Capital Punishment: It is a violation of rights

Answer

Capital Punishment: It is a violation of rights

The question as whether capital punishment also death penalty as per the US constitution- Eighth Amendment has remained elusive even with Supreme Court interpretations.  Significant cases over the years have also continued to shape the discussions of whether capital punishment is a violation of rights or not. Societies and government from time immemorial have adopted punishment as a remedy to deterring crime related to capital and civil. Many nations have prohibited the use of capital punishment through legislations in the quest to protecting the right to life and prohibit inhumane, cruel and degrading treatment to law offenders. United States (U.S.) through legislations, capital punishment is practiced in some States. This paper discusses whether capital punishment violates the rights of people or not.

According to Forte (2013), Capital punishment is legal in Federal Government, 32 States and military. Florida was the first to reinstate capital punishment after the Supreme Court rulings had struck death penalty laws in the U.S (Jaeger & Nicole, 1997).  Other states followed suit in reinstating the laws as a punishment to law offenders. Capital punishment is illegal in 18 U.S. States and in the District of Columbia (Forte, 2013). It is estimated that since the introduction of capital punishment in the U.S. history, an approximately 17,277 people have been legally executed. 15834 have been executed by States, 1406 by military and 37 by the Federal Government (Forte, 2013). However, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, an estimate 1,382 people have been executed; 1379 by states and 3 by Federal Government (Jaeger & Nicole, 1997).

 Discussion on whether capital punishment is a violation of human right manifested in the Furman V. Georgia case in 1972 when Supreme Court made attempts to settle this debate (Youngjae, 2007).  The aspect of ‘cruel and unusual’ as used in the Eighth Amendment featured dominantly in the case. According to the U.S. constitution amendments, it reads,

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual    punishments inflicted.”

 In this case, four Supreme Court judges ruled that death sentence is not cruel and unusual, hence capital punishment was legitimate. Three other judges in their ruling stated that death penalty was cruel and unusual as it was applied, while two judges dissented the ruling by ruling against capital punishment (Colon, 2009).  The overall verdict led to struck  down of all existing laws that had legitimized capital punishment stating that States handled the laws in a ‘wanton’ and ‘freakish’ manner, hence unconstitutional; however, capital punishment in itself and of itself was not unconstitutional. The law was banned henceforth with a timeframe provided for States to fix the hiccups in their laws (Cornell Law School, 2017). In this decision, four principals ensued to determine whether punishment was cruel and unusual. The leading questions included, whether the capital punishment was degrading to human dignity, arbitrary, rejected throughout the society and unnecessary.

Not so long, in 1976 rebirth of death penalty was manifest with 35 State enacting the laws on the foundation of the four principals in the previous ruling of Furman V. Georgia case (Forte, 2013). The Gregg V. Georgia case formed the basis of the reinstatement prompting the Supreme Court to reestablish the capital punishment.

The proponents of capital punishment base their arguments on the procedures employed in reaching the decision.  They believe that capital punishment like any other forms of punishment is not cruel and unusual (Jaeger & Nicole, 1997).  This manifested in the Supreme Court ruling on the Gregg V. Georgia ruling where they stated the death penalty is not cruel and unusual if proper procedures are put in place to try the offenders (Howe, 1998). In this case, majority of the judges ruled in favor while only two ruled against stating that in deed capital punishment was cruel and unusual in whichever way. However, three of the judges that had ruled in favour of capital punishment including Justice Powell, Blackmun and Stevens changed their mind in 1991, 1994 and 2008 respectively claiming that capital punishment was unconstitutional hence, required abolition (Howe, 1998).

The changes in the opinion of these three judges, who in 1976 supported capital punishment clearly indicates that capital punishment is a violation of rights of individuals.  One of the reasons why it violates the rights of individuals is that it goes against the human dignity the amendment postulates to further. Every human being has the right to life and dignity to life. Instituting death penalties is therefore injustice and unconstitutional (Denno, 2017). This has been depicted with continued abolition of capital punishment by many other countries in the world. It is estimate that currently, more than 96 countries have abolished capital punishment. 

Second reason is that capital punishment is one of the morally unacceptable and ‘excessive’ punishments that can be vexed to human beings.  The societal values and morals do not require the state or any individual to treat others in such a cruel way (Berry, 2011). Many countries such as Germany, Colombia, among others that supplied lethal injection chemicals used to execute offenders have abolished capital punishment and halted the supply of the chemicals. This clearly shows the realization of how capital punishment is cruel and unusual aspect not in tandem to Eight Amendment of the constitution. It would not be usual phenomena for State to take away someone live through any means possible because of their offenses. Adopting other stringent penalties or form of punishment would in equal measure surmount to be punishment for the offenses committed.

 Capital punishment mostly targeted the people from black communities, the poor and the hapless with no means and the capacity to defend themselves before the court of law (Cornell Law School, 2017). This target punishment goes against the tenets of equality as enshrined in the Eighth Amendment of the US. Constitution (Cornell Law School, 2017). Such laws are retrogressive and unfair to the rest of the human race.   The race syndrome in the U.S. might have played a critical role in the establishment of these laws, with the intent of punishment black offenders and those suspected to be involved in criminal activities. The white’s remained protective of their own and especially with the perception that black people raped their white women.  A good case example was the Coker V. Georgia, case where Georgia was placed under death penalty for raping white women, on the basis that he was black (Steiker & Steiker, 2016). Another observation of the violation of the eight amendments is in the observations made of high chances of individual to receive death sentence in the black-defendant, white-victim combinations (Steiker & Steiker, 2016). Approaching laws in this manner demonstrates favourism and injustices and definitely is against the fundamentals espoused in the Eight Amendment. In this ruling, reference was made to the Eighth Amendment where punishments are restricted if they are excessive in relation to the crime the perpetrator committed. This requires an elaborate understanding of the extent a crime is excessive. An excessive and unconstitutional punishment is not measurable in contributing to the acceptable levels of punishment hence no need or ground to impose pain and suffering on the perpetrators.  Secondly, the act should have been grossly out of proportion based on crime severity.

In addition, in quest to achieve meaningful narrowing through aggravating factors having failed, the jurors wield the power and have the discretion to impose whichever kind of punishment or sentence they deem appropriate (Steiker & Steiker, 2016). This therefore, threatens the rights as espoused in the eighth amendment of the constitution. Doing away with the capital punishment will ensure that every individual has a right to enjoy life and they are not at the mercies of the juror who may be judgmental and subjective in their rulings.

The circumstances under which a defendant commits a capital punishment such as murder and other crimes require investigations to establish the intent. Death penalty becomes unfair and goes against the eight amendment if an individual accused of murder, did not kill himself, did not attempt to kill, or did not have any intention to kill is  placed under capital punishment (Jaeger & Nicole, 1997). Therefore, it remains essential to ensure procedures and processes are taken to determine the intent for an appropriate charge to be given unto such individuals. The case of Enmund V Florida illustrates these facts. The courts should impose death penalty as a deterrent, only if they establish that there was premeditation and deliberation by the defendant to kill.

The penalty should be proportional to the crime committed for capital punishment not be in tandem with the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. The three aspects that the Supreme Court has looked unto is the gravity of offense and the stringency of the penalty. It also evaluates or considers how other criminals are punished by the jurisdiction and lastly considers how other jurisdiction punishes same criminals. Furman V Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, (1972) invalidation of capital punishment came about because of constituting of cruel and unusual punishment that violated the Eight Amendment. There was disproportionate application of law whereby the poor and minorities were seen to be discriminated. This case, therefore, demonstrates the need to do away with capital punishment because of the violation. Judges are human beings and despite having skills and knowledge in law, they have to make interpretations and have emotional challenges that can sway them to rule in a certain manners favoring certain parties. Therefore, it is critical that rights of innocent individuals whom because of the circumstances brought about environmental and natural matters be unfairly treated in the court of justice.

Other instances that capital punishment would violate the eighth amendment are when it is arbitrary. The outcome of the death penalty has been blamed largely to depend on the race, gender, geography and ability of the defendant to afford a lawyer. These facts are arbitrary and have nothing to do with the crime itself. This therefore goes against the spirit of the Eighth amendment. Studies indicate that since 1976 to 2008, executions averaging 81.4 percent have been meted to people from South. Furthermore, in death penalty incidences, 51 percent of homicide victims have been blacks while whites are 46 percent but 76 percent executions are for white victims while only 15 percent execution cases are for the black victims (Forte, 2013).

Capital punishment further violates rights as per the perception of the society. Through public opinions, majority of people would want death penalty banned in a 2011 poll asking the appropriate punishment for murder cases, 58 percent wanted a moratorium on capital punishment (Forte, 2013). Those that agitated for capital punishment were 33 percent, life with parole was 13 percent and life with parole was 9 percent (Forte, 2013). The underlying reasons why majority of the people would want abolition rests on the believe that the punishment is sever and goes beyond human dignity. Secondly, is guided by previous experiences where individuals who may not have committed a crime are unfairly executed.

The provisions in the constitution are discriminatory on how they are applied. Validating death penalty for the juveniles’ offenders on grounds of diminished culpability for the crimes they commit does not add up.  It becomes violation of the constitution, when the rights of other people are violated and others are   exonerated (James & Cecil, 2003).  This was exemplified in the Roper v. Simmons, 543, u.s. 551, (2005) case where Supreme Court invalidated capital punishment for the juveniles (Steiker & Steiker, 2016). This is a clear demonstration that capital punishment goes against human dignity even if it is accessed to be cruel and unusual. Actuality the idea of proportionality in the regulatory doctrines has contributed to arbitrariness in such like cases.  Holding that death penalty was disproportionate for intellectually disabled or mental disorder offender and the juvenile offenders designated in terms of bright line rule of being under the age of eighteen years is retrogressive and blatant violation of other people right. This has enabled courts to engage in arbitrary decision making that has violated the rights of others while exonerating others (Paul, 2015).

As I conclude, there is an indication that indeed, death penalty; is near to demise. The declining number of executions and new deaths sentences across States and the world in addition to increased public support and few States retaining death penalty; it is clear that this is increasingly become fragile. The challenge of accessing lethal injections used in these executions is also an issue that attributes to the declining executions. The countries known to produce these lethal injections have also banned capital punishment and ceased production of such injections rendering the capital punishment cases to reduce. Substantial changes over the years in the political and legal practice have also contributed to reduced aura in capital punishment.  Furthermore, the change of mind of former three justice /judges earlier ruled for capital punishment have changed their turn agitating for its abolition.  The concept of cruel and unusual, in the Eighth amendment has to be revisited and efforts put underway to abolish capital punishment. It is no doubt that, there exist enough cases and examples that exemplify blatant failure and application of the law.  Capital punishment is immoral, it goes against human dignity, it is sometimes based on individual ingenuity as opposed to closer analyzing of aggravating factors and is leeway to many loopholes. The alternative to the capital punishment is to allow life sentence for the offenders as this would foster human dignity espoused in the Eighth Amendments.(2017) study employed, there are very little room for generalizing the study’s findings.