FREE ESSAY ON DEATH PENALTY

DEATH PENALTY

Whenever the word death penalty comes up, extremists from both sides start yelling out
their arguments. One side says
deterrence, the other side says there's a potential of executing an innocent man; one
says justice, retribution, and punishment;
the other side says execution is murder. However, all the arguments aside, the best way
and the only way to truly make a
rational. Decision about capital punishment is to examine the purpose of our criminal
justice system. Once the purpose of the
criminal justice system is established, one must find out the purpose of capital
punishment. This paper will show that the
purpose of capital punishment is consistent with and embodies the purpose of the criminal
justice system. Then, this paper will
determine whether or not the present form of the death penalty is fulfilling its purpose,
and what could be changed to make the
death penalty more efficient and effective. 
The first question that must be faced is, What is the purpose of the criminal justice
system and does the death penalty help to
fulfill that purpose? In The Law, Federic Bastiat says that humans have inalienable
rights that existed outside of and before
government. These rights are life, liberty, and property. He contends that the only
legitimate purpose of government is to
protect these rights. When one person inflicts on another's rights or takes advantage of
another person, he is plundering. Bastiat
asks, 
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous
than labor. It is evident, then that
the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal
tendency to plunder instead of work. All
the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.(1) 
People will plunder, take advantage of others, and commit crimes as long as it is in
their best interest to do so. The purpose our entire criminal
justice system is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property for all its
citizens. To do this, the criminal justice system needs to make
plunder more painful and more dangerous than labor. In other words, the punishment for
crime must be harsh enough to deter potential
criminals. Under this mindset, the death penalty makes perfect sense. Here is a
punishment that truly makes the criminal pay for his crime, stops
the criminal from committing future crimes, and deters other criminals from committing
the same crime. The purpose of the death penalty is to
protect the right of Americans to live. 
If the purpose of the death penalty is to protect the lives of Americans, then the people
that it is supposed to protect should be the focal point.
In considering the death penalty and its merits and faults one cannot lose sight of the
victims. These corpses are the people who have been, are
being, and will be killed because our justice system is not working perfectly. In
considering the death penalty these innocent individuals must
never be forgotten. Millions of innocent men and women have already been slain, and
thousands are killed every year. According to Time, in
the United States more than 2,000,000 people are beaten, knifed, shot or otherwise
assaulted each year, 23,000 fatally.(2) In any discussion of the
death penalty, one must remember that there are two sets of lives to be considered. Far
too much emphasis is usually placed on the convicted
murderer who is being executed, and the victim who has been killed is all but forgotten.
Joseph Stalin once stated, One death is a tragedy, but
a million deaths are statistics.(3) 
Once a murderer is caught and convicted, justice seems to demand that he at least be
prevented from murdering someone else. After all, if the
law is set up to protect our right to live, it seems as though it should be able to keep
convicted murderers from murdering again. Amazingly, our
criminal justice system is not even achieving this goal. The average prison sentence for
murder is less than six years.(4) Six percent of the young
adults paroled since 1978 who were convicted of murder were arrested for murder again
within six years of their release.(5) This means that six
percent of all murderers were caught, convicted, sent to prison, released, and they
murdered again. At least six percent of all murders could
have been prevented had the murderer been executed the first time around. In North
Carolina in 1995, 750 people were murdered.(6) By stopping
repeat murderers at least forty-five lives could have been saved in 1995 in North
Carolina alone. Every year, approximately the same number of
people would not die if an effective form of the death penalty were in place. One example
of the benefit of the death penalty is what happened in
India in the 1800s. When Great Britain was beginning to colonize India, there was a
religion known as the Thuggee religion. These Thuggees
were probably the most violent, dangerous, and brutal gang of thieves ever. They killed
literally thousands of people (mostly foreigners) and
stole their money. In fact, one of the requirements of this cult was that each member had
to murder at least one person every year. The British
jumped to action to curb the problem by speedy arrests and executions. Thousands of
Thuggees were executed. After a few years, the leader of
the Thugees was captured and executed. During his trial, it was found that he had
murdered 931 people. In 1883, the British had completely
solved the problem by executing the last known Thuggee.(7) Often opponents will argue
that some criminals are so deranged, so fearless, so
assured that they will not be caught that they will murder no matter what the penalty is.
If this was true of anyone, it was true of the Thuggees.
Yet, the fact is often ignored that the death penalty can have a tremendous effect simply
by eliminating those hideous murderers who will
murder no matter what the penalty is. No one can count the number of lives that were
saved after all the Thuggees were executed. Opponents of
the death penalty sometimes contend that repeat murderers are rare. Yet, if six percent
of all murders can be stopped, and forty-five lives can be
saved every year just in North Carolina alone, who wants to be responsible for the
forty-five unnecessary deaths that occur each year because
our government does not take care of the murderers the first time around. 
The death penalty can save lives by stopping repeat murderers, but does it deter murder?
Opponents of the death penalty argue that there is no
deterrent effect. However, there are a number of studies that indicate that the contrary
is true. A study by W. Bailey of the period from 1967-68
showed a deterrent effect in twenty-seven states.(8) A later study by him showed a
deterrent effect in twenty-five states.(9) During the
moratorium on Capital punishment in the United States, murder increased by one hundred
percent.(10) A review of the fourteen nations who
abolished the death penalty showed that the murder rate increased by seven percent from
the five year pre-abolition period to the five year
post-abolition period.(11) Since 1990, Harris County, a single county in Texas has had
more executions than any other state in the United States.
During the period between 1990 and 1995, Harris County has had a forty-eight percent drop
in crime, the greatest decrease in the United States.
In Harris County, the highest homicide rate was in 1981, one year before the death
penalty was reinstated in Texas.(12) All of these studies
indicate that implementation of the death penalty correlates with a drop in the homicide
rate. A study by Stephen K. Layton at University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill showed that each execution deters an average of eighteen
murders.(13) By increasing the use of the death penalty,
thousands of lives could be saved. In Utah, there have been five executions since 1977.
During the year following each execution, there was a
significant drop-off in the homicide rate.(14) Criminologist Steven Stack recently found
that after a widely publicized execution, there was a drop
in the homicide rate. He found this drop to be more significant with whites than with
blacks.(15) Hyam Barshay, a poet, said, The death
penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing beams out to sea. We hear about
shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the
lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it
saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down.(16) 
Although the death penalty is a deterrent, it is not nearly as strong a deterrent as it
would be were it implemented more often. The deterrence
theory states that in order for a crime to be deterred, justice must be swift, severe,
and certain. With numerous appeals, the death penalty is not
swift. In fact, the average amount of time spent on death row before being executed is
ten years.(17) In addition, between 1977 and the present,
the execution rate per murder is .055 percent.(18) In other words for every 1800 murders,
only one person is executed. Thus, the death penalty is
not certain either. In fact, most murderers can rest assured that more than likely they
will not be put to death. The death penalty is severe. If it
were altered so that it became swift and certain, there would be a significant drop-off
in the homicide rate. People have a natural fear of death. It
is a common trait of man that we think about the consequences before we act. If not
consciously, we still think about them subconsciously.
Imagine for a minute what the world would be like if every time a murderer killed
someone, he died instantaneously. More than likely, there
would be an extremely low homicide rate. Of course, it is impossible to make that a
reality, but our government can make justice much more
swift, severe, and certain than it already is if we simply increase the use of capital
punishment and change the laws so that it is faster and has a
shorter appeals process. The death penalty is important because the lives of thousands of
potential victims who are at stake. 
Given the benefits of capital punishment, it is hard to imagine why anyone would be
against it, but there are several arguments against the
death sentence that need to be addressed. Opponents of the death penalty point out that
there is a possibility of wrongly executing an
innocent man. Of course, there is a possibility of wrongly sending an innocent man to
prison, or wrongly fining an innocent man, but they
contend that because of the finality and severity of the death penalty, the consequences
of wrongly executing an innocent person are much
more wrong. There has never been any proof of an innocent man being executed, although
there are some studies that show in a few cases,
there is a possibility that someone was wrongly executed.(19) One of the most often
quoted studies of innocent men being executed is the
Bedau-Radlet Study. It is the most comprehensive study ever done in this area and has
found twenty-two cases where the defendant may have
been wrongly executed. This study is very controversial and many studies such as Markman
and Cassal, found the study's methodology so
flawed that in at least twelve of those cases there was substantial evidence of guilt and
no evidence of innocence. In the other eleven cases, the
Bedau-Radlet study placed almost no weight on the jury's verdict, and the evidence
available only proved that the case was questionable, not
that the defendant was actually innocent.(20) Another point to be made is that our
judicial system takes many precautions to ensure that the
rights of the innocent are protected. In order to understand this, one must look at the
complex process required to convict someone of first
degree murder and get him sentenced to death. First a person is arrested and given an
attorney. Evidence must be presented proving beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant committed first degree murder. The defendant must
have been in a clear state of mind. After a five to six
week trial, the defendant goes on to a second trial to decide whether or not he deserves
the death penalty. Again, a full trial is held. Defense
presents evidence on why this murderer does not deserve to die. After this occurs and the
murderer is sentenced to die, his case is
automatically appealed to the state Supreme Court. After that, he may file a number of
different appeals. Finally, about ten years later, after
every legal attempt and delay tactic has been exhausted, the murderer is executed. As
should be evident from this complex process, every
reasonable precaution is taken to ensure that no innocent man is executed. 
Although it is very unlikely that an innocent person would be executed, the question
arises about whether the execution of an innocent man is
a strong enough argument to abolish the death penalty. Before deciding, one must remember
the lives that the death penalty saves. Repeat
murderers are eliminated, and potential murderers are deterred. As mentioned earlier, one
must consider the victims as well as the defendant. Is
it worth it to lose forty-five innocent lives so that no innocent person is executed.
Wesley Lowe states the matter well when he says, 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.(21) We risk dying in automobile accidents for the
convenience of using a car. This practice is considered
acceptable. Risking the possibility that someone might be wrongly executed is worth it to
save the lives of thousands of innocent people who
might be the next victims of murder. 
A second argument against the death penalty is discrimination. Eighty-two percent of all
murder victims are white and thirteen percent are
black. This is about a 6:1 ratio. Opponents of the death penalty, such as the NAACP,
argue that the system values white lives more than black
lives. If this is true, one has to wonder why whites represent fifty-five percent of
those executed and blacks thirty-nine percent,(22) when blacks
have committed forty-nine percent of all murders, and whites thirty-nine percent from
1976-1994.(23) Successful prosecutions depend on the
nature of the crime and not the race of the victim. The reason that whites are
overwhelmingly the victims in death row cases is that whites are
overwhelmingly the victims in capital crimes. In McClesky v. Zant, the court ruled that
the death penalty was not racist in its application. The
death penalty is not racist and does not violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause.

However, even if the death penalty were racist, the solution is to fix the discrimination
not to end the punishment. Ernest van den Haag wrote, 
'If and when discrimination occurs it should be corrected. Not, however, by letting the
guilty blacks escape the death penalty because guilty
whites do, but by making sure that the guilty white offenders suffer it as the guilty
blacks do. Discrimination must be abolished by abolishing
discrimination--not by abolishing penalties. However, even if this cannot be done, I do
not see any good reason to let any guilty murderer
escape his penalty. It does happen in the administration of criminal justice that one
person gets away with murder and another is executed. Yet
the fact that one gets away with it is no reason to let another one escape.'(24) 
One of the problems with the death penalty right now is that it is rarely used that it
often seems arbitrary. The proposal set forth later in this
paper makes the death penalty the standard punishment for murder and removes the
loopholes. This proposal would make a racist application
of the death penalty nearly impossible. If the death penalty were to be the standard
punishment for murder, and the rules deciding who received
the death penalty were tightened, the death penalty would apply equally to the people of
all races. 
On more moral grounds, opponents of the death penalty will contend that execution is the
same as murder. They will argue that using the death
penalty to stop murder is like fighting fire with fire, and that executing the criminal
makes the state no better than the murderer himself. A
number of analogies can be drawn to discredit this argument. If execution is murder, then
certainly killing someone in a war is murder. Thus, our
country should not fight in any more wars. At once, the reader realizes that this
proposition is ridiculous. Although wars are not good and
killing people is a tragedy, sometimes they are necessary to protect the rights of a
group of people. The death penalty is necessary to protect a
person's right to live. Is arresting someone for a crime the same as kidnapping someone?
Is confiscation of property to pay a debt the same as
theft?(25) In the same way, executing someone is not murder; it is punishment inflicted
by society on a deserving criminal. 
In order to understand what form capital punishment is in now, we will consider the
history and constitutionality of the death penalty. Since the
founding of our country, the death penalty has had its place in American society. In its
original form, death was the mandatory punishment for
a number of crimes, including murder. As time passed, a small minority of people began to
disagree with the death penalty. Although most
Americans still supported it, sometimes these people would end up on juries for capital
cases, and as a result, legislators began to notice that
juries were less likely to convict when the death penalty was the automatic punishment.
This development lead to a weakening and changing of
death penalty laws. Instead of mandatory death sentence, juries would decide what
sentence to give. In addition, many crimes that had been
punishable by death were taken off the list of capital crimes. Pretty soon, the death
penalty became an optional punishment for first degree
murder. 
In 1971, in McGautha v. California and Crampton v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that
states need not specify in statutes the factors to be
considered by the jury in issuing the death penalty. This case also held that while
bifurcated trials (trials with two stages) are preferred, they are
not required.(26) Ironically, only one year later this ruling was overturned. In 1972, in
Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled the death
penalty unconstitutional in the way that it was being implemented. The eighth and
fourteenth amendments were cited, especially regarding the
due process and equal protection clauses.(27) The death penalty was declared
unconstitutional because it was not being issued fairly or evenly.
The Supreme Court had ruled that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment in
the way that it was being carried out. In order to
reinstate the death penalty, the states had to have uniform standards and guidelines for
the jury to use in determining the death penalty. After
Furman v. Georgia, a few states set up mandatory death penalty statutes for certain
crimes. However, in Woodson v. North Carolina, these laws
were overturned. Florida, Georgia, Texas, and twenty-two other states wrote new laws
reinstating the death penalty with specific aggravating
and mitigating circumstances.(28) Aggravating circumstances were reasons why the
defendant should receive the death penalty. Mitigating
circumstances were reasons why the defendant should not receive the death penalty.
Lockett v. Ohio ruled that states may not limit the kinds of
mitigating circumstances that juries can consider.(29) 
The benefits of the death penalty will never be wholly realized unless it is carried out
in a regular, consistent manner. Thus, on the
consideration of these points, there are several problems with the death penalty as it is
presently being implemented. The first problem with the
death penalty is that second degree murder isn't being punished adequately. Second degree
murder is murder. It means that a criminal
unlawfully, intentionally killed another person without reason, excuse, or provocation.
Yet, right now, second degree murder is a crime
punishable by fifteen years in prison. If there are significant mitigating circumstances,
the murderer could be sentenced to even less time, not to
mention the fact that most criminals don't serve their full sentence anyway. A criminal
justice system that allows convicted murderers out of
prison after a few years does not stop repeat offenders and does not deter potential
murderers from committing the same crime. Murder is
classified into two degrees, yet it is essentially the same crime. The only difference
between first and second degree murder is that under first
degree murder, the prosecution must prove premeditation and deliberation. Murder for
first and second degree is unlawfully killing another
human being with malice. If a murderer intends to kill someone, then kills him, it is
hard for one to understand how premeditation and
deliberation makes the crime any worse. If a murderer did not premeditate and deliberate
on his murder, is the victim any less dead? Is the one
who murdered him any less guilty? 
A second problem is that first degree murder is hard to prove. Premeditation and
deliberation must be proven in order for a murder to be
classified as first degree murder. This may seem simple, but lets take a look at what the
prosecution has to prove in order to convict the
defendant of first degree murder. First of all, premeditation means that the act was
thought out beforehand for some length of time.
Deliberation means an intent to kill carried out in a cool state of blood, in furtherance
of a fixed design for revenge or to accomplish an
unlawful purpose and not under the influence of a violent passion, suddenly aroused by
lawful or just cause or legal provocation. Both
elements are hard to prove because they involve the mind of the criminal, they have
complex definitions, and they can usually only be proven
by circumstantial evidence. However, this is only the beginning of the complex legal maze
that prosecutors must get through to get a
conviction. Some other things prosecutors must consider in proving murder in the first
degree are that defendant's emotion must not have
disturbed his faculties or reason, whether or not the killing occurred during the course
of a quarrel or scuffle, previous hostile feelings and
prior assaults, nature and number of wounds, unseemly conduct toward and concealment of
the body, vicious and brutal slaying, whether or
not the defendant consumed alcohol beforehand, and many other limiting factors. Due to
the complicated process, a trial for first degree murder
lasts approximately six weeks. 
First degree murder trials are long and expensive and the appeals process is long and
expensive. According to the Attorney General's Office, a
capital case (a trial for first degree murder) usually takes about six weeks and
constitutes between 3,000 and 5,000 pages of court record.(30) The
trial itself is costly, but the court record has to be considered on every appeal made by
attorneys on both sides, as well as by the appeals court
and the judges involved. Because so many pages are involved, the appeals process takes
several times the length that an appeal for second
degree murder would. This is a major reason that murderers spend between 10 years on
death row before being executed. (31) (32) 
Under the Homicide Reform Act (see appendix A), first degree murder and second degree
murder will be considered the same
crime and will be punished by death or life imprisonment. Murder will be defined as
unlawful killing of a human being with
malice, express or implied.(33) In effect, this means that first and second degree murder
will be combined under the title of
murder and will have the standard legal definition of murder. 
Even with those convicted of first degree murder, the death penalty is not a common
occurrence. The reason is that right now
the death penalty statutes make life imprisonment the rule for first degree murder cases.
The death penalty is the exception to
the rule. The Capital Punishment Reform Act (written in appendix B) will make the death
penalty the standard punishment for
murder. The purpose of the Capital Punishment Reform Act is to reform the capital
punishments statutes to make the death
penalty the standard punishment for murder. Although life imprisonment shall be an option
for the jury to choose for anyone
convicted of murder, the grounds for life imprisonment are much more limited than before.
This bill asserts that murder deserves
the death penalty. Under this bill, if a person is convicted of murder, the jury must
show that there is one or more substantial
enough mitigating circumstances to call for the lesser sentence of life imprisonment.
Otherwise, the murderer would get a
sentence of death. 
Under our current death penalty statutes, life imprisonment is the standard punishment.
In order to give a sentence of death, the
jury has to prove that there are one or more sufficient aggravating circumstances that
the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt,
and that there were not any mitigating circumstances that outweighed the aggravating
circumstance. If the jury finds both of
these conditions to be true, it can issue the death penalty. The Capital Punishment
Reform Act reverses the trend. The death
penalty is the standard punishment. In order to give a sentence of life imprisonment, the
jury must prove that there are one or
more sufficient mitigating circumstances that the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt,
and that the aggravating circumstance is
insufficient to outweigh any mitigating circumstances. If the jury finds these conditions
to be true, it can issue a sentence of life
imprisonment rather than the death penalty. 
Under our current death penalty statues, all twelve jurors have to concur on the
punishment. If a single jury member disagrees
with the other eleven, the murderer is automatically issued a sentence of life
imprisonment. We live in a world of many different
ideologies, thoughts, and philosophies. If one person out of a group of twelve can stop
the death penalty from happening, the
death penalty will never be the standard punishment for murder. Under Section (b), my
bill provides that only nine of the twelve
jurors must issue the punishment.(34) If nine jurors (three-fourths) agree that the
person deserves to die, he deserves to die. In
addition, if nine of the jurors cannot agree on a sentence, the judge shall decide the
sentence as he deems fit. However, in most
cases nine of the twelve jurors would be able to come to a decision themselves. 
Under the current death penalty statutes, a sentence of death is subject to automatic
review by the state Supreme Court, while
a sentence of life imprisonment is not subject to automatic review. When the Supreme
Court reviews the case, it must consider
whether or not the death penalty was too harsh in addition to any other areas assigned to
it on appeal. This is yet another law
that hinders the death penalty. The jury has already decided that the aggravating
circumstance has outweighed any mitigating
circumstances. The only thing the Supreme Court should be doing is checking to see if any
mistakes or errors have been made
in trying the case. It is not necessary to automatically review the sentence of death.
The defendant should have the right to
appeal and the Supreme Court should review the matters assigned to it on appeal. Under
the Capital Punishment Reform Act,
the defendant has the right to appeal to the state Supreme Court, and the state Supreme
Court shall review any matters
assigned to it on appeal. 
Under the current death penalty statutes, there is a limited number of aggravating
circumstances that must be considered in
order to give a sentence of death. The jury has to show that at least one of them is true
in order to issue a sentence of death.
This fact, in and of itself, makes life imprisonment the standard punishment. If the
death penalty is to be the standard punishment
for first degree murder, than murdering should be the only aggravating circumstance
necessary. Under the Capital Punishment
Reform Act, murdering another human being is the aggravating circumstance. Thus, there
will always be an aggravating
circumstance because everyone convicted of murder has murdered another human being. All
of the other aggravating
circumstances are not needed and are taken out. 
Under the current death penalty statutes, mitigating circumstances are numerous and
wide-ranging. In addition, Any other
circumstances arising from the evidence which the jury deems to have mitigating value, is
itself a mitigating circumstance. If the
death penalty is to be the standard punishment for first degree murder, the range of
mitigating circumstances must be limited.
Many of the mitigating circumstances are removed. (1) The defendant has no significant
history of prior criminal activity. What
this says is that it is okay to murder someone in the first degree if you have not done
anything wrong in the past. This ruins the
whole deterrence effect of the death penalty. It has to be removed. 
(2), (3), and (4) are kept for obvious reasons. (5) Premeditated murder is wrong and
needs to be punished whether or not
someone else pressured you do it. Someone pressured to murder will have greater reason
not to murder if the death penalty is
the standard sentence. (5) has to be removed. (6) If the mitigating circumstance in
number 6 is really true and substantial
enough to be taken into consideration, it will already be covered by (2). (6) has to be
removed because it opens a lot of
loopholes. (7) Age is important! Keep in mind
Bibliography
Whenever the word death penalty comes up, extremists from both sides start yelling out
their arguments. One side says
deterrence, the other side says there's a potential of executing an innocent man; one
says justice, retribution, and punishment;
the other side says execution is murder. However, all the arguments aside, the best way
and the only way to truly make a
rational. Decision about capital punishment is to examine the purpose of our criminal
justice system. Once the purpose of the
criminal justice system is established, one must find out the purpose of capital
punishment. This paper will show that the
purpose of capital punishment is consistent with and embodies the purpose of the criminal
justice system. Then, this paper will
determine whether or not the present form of the death penalty is fulfilling its purpose,
and what could be changed to make the
death penalty more efficient and effective. 
The first question that must be faced is, What is the purpose of the criminal justice
system and does the death penalty help to
fulfill that purpose? In The Law, Federic Bastiat says that humans have inalienable
rights that existed outside of and before
government. These rights are life, liberty, and property. He contends that the only
legitimate purpose of government is to
protect these rights. When one person inflicts on another's rights or takes advantage of
another person, he is plundering. Bastiat
asks, 
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous
than labor. It is evident, then that
the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal
tendency to plunder instead of work. All
the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.(1) 
People will plunder, take advantage of others, and commit crimes as long as it is in
their best interest to do so. The purpose our entire criminal
justice system is to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property for all its
citizens. To do this, the criminal justice system needs to make
plunder more painful and more dangerous than labor. In other words, the punishment for
crime must be harsh enough to deter potential
criminals. Under this mindset, the death penalty makes perfect sense. Here is a
punishment that truly makes the criminal pay for his crime, stops
the criminal from committing future crimes, and deters other criminals from committing
the same crime. The purpose of the death penalty is to
protect the right of Americans to live. 
If the purpose of the death penalty is to protect the lives of Americans, then the people
that it is supposed to protect should be the focal point.
In considering the death penalty and its merits and faults one cannot lose sight of the
victims. These corpses are the people who have been, are
being, and will be killed because our justice system is not working perfectly. In
considering the death penalty these innocent individuals must
never be forgotten. Millions of innocent men and women have already been slain, and
thousands are killed every year. According to Time, in
the United States more than 2,000,000 people are beaten, knifed, shot or otherwise
assaulted each year, 23,000 fatally.(2) In any discussion of the
death penalty, one must remember that there are two sets of lives to be considered. Far
too much emphasis is usually placed on the convicted
murderer who is being executed, and the victim who has been killed is all but forgotten.
Joseph Stalin once stated, One death is a tragedy, but
a million deaths are statistics.(3) 
Once a murderer is caught and convicted, justice seems to demand that he at least be
prevented from murdering someone else. After all, if the
law is set up to protect our right to live, it seems as though it should be able to keep
convicted murderers from murdering again. Amazingly, our
criminal justice system is not even achieving this goal. The average prison sentence for
murder is less than six years.(4) Six percent of the young
adults paroled since 1978 who were convicted of murder were arrested for murder again
within six years of their release.(5) This means that six
percent of all murderers were caught, convicted, sent to prison, released, and they
murdered again. At least six percent of all murders could
have been prevented had the murderer been executed the first time around. In North
Carolina in 1995, 750 people were murdered.(6) By stopping
repeat murderers at least forty-five lives could have been saved in 1995 in North
Carolina alone. Every year, approximately the same number of
people would not die if an effective form of the death penalty were in place. One example
of the benefit of the death penalty is what happened in
India in the 1800s. When Great Britain was beginning to colonize India, there was a
religion known as the Thuggee religion. These Thuggees
were probably the most violent, dangerous, and brutal gang of thieves ever. They killed
literally thousands of people (mostly foreigners) and
stole their money. In fact, one of the requirements of this cult was that each member had
to murder at least one person every year. The British
jumped to action to curb the problem by speedy arrests and executions. Thousands of
Thuggees were executed. After a few years, the leader of
the Thugees was captured and executed. During his trial, it was found that he had
murdered 931 people. In 1883, the British had completely
solved the problem by executing the last known Thuggee.(7) Often opponents will argue
that some criminals are so deranged, so fearless, so
assured that they will not be caught that they will murder no matter what the penalty is.
If this was true of anyone, it was true of the Thuggees.
Yet, the fact is often ignored that the death penalty can have a tremendous effect simply
by eliminating those hideous murderers who will
murder no matter what the penalty is. No one can count the number of lives that were
saved after all the Thuggees were executed. Opponents of
the death penalty sometimes contend that repeat murderers are rare. Yet, if six percent
of all murders can be stopped, and forty-five lives can be
saved every year just in North Carolina alone, who wants to be responsible for the
forty-five unnecessary deaths that occur each year because
our government does not take care of the murderers the first time around. 
The death penalty can save lives by stopping repeat murderers, but does it deter murder?
Opponents of the death penalty argue that there is no
deterrent effect. However, there are a number of studies that indicate that the contrary
is true. A study by W. Bailey of the period from 1967-68
showed a deterrent effect in twenty-seven states.(8) A later study by him showed a
deterrent effect in twenty-five states.(9) During the
moratorium on Capital punishment in the United States, murder increased by one hundred
percent.(10) A review of the fourteen nations who
abolished the death penalty showed that the murder rate increased by seven percent from
the five year pre-abolition period to the five year
post-abolition period.(11) Since 1990, Harris County, a single county in Texas has had
more executions than any other state in the United States.
During the period between 1990 and 1995, Harris County has had a forty-eight percent drop
in crime, the greatest decrease in the United States.
In Harris County, the highest homicide rate was in 1981, one year before the death
penalty was reinstated in Texas.(12) All of these studies
indicate that implementation of the death penalty correlates with a drop in the homicide
rate. A study by Stephen K. Layton at University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill showed that each execution deters an average of eighteen
murders.(13) By increasing the use of the death penalty,
thousands of lives could be saved. In Utah, there have been five executions since 1977.
During the year following each execution, there was a
significant drop-off in the homicide rate.(14) Criminologist Steven Stack recently found
that after a widely publicized execution, there was a drop
in the homicide rate. He found this drop to be more significant with whites than with
blacks.(15) Hyam Barshay, a poet, said, The death
penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing beams out to sea. We hear about
shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the
lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it
saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down.(16) 
Although the death penalty is a deterrent, it is not nearly as strong a deterrent as it
would be were it implemented more often. The deterrence
theory states that in order for a crime to be deterred, justice must be swift, severe,
and certain. With numerous appeals, the death penalty is not
swift. In fact, the average amount of time spent on death row before being executed is
ten years.(17) In addition, between 1977 and the present,
the execution rate per murder is .055 percent.(18) In other words for every 1800 murders,
only one person is executed. Thus, the death penalty is
not certain either. In fact, most murderers can rest assured that more than likely they
will not be put to death. The death penalty is severe. If it
were altered so that it became swift and certain, there would be a significant drop-off
in the homicide rate. People have a natural fear of death. It
is a common trait of man that we think about the consequences before we act. If not
consciously, we still think about them subconsciously.
Imagine for a minute what the world would be like if every time a murderer killed
someone, he died instantaneously. More than likely, there
would be an extremely low homicide rate. Of course, it is impossible to make that a
reality, but our government can make justice much more
swift, severe, and certain than it already is if we simply increase the use of capital
punishment and change the laws so that it is faster and has a
shorter appeals process. The death penalty is important because the lives of thousands of
potential victims who are at stake. 
Given the benefits of capital punishment, it is hard to imagine why anyone would be
against it, but there are several arguments against the
death sentence that need to be addressed. Opponents of the death penalty point out that
there is a possibility of wrongly executing an
innocent man. Of course, there is a possibility of wrongly sending an innocent man to
prison, or wrongly fining an innocent man, but they
contend that because of the finality and severity of the death penalty, the consequences
of wrongly executing an innocent person are much
more wrong. There has never been any proof of an innocent man being executed, although
there are some studies that show in a few cases,
there is a possibility that someone was wrongly executed.(19) One of the most often
quoted studies of innocent men being executed is the
Bedau-Radlet Study. It is the most comprehensive study ever done in this area and has
found twenty-two cases where the defendant may have
been wrongly executed. This study is very controversial and many studies such as Markman
and Cassal, found the study's methodology so
flawed that in at least twelve of those cases there was substantial evidence of guilt and
no evidence of innocence. In the other eleven cases, the
Bedau-Radlet study placed almost no weight on the jury's verdict, and the evidence
available only proved that the case was questionable, not
that the defendant was actually innocent.(20) Another point to be made is that our
judicial system takes many precautions to ensure that the
rights of the innocent are protected. In order to understand this, one must look at the
complex process required to convict someone of first
degree murder and get him sentenced to death. First a person is arrested and given an
attorney. Evidence must be presented proving beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant committed first degree murder. The defendant must
have been in a clear state of mind. After a five to six
week trial, the defendant goes on to a second trial to decide whether or not he deserves
the death penalty. Again, a full trial is held. Defense
presents evidence on why this murderer does not deserve to die. After this occurs and the
murderer is sentenced to die, his case is
automatically appealed to the state Supreme Court. After that, he may file a number of
different appeals. Finally, about ten years later, after
every legal attempt and delay tactic has been exhausted, the murderer is executed. As
should be evident from this complex process, every
reasonable precaution is taken to ensure that no innocent man is executed. 
Although it is very unlikely that an innocent person would be executed, the question
arises about whether the execution of an innocent man is
a strong enough argument to abolish the death penalty. Before deciding, one must remember
the lives that the death penalty saves. Repeat
murderers are eliminated, and potential murderers are deterred. As mentioned earlier, one
must consider the victims as well as the defendant. Is
it worth it to lose forty-five innocent lives so that no innocent person is executed.
Wesley Lowe states the matter well when he says, 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.(21) We risk dying in automobile accidents for the
convenience of using a car. This practice is considered
acceptable. Risking the possibility that someone might be wrongly executed is worth it to
save the lives of thousands of innocent people who
might be the next victims of murder. 
A second argument against the death penalty is discrimination. Eighty-two percent of all
murder victims are white and thirteen percent are
black. This is about a 6:1 ratio. Opponents of the death penalty, such as the NAACP,
argue that the system values white lives more than black
lives. If this is true, one has to wonder why whites represent fifty-five percent of
those executed and blacks thirty-nine percent,(22) when blacks
have committed forty-nine percent of all murders, and whites thirty-nine percent from
1976-1994.(23) Successful prosecutions depend on the
nature of the crime and not the race of the victim. The reason that whites are
overwhelmingly the victims in death row cases is that whites are
overwhelmingly the victims in capital crimes. In McClesky v. Zant, the court ruled that
the death penalty was not racist in its application. The
death penalty is not racist and does not violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause.

However, even if the death penalty were racist, the solution is to fix the discrimination
not to end the punishment. Ernest van den Haag wrote, 
'If and when discrimination occurs it should be corrected. Not, however, by letting the
guilty blacks escape the death penalty because guilty
whites do, but by making sure that the guilty white offenders suffer it as the guilty
blacks do. Discrimination must be abolished by abolishing
discrimination--not by abolishing penalties. However, even if this cannot be done, I do
not see any good reason to let any guilty murderer
escape his penalty. It does happen in the administration of criminal justice that one
person gets away with murder and another is executed. Yet
the fact that one gets away with it is no reason to let another one escape.'(24) 
One of the problems with the death penalty right now is that it is rarely used that it
often seems arbitrary. The proposal set forth later in this
paper makes the death penalty the standard punishment for murder and removes the
loopholes. This proposal would make a racist application
of the death penalty nearly impossible. If the death penalty were to be the standard
punishment for murder, and the rules deciding who received
the death penalty were tightened, the death penalty would apply equally to the people of
all races. 
On more moral grounds, opponents of the death penalty will contend that execution is the
same as murder. They will argue that using the death
penalty to stop murder is like fighting fire with fire, and that executing the criminal
makes the state no better than the murderer himself. A
number of analogies can be drawn to discredit this argument. If execution is murder, then
certainly killing someone in a war is murder. Thus, our
country should not fight in any more wars. At once, the reader realizes that this
proposition is ridiculous. Although wars are not good and
killing people is a tragedy, sometimes they are necessary to protect the rights of a
group of people. The death penalty is necessary to protect a
person's right to live. Is arresting someone for a crime the same as kidnapping someone?
Is confiscation of property to pay a debt the same as
theft?(25) In the same way, executing someone is not murder; it is punishment inflicted
by society on a deserving criminal. 
In order to understand what form capital punishment is in now, we will consider the
history and constitutionality of the death penalty. Since the
founding of our country, the death penalty has had its place in American society. In its
original form, death was the mandatory punishment for
a number of crimes, including murder. As time passed, a small minority of people began to
disagree with the death penalty. Although most
Americans still supported it, sometimes these people would end up on juries for capital
cases, and as a result, legislators began to notice that
juries were less likely to convict when the death penalty was the automatic punishment.
This development lead to a weakening and changing of
death penalty laws. Instead of mandatory death sentence, juries would decide what
sentence to give. In addition, many crimes that had been
punishable by death were taken off the list of capital crimes. Pretty soon, the death
penalty became an optional punishment for first degree
murder. 
In 1971, in McGautha v. California and Crampton v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that
states need not specify in statutes the factors to be
considered by the jury in issuing the death penalty. This case also held that while
bifurcated trials (trials with two stages) are preferred, they are
not required.(26) Ironically, only one year later this ruling was overturned. In 1972, in
Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled the death
penalty unconstitutional in the way that it was being implemented. The eighth and
fourteenth amendments were cited, especially regarding the
due process and equal protection clauses.(27) The death penalty was declared
unconstitutional because it was not being issued fairly or evenly.
The Supreme Court had ruled that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment in
the way that it was being carried out. In order to
reinstate the death penalty, the states had to have uniform standards and guidelines for
the jury to use in determining the death penalty. After
Furman v. Georgia, a few states set up mandatory death penalty statutes for certain
crimes. However, in Woodson v. North Carolina, these laws
were overturned. Florida, Georgia, Texas, and twenty-two other states wrote new laws
reinstating the death penalty with specific aggravating
and mitigating circumstances.(28) Aggravating circumstances were reasons why the
defendant should receive the death penalty. Mitigating
circumstances were reasons why the defendant should not receive the death penalty.
Lockett v. Ohio ruled that states may not limit the kinds of
mitigating circumstances that juries can consider.(29) 
The benefits of the death penalty will never be wholly realized unless it is carried out
in a regular, consistent manner. Thus, on the
consideration of these points, there are several problems with the death penalty as it is
presently being implemented. The first problem with the
death penalty is that second degree murder isn't being punished adequately. Second degree
murder is murder. It means that a criminal
unlawfully, intentionally killed another person without reason, excuse, or provocation.
Yet, right now, second degree murder is a crime
punishable by fifteen years in prison. If there are significant mitigating circumstances,
the murderer could be sentenced to even less time, not to
mention the fact that most criminals don't serve their full sentence anyway. A criminal
justice system that allows convicted murderers out of
prison after a few years does not stop repeat offenders and does not deter potential
murderers from committing the same crime. Murder is
classified into two degrees, yet it is essentially the same crime. The only difference
between first and second degree murder is that under first
degree murder, the prosecution must prove premeditation and deliberation. Murder for
first and second degree is unlawfully killing another
human being with malice. If a murderer intends to kill someone, then kills him, it is
hard for one to understand how premeditation and
deliberation makes the crime any worse. If a murderer did not premeditate and deliberate
on his murder, is the victim any less dead? Is the one
who murdered him any less guilty? 
A second problem is that first degree murder is hard to prove. Premeditation and
deliberation must be proven in order for a murder to be
classified as first degree murder. This may seem simple, but lets take a look at what the
prosecution has to prove in order to convict the
defendant of first degree murder. First of all, premeditation means that the act was
thought out beforehand for some length of time.
Deliberation means an intent to kill carried out in a cool state of blood, in furtherance
of a fixed design for revenge or to accomplish an
unlawful purpose and not under the influence of a violent passion, suddenly aroused by
lawful or just cause or legal provocation. Both
elements are hard to prove because they involve the mind of the criminal, they have
complex definitions, and they can usually only be proven
by circumstantial evidence. However, this is only the beginning of the complex legal maze
that prosecutors must get through to get a
conviction. Some other things prosecutors must consider in proving murder in the first
degree are that defendant's emotion must not have
disturbed his faculties or reason, whether or not the killing occurred during the course
of a quarrel or scuffle, previous hostile feelings and
prior assaults, nature and number of wounds, unseemly conduct toward and concealment of
the body, vicious and brutal slaying, whether or
not the defendant consumed alcohol beforehand, and many other limiting factors. Due to
the complicated process, a trial for first degree murder
lasts approximately six weeks. 
First degree murder trials are long and expensive and the appeals process is long and
expensive. According to the Attorney General's Office, a
capital case (a trial for first degree murder) usually takes about six weeks and
constitutes between 3,000 and 5,000 pages of court record.(30) The
trial itself is costly, but the court record has to be considered on every appeal made by
attorneys on both sides, as well as by the appeals court
and the judges involved. Because so many pages are involved, the appeals process takes
several times the length that an appeal for second
degree murder would. This is a major reason that murderers spend between 10 years on
death row before being executed. (31) (32) 
Under the Homicide Reform Act (see appendix A), first degree murder and second degree
murder will be considered the same
crime and will be punished by death or life imprisonment. Murder will be defined as
unlawful killing of a human being with
malice, express or implied.(33) In effect, this means that first and second degree murder
will be combined under the title of
murder and will have the standard legal definition of murder. 
Even with those convicted of first degree murder, the death penalty is not a common
occurrence. The reason is that right now
the death penalty statutes make life imprisonment the rule for first degree murder cases.
The death penalty is the exception to
the rule. The Capital Punishment Reform Act (written in appendix B) will make the death
penalty the standard punishment for
murder. The purpose of the Capital Punishment Reform Act is to reform the capital
punishments statutes to make the death
penalty the standard punishment for murder. Although life imprisonment shall be an option
for the jury to choose for anyone
convicted of murder, the grounds for life imprisonment are much more limited than before.
This bill asserts that murder deserves
the death penalty. Under this bill, if a person is convicted of murder, the jury must
show that there is one or more substantial
enough mitigating circumstances to call for the lesser sentence of life imprisonment.
Otherwise, the murderer would get a
sentence of death. 
Under our current death penalty statutes, life imprisonment is the standard punishment.
In order to give a sentence of death, the
jury has to prove that there are one or more sufficient aggravating circumstances that
the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt,
and that there were not any mitigating circumstances that outweighed the aggravating
circumstance. If the jury finds both of
these conditions to be true, it can issue the death penalty. The Capital Punishment
Reform Act reverses the trend. The death
penalty is the standard punishment. In order to give a sentence of life imprisonment, the
jury must prove that there are one or
more sufficient mitigating circumstances that the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt,
and that the aggravating circumstance is
insufficient to outweigh any mitigating circumstances. If the jury finds these conditions
to be true, it can issue a sentence of life
imprisonment rather than the death penalty. 
Under our current death penalty statues, all twelve jurors have to concur on the
punishment. If a single jury member disagrees
with the other eleven, the murderer is automatically issued a sentence of life
imprisonment. We live in a world of many different
ideologies, thoughts, and philosophies. If one person out of a group of twelve can stop
the death penalty from happening, the
death penalty will never be the standard punishment for murder. Under Section (b), my
bill provides that only nine of the twelve
jurors must issue the punishment.(34) If nine jurors (three-fourths) agree that the
person deserves to die, he deserves to die. In
addition, if nine of the jurors cannot agree on a sentence, the judge shall decide the
sentence as he deems fit. However, in most
cases nine of the twelve jurors would be able to come to a decision themselves. 
Under the current death penalty statutes, a sentence of death is subject to automatic
review by the state Supreme Court, while
a sentence of life imprisonment is not subject to automatic review. When the Supreme
Court reviews the case, it must consider
whether or not the death penalty was too harsh in addition to any other areas assigned to
it on appeal. This is yet another law
that hinders the death penalty. The jury has already decided that the aggravating
circumstance has outweighed any mitigating
circumstances. The only thing the Supreme Court should be doing is checking to see if any
mistakes or errors have been made
in trying the case. It is not necessary to automatically review the sentence of death.
The defendant should have the right to
appeal and the Supreme Court should review the matters assigned to it on appeal. Under
the Capital Punishment Reform Act,
the defendant has the right to appeal to the state Supreme Court, and the state Supreme
Court shall review any matters
assigned to it on appeal. 
Under the current death penalty statutes, there is a limited number of aggravating
circumstances that must be considered in
order to give a sentence of death. The jury has to show that at least one of them is true
in order to issue a sentence of death.
This fact, in and of itself, makes life imprisonment the standard punishment. If the
death penalty is to be the standard punishment
for first degree murder, than murdering should be the only aggravating circumstance
necessary. Under the Capital Punishment
Reform Act, murdering another human being is the aggravating circumstance. Thus, there
will always be an aggravating
circumstance because everyone convicted of murder has murdered another human being. All
of the other aggravating
circumstances are not needed and are taken out. 
Under the current death penalty statutes, mitigating circumstances are numerous and
wide-ranging. In addition, Any other
circumstances arising from the evidence which the jury deems to have mitigating value, is
itself a mitigating circumstance. If the
death penalty is to be the standard punishment for first degree murder, the range of
mitigating circumstances must be limited.
Many of the mitigating circumstances are removed. (1) The defendant has no significant
history of prior criminal activity. What
this says is that it is okay to murder someone in the first degree if you have not done
anything wrong in the past. This ruins the
whole deterrence effect of the death penalty. It has to be removed. 
(2), (3), and (4) are kept for obvious reasons. (5) Premeditated murder is wrong and
needs to be punished whether or not
someone else pressured you do it. Someone pressured to murder will have greater reason
not to murder if the death penalty is
the standard sentence. (5) has to be removed. (6) If the mitigating circumstance in
number 6 is really true and substantial
enough to be taken into consideration, it will already be covered by (2). (6) has to be
removed because it opens a lot of
loopholes. (7) Age is important! Keep in mind