The Death Penalty Review Essay

Nowadays the death penalty is the hot topic of political debates, but it was not as controversial in past decades as now is. The death penalty was the most severe punishment in society since the days when mankind first formed the semblance of civilization. Methods of the death penalty execution were incredibly brutal and various subject to the crime. It is considered that the main issue of the death penalty is an argument of its opponents and supporters about the very existence of the death penalty. In this connection were crystallized and operate two public “camps” – the abolitionists (who are “against” the death penalty) and retentionists (who are “for” the death penalty), who form the current state of public consciousness in our society. Thus, it is necessary to make a literature review of articles and sources pertaining to the different attitude toward the death penalty of different race and ethnicity. The main aim of this review is to find and combine together ideas relevant to the death penalty and its potential political, social or individual significance in society.
It is necessary to begin this literature review from Streib’s (2006) words who said that capital punishment is a kind of the cruelest and degrading punishment. Thus, this is nothing more but a mockery of human dignity. Basing on this statement we could suppose that implicitly or explicitly systems of views on the death penalty still exist, but they exist not in the abstract “pros and cons” relations, but in a variety of differences in the understanding of the death penalty. Thus, a support or rejection of the death penalty is a consequence of the above mentioned differences, arising out of any belief system, and has a secondary character.
According to statistical data published in many reliable sources we see that over half of all states in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or not practice it today.
Analyzing the attitude toward the death penalty in some races and ethnicities Devine (2005) mentioned that indeed from committing certain crimes a person can hold only the death penalty (such as murder, rape, etc.), because in most cases it was happened in such a way historically. Yes, it helps to lower the crime rate for a certain period of time, but does not solve the problem itself. In addition to the previous statement Hood (1996) added that “in countries which have not abolished the death penalty, capital punishment may be imposed only for the most serious crimes, it being understood that their scope should not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences.” And defining the serious crimes, Hood (1996) also stated that “the definition of ‘most serious crimes’ may, of course, vary in different social, cultural, religious and political contexts; but the emphasis on intention, and on lethal or other extremely grave consequences, is intended to imply that the offences should be life-threatening, in the sense that death is a very likely consequence of the action.” This statement allows to understand the death penalty as a specific kind of punishment and it is well known that such interpretation of the above mentioned concept is reflected in current legislation, so, it is typical for lawyers and representatives pertaining to the humanities.
Poveda (2000) demonstrated that punishment is a purposeful infliction of suffering to the offender directed on extinction of rights and freedoms. Such definition of punishment is true for any criminal punishment, but not for the death penalty. The fact is that capital punishment does not fit into the framework of modern criminal law theory of punishment and kept in the system of punishment by the legal fiction. In this situation deprivation of life as an external content of the death penalty is neither an influence on the subject nor causing him pain or deprivation of his rights (right to life and attendant rights). But in spite of any logical explanations retributive theory of the death penalty is the most developed area.
So, according to Cottrol (2004) we can understand that “the Death Penalty introduces us to a broader societal ambivalence about the ultimate sanction, an ambivalence in many ways belied by the advocacy and practice of executions. Although the American nation has not lacked its share of executions in its history, the practice of killing offenders has often been an uneasy one with a shaky consensus often contingent on a complex variety of racial, cultural, and criminological considerations.”
Continuing to study the death penalty from different perspectives and thinking about its potential political, social and individual significance in society it is necessary to say that the first and the most controversial issue – is the ability of the death penalty to prevent crime. The second argument of supporters of the death penalty is an exceptional personal crime prevention which means that this specific criminal will never commit socially dangerous acts again. The next debatable moment is the judicial arbitrariness in the imposition of the death penalty and possible risk of a miscarriage of justice.
Thus, taking everything into consideration it is possible to say in conclusion that different sources of literature presents this problem in their own ways, but it is impossible to argue the fact that the presence of the death penalty in many cultures remains a question of the moral sphere, which is closely associated with humanism. To sum up, the problem of the death penalty needs its further study and discussion.