
George Ryan was the governor of Illinois and in his final three days before he left office, he decided to commute the sentences of every prisoner on death row. This chapter is his speech about his arguments against the death penalty and his justification for his actions.
George Ryan has a complicated history regarding the death penalty. He has been both a supporter and an abolitionist for the cause and thus he feels that he might never be able to make a decision that is supported by both sides. In this essay, he refers to a conversation that he had with Nelson Mandela, the president of South Africa, in which he reminded George Ryan that the United States sets an example to the rest of the world in terms of justice and fairness.
George Ryan then goes on to make arguments that the death penalty is not delivered fairly and uniformly. He also discussed how Illinois had nearly 150 death penalty cases reversed or re-sentenced as a result of systematic failures in the cases. 33% of the criminals on death row had lawyers that were eventually disbarred or suspended from practicing law, 35% of the African American defendants had been convicted by all-white juries (that would not have been representative of their actual peers), and men were being freed due to new evidence (jailhouse correspondents confessed they provided incorrect information, new DNA evidence supported innocence), and the number of innocent men freed outweighed the number of men executed. In his conscience, he asks, how can we support the death penalty when it fails so many people so often?
He argues that the death penalty was reinstated by a narrow voting margin - how easily the tables could have been turned and we wouldn't have the death penalty.
To end, Ryan offers this as conclusion: our capital system is haunted by the demon of error, error in determining guilt, and error in determining who among the guilty deserves to die.
He argues for rational discussion on the death penalty. He reiterates the capital system is broken in Illinois and we have taken men within an inch of death based on unfair rulings. It is the responsibility of the state and the nation to change legislation to fix this persistent issue. He hopes that one day, instead of providing revenge for victims and their families, we can provide something more. He ends by quoting Abraham Lincoln: "I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice." George Ryan states that he hopes this will be so.
So here we are. At the end of this book. Chapters 7 and 8. The end. It’s been a long time coming, and we are almost done! Woot Woot!
Without further ado, I am just going to jump right into the discussion.
Chapter 7 - In Defense of the Death Penalty by Paul Cassell
Paul Cassell is a co-editor of this book, along with Hugo Bedau (if you will remember back, Bedau is against the death penalty). In his chapter, Cassell aims to provide the underpinnings of the death penalty and to examine the administrative challenges to the death penalty.
To dive right in, Cassell justifies the death penalty for two reasons: incapacitation and deterrence. Incapacitation is the idea that by killing murderers, we are saving innocent lives by preventing convicted murderers from killing again. General deterrence is another important factor when considering why the death penalty should be left activated. According to Cassell, there are three sources of evidence to support the deterrence effect: logic, first hand accounts, and social science. Logically, the death penalty is the best and most effective form of deterrence. The public response to increase criminal penalties associated with crimes almost always increases after a major crisis (domestic violence, kidnappings, terrorism, etc). We can safely assume that increased penalties will deter some prospective criminals which makes the penalty worthwhile. Firsthand accounts of deterrence shows that people will work to avoid the death penalty if they are planning on committing a crime (carrying an unloaded gun to a robbery, etc). Statistically speaking (from social studies reports), the states that have an active death penalty punishment report lower rates of homicides than states that do not. All things equal, it is safe to assume that the drop in murder rates can only be attributed to the death penalty.
Cassell also argues that the death penalty is “just punishment”. The death penalty can be viewed as a just punishment because it is proportionate to the crime committed. In this way, by having a death penalty, the government is preventing vigilantism or members of society taking the responsibility of punishing the guilty into their own hands.
Cassell pushes back on the idea that the death penalty has administrative issues. In this section of his essay, he discusses how the death penalty is in fact not infected with racism and that each case presented in the abolitionists’ perspectives were special instances and cannot be assumed as representative of the whole. Next, he claims that innocent defendants have never been executed. He admits that there have been many “close calls”, but in each case, the innocent has always been freed before their execution date. He claims that the argument should be made for the reverse: more innocent people have been murdered as a result of not pursuing the death penalty than people on death row who have been executed.
Chapter 8: “‘I Must Act’” by George Ryan
George Ryan was the governor of Illinois and in his final three days before he left office, he decided to commute the sentences of every prisoner on death row. This chapter is his speech about his arguments against the death penalty and his justification for his actions.
George Ryan has a complicated history regarding the death penalty. He has been both a supporter and an abolitionist for the cause and thus he feels that he might never be able to make a decision that is supported by both sides. In this essay, he refers to a conversation that he had with Nelson Mandela, the president of South Africa, in which he reminded George Ryan that the United States sets an example to the rest of the world in terms of justice and fairness.
George Ryan then goes on to make arguments that the death penalty is not delivered fairly and uniformly. He also discussed how Illinois had nearly 150 death penalty cases reversed or re-sentenced as a result of systematic failures in the cases. 33% of the criminals on death row had lawyers that were eventually disbarred or suspended from practicing law, 35% of the African American defendants had been convicted by all-white juries (that would not have been representative of their actual peers), and men were being freed due to new evidence (jailhouse correspondents confessed they provided incorrect information, new DNA evidence supported innocence), and the number of innocent men freed outweighed the number of men executed. In his conscience, he asks, how can we support the death penalty when it fails so many people so often?
He argues that the death penalty was reinstated by a narrow voting margin - how easily the tables could have been turned and we wouldn't have the death penalty.
To end, Ryan offers this as conclusion: our capital system is haunted by the demon of error, error in determining guilt, and error in determining who among the guilty deserves to die.
He argues for rational discussion on the death penalty. He reiterates the capital system is broken in Illinois and we have taken men within an inch of death based on unfair rulings. It is the responsibility of the state and the nation to change legislation to fix this persistent issue. He hopes that one day, instead of providing revenge for victims and their families, we can provide something more. He ends by quoting Abraham Lincoln: "I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice." George Ryan states that he hopes this will be so.
Comments
Post a Comment