Indeed, the Supreme Court has constantly held that the death penalty in itself, as a sentence for a crime, is neither cruel or unusual. In another case of note, the court said:
“The punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution. It implies there is something more inhuman and barbarous, than the mere extinguishment of life.”
There are those who insist that the Constitution does not support the death penalty. This is simply not true. The fifth amendment states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note:
“…a capital, or otherwise infamous crime… …be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb… …nor be deprived of life…without due process of law…”
So the constitution does allow capital punishment through indirect references such as these.
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed this analysis in 1997 when he said:
“No fewer than three of the Justices with whom I have served (Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun) have maintained that the death penalty is unconstitutional, even though its use is explicitly contemplated in the Constitution. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments says that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law; and the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be held to answer for a capital crime without grand-jury indictment.”
I would imagine that the Founding Fathers could not have conceived of a world or nation without capital punishment. Indeed, in those days, there was absolutely no question of the value of public safety and personal responsibility. Had they foreseen the rise in violent crime we have had in the 70s, 80s, and into the 90s, they might have declared the death penalty in the preamble!
The Risk of Wrongful Execution of Innocents:
As for the penal system accidentally executing an innocent person, I must point out that in this imperfect world, citizens are required to take certain risks in exchange for relative safety. After all, far, far more innocent lives have been taken by convicted murderers than the supposedly 23 innocents mistakenly executed this century. For instance, over 600 repeat offenses occur within prison walls each year in this country. Not only that, but over 13,000 American citizens are murdered each year by released and paroled criminals. These are the serious flaws in life sentences that abolitionists prefer to trivialize to nonexistence.
Also, the death penalty isn’t the only instance which requires us to accept risks in exchange for social benefits. We, in fact, mindlessly use far more dangerous things that take the lives of innocents by the hundreds every day, like the three or four tons of lethal metal we call automobiles for example. How can we accept the average 45,000 person-a-year death toll in this nation due to car wrecks for our personal conveniences when we can’t accept the few risks of wrongful executions for the sake of defending public safety?
The following may be the most insensitive quote I found out of all my research, but I find it best describes my feelings on this subject (of the chance of a wrongful death). Columnist Charley Reese stated:
I favor a fair trial, one quick appeal and prompt execution. I don’t think murderers ought to live much beyond 12 months from the day their victim is buried…[and] As for not being able to correct a mistake, so what? Virtually all accidental deaths are deaths by mistake. Why impose a standard of perfection only on the criminal justice system? There are no perfect human institutions. Our system is, more than any other, designed to protect the rights of the defendant. The chance of a truly innocent person being executed is exceedingly slim. But if it happens, it happens just as things happen to people every day.
The Morality of Capital Punishment:
On a final note, how can murder be taken seriously if the penalty isn’t equally as serious? A crime, after all, is only as severe as the punishment that follows it.
Award-winning Chicago journalist Mike Royko stated:
“When I think of the thousands of inhabitants of Death Rows in the hundreds of prisons in this country…My reaction is: What’s taking us so long? Let’s get that electrical current flowing. Drop those pellets [of poison gas] now! Whenever I argue this with friends who have opposite views, they say that I don’t have enough regard for the most marvelous of miracles – human life. Just the opposite: It’s because I have so much regard for human life that I favor capital punishment. Murder is the most terrible crime there is. Anything less than the death penalty is an insult to the victim and society. It says..that we don’t value the victim’s life enough to punish the killer fully.”
Every country in the world is ready and willing to kill thousands, even millions of human beings in brutal, merciless ways to defend their nation from the aggression of other countries. I don’t see why public safety doesn’t deserve as much respect and protection as a nation’s national security does. In fact, it can be reasonably argued that supporting armies and waging war is far more barbarous than the death penalty is. So I find it hypocritical that the same countries who have abolished capital punishment because it is “barbaric” to defend public safety that way are at the same time prepared to enforce political power and defend their territorial claims through infinitely more violence and bloodshed than the death penalty would ever require. It seems to me that those nations are just trying to rationalize their apathy and scorn for any institution that doesn’t serve their self-serving and political interests.
The whole reason why nations and governments exist is to defend their decent citizens from vicious criminals. When it fails to do that, they become of little use to its citizens. When a society ignores their moral duty to defend the safety and security of their decent citizens and leaves them at the mercy of violent criminals, they are not being “civilized,” they are being negligent.
I am certain that there will come a time when all the nations in the world will be forced to agree after decades of experience on this issue, that capital punishment, like the military and the police force and taxes, is an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of every civilized society and it will no longer be a question of whether or not a nation should have the death penalty, but rather how it should be used.
While I believe that prompt and consistent executions would have a deterrent effect, there remains one great virtue, even for infrequent executions. The recidivism rate for capital punishment is zero. No executed murderer has ever killed again. You can’t say that about those sentenced to prison, even if you are an abolitionist.
Bibliography
Bronwyn, Carlton. The Big Book of Death . Paradox Press, 1996.
Guernsey, JoAnn Brenn. Should We Have Capital Punishment? Lerner Publications Company, 1993.
Nardo, Don. Death Penalty (Lucent Overview Series) Lucent Books, 1992.
Rose, Joel. The Big Book of Thugs . Paradox Press, 1996.
Wekesser, Carol. The Death Penalty (Opposing Viewpoints) Greenhaven Press, Inc., 1991.
Hammel, Andrew. Th Anti-Death Penalty Movement has Failed. Internet.
Johansen, Jay. Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? Internet.
Justice for all. “Death Penalty and Sentencing Information in the United States.” Internet.
Pro-death penalty.com. Death Penalty and Sentencing Information. Internet.