To the Death

The Death Penalty has always been a topic of extreme controversy and is perhaps the most well known criminal sanction. Its more proper name is capital punishment which is  defined by Webster’s New College Dictionary (2008) as the infliction of the death penalty, or sentence of punishment by execution, for the commission of certain extremely serious crimes. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) (2008), the first appearance of death penalty laws can be dated back as far as the Code of Hammaurabi in the Eighteenth Century B.C. Since that time civilizations all over the world have used this severe form of punishment to punish criminals for all sorts of crimes. Many different forms of execution have been used including crucifixion, hanging, beheading, drawing and quartering, drowning, and poisoning. More modern methods of execution have since surfaced that are considered to be more “humane” such as the electric chair, the gas chamber, and lethal injection. Many argue that the death penalty is yet another policy that violates the Eighth Amendment’s right against cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, equally as many argue that the death penalty is a necessary evil.   

At its creation, the justification for the death penalty was primarily lex taliones, or eye for an eye. Basically the idea was retribution and the feeling that what the offender took from someone else should be taken from them as well. Using this ideology then, if a person killed someone, they should themselves be killed because when the offender took another’s life, in doing that act they forfeited their own (Bayat, 1999). This rationale dates back to when the church was the primary law maker. Since the church was responsible for laying out the laws of the land, the basis of most of them was morals. In today’s society however,  because of the separation of church and state in the United States in particular, it is much less accepted as a valid justification by the government. That does not stop the public from feeling criminals should pay for the crime of murder with their own life however.

The other justification used to validate the use of capital punishment as a criminal sanction is deterrence. The hope is that seeing those convicted of murder receive such a severe penalty will deter others from committing the same crime. When public executions were the norm, they were in particular thought to have a major deterrent effect since the public could see the humiliation and sometimes torture. Contrary to this hope however, according to the data collected from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) in 2009 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) “the average murder rate of death penalty states was 4.9, while the average murder rate of states without the death penalty was 2.8” (DPIC, 2010). What this data suggests is that not only is the death penalty not an effective deterrent, but it may actually be increasing the crime rates – in the United States at least. One argument is that because there are so many delays in most states that there is no certainty for the offenders that they will be actually executed and it therefore serves as a very poor deterrent. No matter what the reason for this phenomenon, it only fuels the fight against the death penalty.

Despite discrediting statistics like those above, the death penalty still remains in favor with a majority of the population. I think many feel that even if the death penalty does not deter crime the way it was intended to, it still eliminates the world of criminals who are considered a gross threat to society and deemed unfit to remain with the general population. Given this sentiment, it should be too surprising then that 36 out of 50 states in the U.S. have implemented a form of the death penalty and many foreign countries employ it as well including Singapore which still has public hangings. Nevertheless, this does not keep people from feeling that it is not the government’s place to kill. In all actuality, they have a valid point since killing is the exact crime the criminal is being punished for. The death penalty is an unforgiving and final punishment that cannot be undone, but it has been deemed a necessary evil and the government obviously still feels that this is the best way to deal with criminals guilty of ruthless and heinous crimes.

References:

Bayat, Mufti Zubair. (1999). Capital Punishment Maintains Law and Order. In Keyzer, Amy Marcaccio (Ed.), Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? (pp. 53-56). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Webster’s New College Dictionary (3^rd ed.). (2008). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

Death Penalty Information Center. (2010). Facts About the Death Penalty. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

Death Penalty Information Center. (2010). Murder Rates 1996-2009. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#nat1970

One, Two, Three Strikes You're Out!

The primary ideology criminal justice policies and practices have been based on for decades is the idea of getting tough on crime. One of the most complex issues facing the criminal justice system today is that of career criminals and how to keep them from committing crime. The problem is that this type of offender makes committing crime more than just a hobby – it becomes their way of life (DeLisi, 2005, p. 21). To determine the true impact of this type of criminal, the Pareto principle, more commonly known as the 80/20 rule, has been applied to crime trends and studies found that approximately 80% of the crime is caused by 20% of the criminals (Boba, 2009, p. 33). If this is true, then it seems a logical conclusion that if we lock up that 20%, our crime rates should decline dramatically. The policy aimed at achieving this goal is Three Strikes, the ultimate get tough on crime policy.

The Three Strikes law gained its publicity when it was passed by voters and legislators in 1994 in California. The law quickly gained popularity and many states have since adopted variations of the law, totaling 24 as of 1999 (States with Three Strikes Laws, 2010). A serious felony is considered a strike and as offenders commit more crimes, they do more time. The way the law works is that for a second strike offense, meaning the offender has one pervious serious or violent felony conviction, he or she is given a sentence twice the length of what the law requires. For a third offense however, an offender with two or more previous serious or violent felony convictions is given a term of 25 to life. The law also severely restricts an offender’s options by not permitting probation as an option for the new felony, limits the amount of time reduced for good behavior, and allows for consecutive sentencing for multiple offenses, thus lengthening the sentence even further. The rationale is that increasing sentences for repeat offenders restricts their capability to commit crimes and discourages the committal of new crimes. (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005).  

These longer sentences pull criminals off the streets for longer periods of time which is necessary to win the constant battle against crime. The justification is that an offender who has been convicted of at least two felonies and continues to commit crime is unlikely to ever stop (Murphy, 2010). This goes back to the 80/20 rule mentioned earlier.  The pitch is that if law enforcement focuses their resources on the small group of criminals that cause the largest percentage of crimes, crime rates will decrease dramatically. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (2005), reports however that overall conclusions regarding the policy are mixed. This being the case, it may not be quite as successful as originally hoped, but it is nevertheless getting serious and violent criminals off the streets.

But is the law unfair to offenders and tax the criminal justice system more than it helps? It results in more cases to go to trial, which further bogs down the already overworked court system and it increases prison populations. It also causes criminals to be imprisoned for longer which creates an older prison population that costs more money as increased age is linked closely with increased health needs (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005). But perhaps the biggest contention is that it is inherently unfair and violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment. This Amendment has rendered many policies unconstitutional throughout history and many people feel Three Strikes should be added to that list. Because a strike can stem from a nonserious or nonviolent felony, it allows an offender to potentially be incarcerated for 25 years to life based on petty theft with a prior. To put this in perspective, imagine a criminal with two prior serious felonies, one of which is a theft crime. He decides to steal a case of beer which is a petty theft. For someone without any priors, the case would be tried as a misdemeanor, but because this criminal has a theft related conviction, the case is tried as a felony. If he is convicted, the judge can send him away for 25 years to life. A scenario like this one makes it easy to see why the law has aroused such controversy. Critics find it extremely   unfair as it enables a person guilty of theft to receive the same or a similar sentence as someone guilty of murder (Kitchen, 2009).

Despite the large population against the law when the case went to the United States Supreme Court, it was found to be constitutional. In Ewing v. California the court ruled that because the policy is justified by public safety interest it is in fact constitutional (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005). This hardly put critics’ mind to rest, but now that it has been ruled on, it is really up to the voters to repeal the law if they find necessary. There has not been an attempt to completely retract the law, attempt was made to revise the law. In November 2004 Proposition 66 was put on the ballot, but was rejected by voters. Although it failed to pass, 47% voted in favor of the Proposition which shows a significant number of California citizens would support revisions (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005).If the law had passed, one of the major revisions would have been changes regarding 25 years to life sentences for nonserious, nonviolent felonies. Seven years later the law still remains unchanged, however paradigms are starting to shift again as many are pushing for more rehabilitation efforts to be expanded; If this trend continues, perhaps we will soon see another attempt to revise the rigidity of the Three Strikes law.

 

References:

Boba, Rachel. (2009). Crime Analysis with Crime Mapping. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

DeLisi, Matt. (2005). Career Criminals in Society. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kitchen, R. Elizabeth C. (2009, September 02). The Pros and Cons of Three Strikes Law. Retrieved from: http://www.edubook.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-three-strikes-law/12561/

Legislative Analyst’s Office. (October 2005). A Primer: Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade. Retrieved from: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm

Murphy, Jenny. (2000, June 12). Are Three-Strikes Laws Fair and Effective? Retrieved from: http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1290b-1.html

States with Three Strikes Laws. (2010, December 3). Retrieved from: http://www.threestrikes.org/3strikestates.html