Capital punishment in the United States has been an enduring topic of controversy for decades, as its opponents present practical and ethical concerns while supporters justify the punishment’s necessity in deterrence, retribution, etc. According to the book Capital Punishment: The Revised Edition written by H. Henderson, the death penalty’s 1972 case of Furman vs. Georgia led to a Supreme Court moratorium on executions, until restoration in 1976. Since then it has been in decline, both in public opinion as recent polls show that support for the death penalty is the lowest since its 1976 reinstatement, and in practice as geographical disparities, racial bias, and other issues have become apparent. Despite this, Gallup (2016) showed a 60% majority of public support for the death penalty, and so the debate over its abolishment continues. With a change in context under the new Trump administration, and a vacancy on the Supreme Court about to be filled, this gradual decline in capital punishment may be officiated by abolishment or countered by reinforcement. The situation at hand thus demands the need to address the direction of where the death penalty is heading – whether it should be abolished, reformed, or kept – and other factors such as who may instigate legal action, on what grounds, and possible consequences. Given these findings upon which this report will elaborate, the death penalty cannot be continued within the United States and its abolition is necessary and inevitable.
Credits: Maryland Govpics via Flickr
Furthermore, it is countered that while 60% of support for the death penalty may be comparatively low, it remains the majority of people. Although this is true, alone it cannot justify the need to retain the death penalty. Decreasing crime rates, public dissent, and inherent flaws suggest that the punishment is now unneeded and irrevocably problematic. Protests of human rights violations against the unfair punishment present ethical concerns that will not waver until it is abolished. Practical concerns raising the question of whether the death penalty can be maintained indefinitely suggest not – Today millions of dollars are spent in complicated legal processes, and administration still presents errors and prejudice.
The new Supreme Court and the Trump administration also play a crucial role in determining the fate of the death penalty. The vacancy after Justice Scalia’s passing may push the current 4-4 liberal-conservative balance further towards the left or right, which could impact an ultimate decision. According to Richard Wolf of the well- known newspaper USA Today, Trump’s nominee is likely to be pro-death penalty, and implies that this would seal the presence of the death penalty for generations. However, the controversy continues: Justice Breyer and Justice Ginsburg are particularly known for propelling an anti-death penalty sentiment within the Court, as they propose it is “cruel and unusual punishment” and is applied unevenly. Though a new arrival on the bench may entail a swing towards the right, those against the death penalty have been criticizing for decades and will not easily subside in protest.
What is going to happen if it is abolished nationwide or if it’s not?
The death penalty’s abolition would ensure a better allocation of its costs and likely more frequent resort to life without parole sentences. Executive director Richard Dieter of the widely referenced Death Penalty Information Center asserts that only 2% of states in the U.S. accounted for 52% of executions and 2% counties made up 56% of the death row population, a pattern of disparity that applies over time. Only a minority administers the punishment, yet the majority of American taxpayers still have to share the cost, which can total up to 20 million dollars per execution. This is unfair and inefficient. If the death penalty were abolished, this disproportionate distribution of capital could be instead focused on education and job salaries.
Should it be abolished, reformed, or kept the same?
The continuous and irreparable issues of the death penalty, in the context of potential consequences of abolition (or lack of), demonstrate that ultimately the United States should not continue capital punishment. While the decline of the death penalty is recently evident, the public still retains majority support and the prospects of civilian opponents of the penalty triumphing, while possible, will not be the proponent behind a once-and-for-all termination. The ultimate decision must be by the Supreme Court, similar to previous cases of statutes regarding juveniles and the intellectual disabled, but in a less progressive fashion and more final like the 1972 moratorium. Furthermore, geographical disparities propose the need for a nationwide legislation to abolish the death penalty equally, as current uneven distribution will remain unsolved otherwise. This will be done on the grounds of practical concerns, and that currently non-death penalty states are faring well, if not better.
The death penalty examined thus far call for the immediate and entire abolishment of the punishment, to expedite its inevitable decline.
