From Hammurabi’s Code to current death row inmates, capital punishment has been utilized by many governments as a tool for the justice system. The death penalty in the United States can be traced all the way to early American history when it was under colonial rule of Britain. Though in early history the death penalty was used for even menial crimes such as burglary, capital punishment in the United States is currently used for the most heinous crimes, such as first degree murder, rape, treason, or espionage. Early on, this form of punishment was not considered to be as controversial as now. Because the nation was unified under similar Christian beliefs, there was no question in how death could be the worst punishment for the worst crimes.
…show more content…
Radelet and Marian J. Borg, various reasons for the support for the death penalty are listed. Among some of the arguments are deterrence and retribution. By implementing the death penalty, supporters contend that this would “[..] send a message to potential offenders” (Radelet, Borg 44). Deterrence has proven to not be an effective reason as the death penalty has always been a form of punishment in American history, but has not shown any reduction in capital offenses due to the fear a death sentence. Retribution has been a reason used for the families of the victims in order to receive satisfaction or the sense of justice being carried forward. However, to base a form of punishment on a non-empirical justification, questions arise on which types of murders deserve death and which do not. Above all, according to Powell in “Capital Punishment,” “both the retributive and deterrent purposes of capital punishment are imperiled by the current practice of repetitive review” (Powell, Jr. 1041). Because of unlimited appeals available to the inmates on death row, or repetitive review, offenders are usually on death row for years, even decades at times. Powell goes on state that “the retributive value of the penalty is diminished as imposition of sentence becomes ever farther removed from the time of the offense” (Powell 1041). Though repetitive review is a problem, it cannot be easily solved. The complete elimination of this system could lead to higher chances of executing a possibly innocent criminal or even one who deserved a lesser punishment. However, its existence limits the purpose for the death penalty because it delays the whole process. Because of the repetitive review, the death penalty becomes a counter acting existence to itself, proving its inefficiency as a tool for
Radelet and Marian J. Borg, various reasons for the support for the death penalty are listed. Among some of the arguments are deterrence and retribution. By implementing the death penalty, supporters contend that this would “[..] send a message to potential offenders” (Radelet, Borg 44). Deterrence has proven to not be an effective reason as the death penalty has always been a form of punishment in American history, but has not shown any reduction in capital offenses due to the fear a death sentence. Retribution has been a reason used for the families of the victims in order to receive satisfaction or the sense of justice being carried forward. However, to base a form of punishment on a non-empirical justification, questions arise on which types of murders deserve death and which do not. Above all, according to Powell in “Capital Punishment,” “both the retributive and deterrent purposes of capital punishment are imperiled by the current practice of repetitive review” (Powell, Jr. 1041). Because of unlimited appeals available to the inmates on death row, or repetitive review, offenders are usually on death row for years, even decades at times. Powell goes on state that “the retributive value of the penalty is diminished as imposition of sentence becomes ever farther removed from the time of the offense” (Powell 1041). Though repetitive review is a problem, it cannot be easily solved. The complete elimination of this system could lead to higher chances of executing a possibly innocent criminal or even one who deserved a lesser punishment. However, its existence limits the purpose for the death penalty because it delays the whole process. Because of the repetitive review, the death penalty becomes a counter acting existence to itself, proving its inefficiency as a tool for