Restructuring Immigration Enforcement Federalism, Research Paper Example

Introduction

Thousands of individuals currently wait on America’s death row. Their lives diminish daily following state and federal justice systems’ increasing ratification of death penalty laws. Since time immemorial, capital punishment has engendered substantial debate regarding its morality. It is the state-sanctioned act of killing an individual as punishment for a crime. Public opinion polls indicate an enormous margin of support for capital punishment. On the other hand, pressure groups like civil libertarians and human rights advocates continuously decry this act’s immorality. Recently, there has been a renewed effort to ban the death penalty after President Joe Biden pledged to eradicate capital punishment on a federal level and encourage states to do the same in his presidential campaign. However, since taking office in January of 2021, Biden has made zero efforts to support abolishing the death penalty regardless of the introduction of H.R.97 – the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2021 (Gulasekaram 1). His inaction has continued to affect individuals accused of crimes and those involved with the death penalty process. While there has been an intense debate on whether or not capital punishment is right, this discussion aims to prove that it is an act that should be eradicated.

Reasons for Eradication of Capital Punishment

According to biblical teaching, capital punishment is considered wrong. The argument behind this stance is that the life of human beings is sacred, and everyone deserves an opportunity for repentance and reconciliation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith forbids this act with the argument that it is an attack on the dignity and inviolability of an individual, which, according to the teaching, is against the Maker’s plan for man and society. According to the U.S. Catholic, in 2020, Pope Francis claimed that the church is increasingly committed to fighting for the abolition of capital punishment across the globe. The pope’s advocacy is rooted in the belief that eradicating the death penalty is critical, as it allows the offender the opportunity to reform.

Another defense against the death penalty is that human life is invaluable. As such, even the worst offenders, such as murderers, should not be deprived of the value of their lives. Regardless of the heinousness of the crime, there are other ways that society can protect itself without having to end a life. Capital punishment violates the human right to life, and retribution is wrong (Walsh and Hatch 1). Every individual has a right to life, including those who commit unforgivable crimes. The death penalty is morally wrong and problematic conceptually and practically because it is a sanitized form of vengeance. Human life is precious; hence, it should be protected and respected. As such, non-lethal means should be adopted to punish offenders.

More so, capital punishment does not deter crime due to several reasons. One reason is that people who are likely to commit crimes do not think about the consequences of their actions. Also, death penalties are not always carried out promptly, which means that it is not a deterrent for people considering committing crimes. Additionally, capital punishment is often applied in a discriminatory manner, which means that it is not an effective deterrent for people from all walks of life. The death penalty does not deter crime any more than other forms of punishment, such as life imprisonment. Moreover, the death penalty is usually used against underrepresented groups. Underrepresented groups are often over-represented in the criminal justice system due to poverty and lack of education. Further, capital punishment is often seen as a way to “solve” crime rather than as a way to address the underlying social and economic problems that lead to crime. It is especially true in poor and minority communities, where there is often a lack of investment in education, job training, and other social programs.

There are also multiple ethical implications associated with the death penalty initiative. First, death penalties have been scrutinized as racially biased as racially disadvantaged groups are more prone to this punishment. Due to the issue of racial disparities, this punishment should be entirely eradicated. Second, capital punishment has been proven to affect victims’ and defendants’ families. The effects are most evident in decline in psychological health. Society is also affected because, in some instances, innocent lives are put at stake. This situation could occur primarily due to corruption, bias, and discrimination. It affects society in that productive members could be wrongfully sentenced, and it could also lead to trauma. Consequently, the countries that incorporate capital punishment are also affected, especially economically. For instance, high costs are involved in the execution of death penalties. More so, killing individuals means that the number of taxpayers is reduced drastically. These aspects further support the implementation of the proposed Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act.

Proposers’ Stance

When examining the moral stance of capital punishment, two aspects are considered; arguments in favor of the death penalty and those against it. The aspects involved in discussions in favor of capital punishment include retribution. According to retribution, the primary argument is that it is morally right that all guilty individuals are punished, only the guilty should be punished, and the guilty ought to be punished proportionately to the severity of their crime. It supports that individuals should suffer in ways appropriate for the crime. For example, in the case of murder, the offender deserves death. Second, deterrence justifies death penalties with the argument that the execution of convicted offenders deters would-be offenders (Austin 7). Third, it is argued that capital punishment is a tool to prevent re-offending because those executed cannot commit more crimes. Capital punishment is usually defended because society is morally obligated to protect citizens’ safety and welfare, and murderers and offenders threaten it. Putting these offenders to death ensures convicted lawbreakers do not commit offenses again.

Potential Alternatives

Scholars ascertain that most states that seek to eradicate the death penalty are often faced with determining viable punishments that should replace it. They are frequently endowed with sentences other than death that can effectively express societal condemnation and retribution, as well as adhere to human rights standards. Potential alternatives are critical due to various reasons. First, there are numerous problems encountered during the sentencing procedures due to the heavy reliance on aggravating circumstances in courts. These circumstances are those attributed to offenders’ culpability. For instance, mitigating factors that contribute to lessening punishment, like the family’s sole breadwinner, is never considered. Second, during the imposition of the death penalty, the central focus is crime-centric. Other factors like the crime’s motive, the victim’s personality, and the crime’s magnitude are never considered. Third, scholars ascertain that before the death sentence, convicts spend prolonged detention, which in my opinion, is a punishment in itself. Fourth, it has constantly been proven that the death penalty is not a deterrent but just a form of vengeance. There is a need to seek potential alternatives to capital punishment.

One of the potential alternatives to capital punishment is a mandatory life imprisonment sentence. This undertaking entails the life imprisonment of a convict until natural death takes its course. This alternative is a life term/life without parole (LWOP). Like capital punishment, this rationale is a form of retribution, restoration, and incapacitation to commit other offenses. However, some individuals dispute this measure with the argument that it undermines the right to human dignity by eradicating the prospect of rehabilitation and is inhumane. However, most individuals, especially victims’ families, prefer LWOP to the capital punishment spectacle.

Additionally, a discretionary sentence that accords power to a judge to suggest minimum terms or impose a life with parole is also an alternative. This alternative can take the form of long-term imprisonment for a fixed number of years. The prisoner is then released with or without restrictions depending on the crime’s severity and behavior. More so, an indeterminate term of imprisonment could be a viable option. This act entails sending offenders to prison for a proportionate number of years, after which they may be considered for release with parole. However, it is not a guarantee that they will be released then. The release is done if it is considered safe and the offender indicates apparent repentance. Most individuals prefer this act to life imprisonment, which denies an individual a chance of rehabilitation.

Release restriction is another alternative to the life sentence but cannot be advocated for because it could result in re-offenses. Another option for reducing capital punishment is incorporating measures to eradicate crimes punishable by this act. Such efforts include the adoption of crime-fighting technology and community policing. These initiatives can be supported by the massive chunks of money invested in death penalties. It is worth noting that some countries have successfully eradicated capital punishment and adopted these measures.

Conclusion

Capital punishment is an aspect that has, since time immemorial, engendered substantial debate regarding its morality. It is the state-sanctioned act of killing an individual as punishment for a crime. There has been a renewed effort to ban the death penalty after President Joe Biden pledged to eradicate the death penalty at the federal level during his presidential campaign. However, since taking office in January of 2021, Biden has made zero efforts to support abolishing the death penalty. In my opinion, he should keep his promise by eradicating it and adopting other alternatives, like LWOP, which will help solve the ethical implications involved in the policy, like discrimination and wrongful conviction. It is also critical that other states and countries that still use capital punishment eradicate them. Prevention of crimes is the most critical aspect of preventing inhumane punishments.

Works Cited

Austin, Nichole M. “Roper’s Unfinished Business: A New Approach to Young Offender Death Penalty Eligibility.” Buff. L. Rev. 69 (2021): 1-42. digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4924&context=buffalolawreview.

Gulasekaram, Pratheepan. “Restructuring Immigration Enforcement Federalism.” U. Ill. L. Rev. Online (2021): 1-7. illinoislawrev.web.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Gulasekaram.pdf.

“The Church’s Anti-Death Penalty Position.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2016, www.usccb.org/resources/churchs-anti-death-penalty-position. Accessed 19 May 2022.

Walsh, Anthony, and Virginia L. Hatch. “Capital Punishment, Retribution, and Emotion: An Evolutionary Perspective.” New Criminal Law Review 21.2 (2018): 267-290. doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2018.21.2.267.