Wake Technical Community College

The Injustice of Capital Punishment

Catherine Brawner

HUM.115.1201 Critical Thinking

Dr. Jean-Pierre Kamuabo

18 July 2021
 Brawner 1

Catherine Brawner

Professor Kamuabo

HUM.115.1201

18 July 2021

The Injustice of Capital Punishment

1. Introduction

Following the rushed execution of 13 death-row inmates in the final months of the Trump

administration, the nation has cried out for action to withhold one of our most fundamental

constitutional principles: the right to live. As an increasingly progressive society, the recent

focus on replacing outdated traditions has urged us to reevaluate the role that the judicial system

plays in the pursuit of human rights. The systematic racism present in due process, inherent

failures in sentencing, and immense financial drain of death cases all expand the case that the

abolishment of capital punishment is long overdue.

2. Body

To quote the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the

right to life, liberty, and security of person.” Despite committing moral and legal transgressions,

prisoners are entitled to retain these fundamental rights (except for those necessitated by

incarceration).1 To maintain the benefits of a civilized society, crime necessitates a proportionate

consequence. How do we choose the consequence to best serve society while upholding the

value of a human life?

Philosophers and policymakers alike debate the moral soundness of a retributive judicial

system. Capital punishment, or ceremonial execution, may appeal to the baser human instincts of
 Brawner 2

retribution but is a vast departure from morality. What could we hope to achieve, but setting the

example to our citizens that state-sanctioned death is our solution to societal wrongdoings? What

greater good do we serve when killing a convict that couldn’t be achieved through rehabilitative

incarceration? An eye for an eye makes the world go blind, and capital punishment is merely

retribution incarnate.

Even the most committed proponent for capital punishment would recognize that our

judicial system is flawed. DNA testing alone has exonerated eighteen death-row inmates who

had served a cumulative sentence of 229 years in prison – time for crimes that they did not

commit.2 Technological advancements such as this have vastly improved the efficacy of due

process, but statistics prove that we have a long way to go to achieve a fair court system.

The American Bar Association recognizes that racism in our criminal justice system

“starts before the first contact and continues through pleas, conviction, incarceration, release, and

beyond.”3 It is widely known that racial discrimination has a staggering impact on the inequality

of due process. Evidence proves that minorities are at a great disadvantage in the law, whether it

be the result of racial profiling, disproportionality in sentencing, or unequal treatment in

incarceration.4

The inequality of our legal system extends beyond the realm of race; while everyone is

entitled to an attorney, access to justice often depends on the defendant’s ability to pay.

Economically disadvantaged people are often represented by court-appointed attorneys who lack

the skill, commitment, and resources to adequately defend them. A Yale law journal5 points out

the fact that it is not the facts of the crime that determine the sentence, but rather the quality of

the representation for the defendant.

 Brawner 3

In Furman vs. Georgia (1972), the Supreme Court investigated whether the death penalty

was a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment and found it to

be unconstitutional “when applied in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner.”6 If it is blatantly

evident that our courts are not exempt from error and continually discriminate against minorities

and the poor, how can we justify the most severe form of punishment – taking someone’s life?

Morality aside, the financial drain attributed to capital punishment alone makes it an

egregious misappropriation of our country’s resources. The average cost of a federal death case

is $620,932, about eight times higher than those where the death penalty is not sought.7 If the

costs of the death penalty were to be substituted with maximum lifetime incarceration, California

alone estimates an annual savings of $125,500,000.8 Given that the majority of crime originates

from communities at a socioeconomic disadvantage, would it not be helpful to reallocate this

spending to help those most affected? Providing relief for victims, improving education, and

supplementing outreach programs would undoubtedly serve our people more than murdering the

murderers could.

Arguably the most cited support for the death sentence is the notion that the threat of

execution serves as a deterrent for criminal behavior. Understanding the role capital punishment

plays in disincentivizing crime requires us to consider its likelihood – how often capital crimes

resulted in the death sentence. For example, in 2020 there were 19,141 homicides and 17

executions, with more than half of sentenced inmates spending over 20 years on death row.9 As

stated by the American Civil Liberties Union, “a punishment can be an effective deterrent only if

it is consistently and promptly employed. Capital punishment cannot be administered to meet

these conditions.”10 The fact that the murder rate is invariably higher in states with the death

penalty than those without11 suggests its inefficacy as a deterrent.

 Brawner 4

The most effective method to deter crime lies not in the severity of the punishment, but

rather the certainty of getting caught. If the death penalty were abolished, its funding could be

allocated to preventative methods with proven success. Raising community standards, outreach

programs, and effective policing strategies would be immeasurably more effective methods of

crime deterrent than execution.

3. Conclusion

It is the nature of humanity to evolve, and our responsibility to recognize when change is

needed. Now, more than ever, our society recognizes that life and the pursuit of equality are core

American values that should be upheld to the highest degree. Capital punishment, an antiquated

tradition, is in stark contrast to these ideals. Despite rigorous reform and good intent, millions of

taxpayer dollars are spent on proceedings that are victimized by systematic racism and wealth

inequality. A society that respects life simply cannot justify using a biased and inefficient legal

system to deliberately kill human beings.

 Brawner 5

Works Cited

1. United Nations. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, United Nations

General Assembly, 10 Dec. 1948, www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-

human-rights.

2. Maule, Alicia. “The Innocent and the Death Penalty.” Innocence Project, 25 Apr. 2016,

www.innocenceproject.org/the-innocent-and-the-death-penalty.

3. Inman, Shasta. “Racial Disparities in Criminal Justice.” American Bar Association,

www.americanbar.org/groups/young_lawyers/publications/after-the-bar/public-

service/racial-disparities-criminal-justice-how-lawyers-can-help.

4. Schrantz, Dennis, and Jerry McElroy. “Reducing Racial Disparity in the Criminal Justice

System: A Manual for Practitioners and Policymakers | Office of Justice Programs.” U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2000, www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-

library/abstracts/reducing-racial-disparity-criminal-justice-system-manual.

5. Bright, Stephen. “Stephen B. Bright, ‘Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence Not for the

Worst Lawyer but for the Worst Lawyer’ 103 Yale Law Journal 1835.” University of

Minnesota, Yale Law Journal Company, Inc., May 1994,

www.users.soc.umn.edu/%7Esamaha/cases/bright_counsel_poor.html.

6. Wex Definitions Team. “Furman v. Georgia (1972).” LII / Legal Information Institute, Cornell

Law School, May 2020, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/furman_v_georgia_(1972).

7. Death Penalty Information Center. “NEW RESOURCES: Representation and Costs in Federal

Death Penalty Cases.” Death Penalty Information Center, 6 June 2019,

 Brawner 6

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/new-resources-representation-and-costs-in-federal-

death-penalty-cases.

8. Amnesty International USA. “Death Penalty Cost –.” Amnesty International USA, 18 May

2017, www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost.

9. “Time on Death Row.” Death Penalty Information Center, 22 June 2021,

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row/death-row-time-on-death-row.

10. Bedau, Hugo. “The Case Against the Death Penalty.” American Civil Liberties Union, 2012,

www.aclu.org/other/case-against-death-

penalty#:%7E:text=A%20punishment%20can%20be%20an,administered%20to%20meet

%20these%20conditions.&text=Of%20all%20those%20convicted%20on,are%20eventua

lly%20sentenced%20to%20death.

11. Center, Death Penalty Information. “Murder Rate of Death Penalty States Compared to Non-

Death Penalty States.” Death Penalty Information Center, 9 Oct. 2019,

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-

states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states.