The Death Penalty: Take it Off the Table

An Essay Analyzing the Efficacy of a Racially Biased and

Constitutionally Questionable American Law
Final Paper for SOC310
By Jacob Fuerst
3/15/14

1|Page

The Death Penalty:

Abolishing an Ineffective, Prejudiced and Unconstitutional Law

SOC310 Final Paper

By Jacob Fuerst

The Death Penalty Introduction

The death penalty, or capital punishment, has long been thought to deter crime. The
United States criminal justice system has used this reasoning to uphold the legal use of capital
punishment. However, numerous sources and scholars in recent years have uncovered data
that shows otherwise. Not only have a variety of citizens and intellectuals attested to the fact
that the death penalty does deter people or criminals from future crime, but statistics show that
the death penalty is applied to American citizens unequally. In fact, persons charged with the
same violent crime will face the death penalty disproportionality depending on their race, the
race of the victim, and the racial makeup of the jury. In this way, capital punishment is
prejudiced against minorities and favors white victims in cases with black offenders. Moreover,
African Americans make up most of death row despite being a minority in the United States.
This racial bias makes the death penalty incredibly prejudiced and unfair. Likewise, the
application of the death penalty is so infrequent that it calls to mind the constitutional
requirement that no law should be cruel or unusual. For instance, statistics show that an violent
offender has roughly a .05% chance of facing capital punishment, demonstrating the unusual
nature of the punishment itself. The methods used in legal executions in the United States are
not nearly as painless as many people would like to believe as well. Mental health ailments
among death row inmates awaiting death reveal that execution is not the only cruel aspect of
capital punishment; the anticipation can be just as horrific. Capital punishment should be
eliminated not only because it is ineffective in deterring crime, but because it is statistically
prejudiced and constitutionally unfair.
2|Page

The Death Penalty - Ineffective Crime Deterrent

Surveys and statistics demonstrate that the death penalty does not deter crime and is
not a viable reason for criminals to discontinue their actions. Tomislav Kovandzic et al. assert
that no empirical support exists for the death penalty as a form of crime deterrence (Kovandzic
et al. 2009). Their study visited data from 1977 to 2006 and employed annual state panel data
to analyze the effects of capital punishment on crime; no correlation was found between the
death penalty and reduced crime. However, linking the death penalty to crime rates has proven
difficult. Conclusions have been drawn that assert the death penalty both raises crime rates
slightly and lowers it significantly, state by state (Manski and Pepper2013). Such
inconsistencies in Manski and Peppers extensive surveys show that linking the death penalty to
lower crime rates is nearly impossible, and that data regarding the correlation will always been
skewed. This is because the threat of death by capital punishment has no motivating power
stronger than the motivation of the offenders desires to commit a crime (Stolzenberg and
DAlessio 2004). This means that in the moment a violent crime is being committed, the offender
is not thinking about the punitive repercussions of their actions. Furthermore, an individual could
face the death penalty for a single murder, so that individual is not deterred from murdering
more people in the same incident (Stolzenberg and DAlessio 2004). The public agrees: a
survey of Tennessee residents shows that only 40% thought that capital punishment deterred
people from committing murder (Lambert et al. 2008). Surveys in other states, including the
thirty-seven that currently enact the death penalty, reflect the same statistic that less than half
of people surveyed think the death penalty deters violent crime. Moreover, the majority of
offenses involving the death penalty are for offenses that were not planned; this negates the
idea that the death penalty deters criminals because they did not plan ahead or think about the
consequences (Gray 2011). Thus, support for capital punishment is waning in the United States.
This is because the death penalty does nothing to deter crime and too often punishes the
3|Page

innocent (Lancet 2007). The death penalty has not been linked to deterring crime and is not
something people consider when committing violent crimes; thus, it should be abolished
because its purpose, to deter crime, is unfulfilled.
In fact, the death penalty has actually shown to raise crime rates in certain contexts,
which means that it should be removed altogether because it is not serving its purpose. Some
studies have shown that executions escalate societal violence by devaluing human life and by
legitimizing lethal violence, (Stolzenberg and DAlessio 2004). This is because of
desensitization. Frequent exposure to violence both direct and indirect blunts the emotional
responses of people towards violence and can cause an increase in aggression (Stolzenberg
and DAlessio 2004). This increase in aggression is confirmed by an increase in violent crime.
Manski and Pepper agree, saying that certain assumptions imply that adoption of a death
penalty statute increases homicide (Manski and Pepper 2013). Manski and Pepper came to
this conclusion by using data analysis of violent crimes and death penalty instances and by
cross-referencing them to search for a correlation of any kind, which was found to be the
opposite of deterrence. The brutalization effect also explains how capital punishment can
influence people to commit violent crimes. Lambert et al.s research findings advocate that the
death penalty may often lead to an increase in violence; this effect is called the brutalization
effect (Lambert et al. 2008). This effect often leaves those faced with the death penalty with a
feeling that they have nothing left to lose. Subsequently, they kill witnesses to keep them from
testifying; theyll even kill police officers who try to arrest them (Gray 2011). This is not
deterrence, but is a verifiable increase in violence. Desensitization coupled with the brutalization
effect promote violence in society as a result of capital punishment. People in America likely to
commit a violent crime feel better about doing so because they see the government committing
the same violence. This connects to a course reading from Michelle Alexander, who says that
once a person is labeled a felon, they wear a badge on inferiority for the rest of their lives that
may condone, in their minds, further criminal action (Alexander 2010). A 2006 report shows that
4|Page

the presence of a death penalty law was seen to promote not just violence, but homicides
between 1995 and 2000 (Kovandzic et al. 2009). Studies verify this with statistical evidence.
Data in Manski and Peppers report show that the death penalty actually increases the mean
homicide rate by 2.8% per 100,000 people in the nation (Manski and Pepper 2013). Thus, the
death penalty is not only ineffective in deterring crime, but is actually linked to increasing violent
crime, like murder, throughout the United States.
Moreover, the death penalty has been shown to be wildly cost ineffective. During the
filing of a death-notice case, local jurisdictions have their resources drained and undergo higher
case expenses than those without the death penalty on the table (Petersen and Lynch 2012).
This is often because of case delays and a lengthier time between being charged and being
sentenced. Capital punishment cases take more time because they require more preparation;
this causes increased expenses to attorneys and other related persons to a death penalty case.
Thus, it strains the budgetary responsibilities of the various levels of government, which are
then divided and distorted (Wacquant 2009). Even after sentencing, death row inmates must be
paid for because they often spend decades awaiting execution often more than two decades
in California (Sun 2013). That means that an inmate will not only require funding for execution,
but for the many years spent in prison, too. The California Commission on the Fair
Administration of Justice, or the CCFAJ, reports that California spends over 137 million dollars
on death penalty cases each year. Other states report similarly large figures (Petersen and
Lynch 2012). These expenses are being paid for right out of the pockets of taxpayers. In fact,
California estimates that it costs taxpayers nearly 114 million dollars more a year to conduct
capital punishment trials than it would to conduct all trials with the goal of life in prison (Gray
2011). It is made clear here that capital punishment is a gigantic drain on both state funds and
on taxpayer money. High levels of murder in the criminal justice system drain the finite
resources of the system itself (Stolzenberg and DAlessio 2004). Those resources would not be
so drained if capital punishment were taken off the table in all cases and life in prison was
5|Page

sought after. Time would also be saved time that could be used to pursue other, more
proactive measures in the justice system instead of deciding if an offender has to die or not.
Ultimately, capital punishments inability to stop crime and extremely high cost means it should
be removed from the justice system completely.

The Death Penalty Inherently Racist

Not only is capital punishment an ineffective crime deterrent, but it is inherently racist
and is prejudiced against African Americans; for this reason, it must be abolished. Firstly, there
is a disparity in racial support of capital punishment. Analysis has shown that racial prejudice
occurs in white persons embrace of capital punishment and that African Americans dont
share the same attitude (Unnever and Cullen 2012). Other sources find similar outcomes. Nonwhite persons are less likely to support capital punishment than whites (Lambert et al. 2008).
This reveals that white people are statistically more open to the prospect of capital punishment,
particularly for black offenders. This recounts the course theme that there exists a rigid racial
segregation in modern America a color line that separates whites from non-whites
(Wacquant 2009). It gets worse: there is a systematic exclusion of black jurors in death penalty
cases that affects the fairness of the ultimate verdict. This reveals unconscious racism in death
penalty trials, which affects the legitimacy of the criminal justice system in the eyes of African
Americans (Vidmar 2012). Their disillusionment with the system is well-founded. Juries,
particularly in Delaware, decide if a defendant will face the death penalty (Johnson et al. 2012).
The fact that juries, then, are made of white people people who support the death penalty
more than other races means that a black defendant faces the threat of capital punishment
more frequently because of a racially biased system. When it comes to sentencing a defendant,
blacks are more likely to be subject to capital punishment than white persons in cases where
both were convicted of murder (Gilboa 2010). This reveals a system so racist that it puts to
6|Page

death more minorities, like African Americans, than it does white people. Death row is populated
by African Americans disproportionality to the population at large, which cements the fact that
there exists a racial bias in the punitive justice system (Peffley and Hurtwiz 2007). In the
modern era 2002 to present of the Delaware death penalty, 39% of criminals put to death
were white, while 53% were black. This does not correlate with the racial makeup of the state,
which is 69% white and 21% black (Johnson et al. 2012). These alarming statistics are mirrored
in all other states that use the death penalty. This disparity, where blacks are put to death most
often despite being minority citizens, represents a racist system that uses capital punishment
primarily to kill African Americans. The death penalty should be abolished because of these
rampant racist tendencies.
Furthermore, statistics and data show that black offenders are more often threatened
with the death penalty when a white victim is involved, a racial inequality that necessitates the
removal of capital punishment from the justice system. David Gilboa cites a study that found
that those who murdered white people were more likely to be sentenced to death than those
who killed African Americans (Gilboa 2010). This isnt just limited to African Americans, either.
African Americans convicted of murdering whites are far more likely to face the death penalty
than if they had murdered other minorities, including Latinos (Peffley and Hurwitz 2007). The
fact that white victims are given priority over other minority victims in cases involving capital
punishment exposes a racially unequal system that favors whites. This racial prejudice suggests
that killing a white person is worse than killing a person of another race in the eyes of the law. It
also suggests that African Americans, especially in cases involving white victims, are more likely
to be labeled as criminals (Alexander 2010). Certain Justices have expressed disdain at the
racial prejudice and inequality present death penalty cases, but have not made moves to
remove it (Bessler 2012). Such racism in the application of the death penalty racism seen
even by United States Justices should be grounds for the elimination of capital punishment.

7|Page

The Death Penalty Unconstitutional

Capital punishment should be eliminated because it unquestionably violates the
constitutional right to life and because it is being recognized as inhumane on a global scale. The
right to life is a fundamental right (Mukherjee 2004). Capital punishment is constitutionally
borderline the Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Despite court
rulings that uphold that capital punishment is not against the Eighth Amendment, challenging
capital punishment on the grounds that it is unconstitutional is still possible. One must provide
an alternative to execution and simultaneously prove that such execution would cause severe
pain (Gee 2011). The death penalty causes severe mental anguish for death row inmates,
which, for all intents and purposes, can be called severe pain. The fact that the pain must be
severe is also indicative of a punishment that is against the constitution. Lancet asserts that
healthcare professionals around the world should speak out against capital punishment and use
their influence to persuade those in power that capital punishment has no place in the 21st
century, (Lancet 2007). Many countries are recognizing this fact: the right to life actually
transcends United States law and applies to the United Nations, an organization the United
States is an important member of. The United Nations has encouraged the abolition of capital
punishment and recognizes the increasing number of countries that are abolishing it because
they support the right to life and denounce induced suffering (Mukherjee 2004). The UN
Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, has actually spoken out against the death penalty, saying that
he encourages its international abolishment. This has caused fresh moves at high levels to
achieve a worldwide ban on capital punishment (Lancet 2007). Its ironic that the United States
will not follow suit despite having ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in the past: a 1972
Supreme Court case banned it for four years before it was reinstated (Lambert et al.). The fact
that capital punishment is so constitutionally wrong and that so many other countries countries

8|Page

the United States influences are eliminating the use of execution begs for its abolishment here
in the States.

The Death Penalty Unconstitutional: Unusual

The infrequent application of the death penalty is such that it is constitutionally wrong
and must be abolished because it is cruel and unusual punishment it is unusual because it is
applied extremely inconsistently to offenders with a variety of crimes. 20,000 homicides occur in
the United States every year, but less than 200 people will be sentenced to death for violent
crimes (Van Den Haag 1986). This means that only one in 2,000 people who commit a violent
crime, like murder, will face the death penalty. This is very clearly unusual punishment. Its so
unusual, in fact, that many offenders dont ever think about it as a possible consequence for
their actions. Another aspect of capital punishments unusual nature is the fact that death
sentences are carried out disproportionately across different states in America. For example,
Houston carries out more death sentences than any other American county nationwide
(Stolzenberg and DAlessio 2004). The fact that location, and location alone, is reason for
someone to face the death penalty exposes the unusual nature of the punishment. One would
not have the same chances of facing capital punishment in Illinois, for instance, as they would
for committing the same crime in Texas. The fact that the same crime can be punishable by
death the same as it can be punishable by life in prison shows that the death penalty is applied
extremely unequally. The aforementioned statistics show that a person has a .05% chance of
being put to death for a violent crime, like murder. Nothing represents the unusual and
infrequent use of capital punishment on offenders like a statistic that shows how few violent
criminals are actually put to death. The constitution forbids unusual punishment; the fact that
capital punishment is applied so infrequently makes it unconstitutional and it should be
abolished on those grounds.

9|Page

The Death Penalty Unconstitutional: Cruel

Capital punishment can be considered cruel because some methods of capital
punishment today like lethal injection arent as humane as people think, and capital
punishment should be abolished because of this. Lethal injection, which many people consider
to be humane, can be botched and cause painful, horrific results (Zivot 2012). It is not the safe,
humane way to kill someone that people believe it to be If the American public knew about the
liabilities and dangers surrounding capital punishment, they would find it shocking, unjust and
unacceptable (Lambert et al.). Reports of botched executions by lethal injection raise concerns
even among lifelong supporters of the death penalty (Lancet 2007). Because of the prospect of
death and the possibility of a botched execution, death row inmates undergo serious mental
suffering. Anesthetics given to death row inmates during execution give an outward appearance
of calmness but do not address the suffering caused by the anticipation of death itself (Zivot
2012). That anticipation knowing death is near is cruel in and of itself. Lancet also asserts
that lethal injection is an abominable perversion of the tools of healing and that participation in
capital punishment by physicians and scientists in perfecting medical execution is ethically
wrong (Lancet 2007). The practice of lethal injection for capital punishment is constitutionally
wrong because it is cruel crueler than many people like to think and the death penalty
should be eradicated because of it.
Capital punishment can also be considered cruel because death row inmates have an
incredibly hard time challenging their method of execution and often suffer long, stressful years
on death row, which should eliminate capital punishment altogether. A United States Supreme
Court case found that a prisoner cannot contest their method of execution unless they can
prove a risk of serious, intolerable harm (Gee 2011). This means that an inmate who
successfully demonstrates that their method of execution will be painful will not be offered an

10 | P a g e

alternative. The mere fact that proving an execution will be painful makes it cruel punishment. It
is also cruel to leave a prisoner on death row for years because they will live every single day in
fear, suffering because of the prospect of impending, painful death. The average time between
sentencing and execution has grown rapidly in the last twenty years; it was six years in 1984
and is now nearly seventeen years (Sun 2013). Lingering on death row converts the daily life of
an inmate to a reflexive death watch, which has been correlated with disproportionately high
rates of mental illness among death row inmates (Sun 2013). An inmate can hardly contest the
way they die, but they also have to live in fear of that painful death for decades. The fact that
this causes mental illness is intolerable. The ways in which prisoners are forced to wait to die,
by means they cannot control, are cruel and should warrant the elimination of the death penalty
from the justice system.

The Death Penalty Conclusion

The death penalty should be abolished not just because it is useless in deterring crime,
but because it is racially biased and constitutionally wrong. The United States justice system
has long maintained that capital punishment is used as a crime deterrent, but a vast amount of
scholarly material shows that it does not deter crime at all. In fact, studies have shown that the
death penalty actually desensitizes our society to violence and promotes further conflict the
sheer opposite of what the death penalty is supposed to do. Even Justices in the punitive
system have spoken out against capital punishment, but nothing has been done yet. Our
country spends millions of dollars on capital punishment trials and inmates on death row; this
money comes straight out of taxpayers pockets and could be used in more productive ways.
Moreover, capital punishment has been proven to be racist, time and time again. African
Americans make up most of death row, and cases involving white victims result in the execution
of the offender much more often that cases with minority victims. Juries in capital punishment
11 | P a g e

cases are intentionally white because, statistically, white people support the death penalty more
than other races. If anything, though, the death penalty should be abolished because it is
against Americas most important document of governance the constitution. Even the
Supreme Court agreed and banned the death penalty for four years in the 1970s before going
back on their word. Even though the courts have gone back and forth on the constitutional
validity of capital punishment, its cruel and unusual nature are more than enough to eradicate it
on the grounds of unconstitutionality. Inmates suffer mental duress for years while they
anticipate death and then suffer further during their execution. Even lethal injection is not as
easy and painless as many would like to believe. In the end, the right to life is inherent in all
individuals, and its time that the United States recognizes this and joins the rest of the world in
banning the killing of those who kill people.

Works Cited

Alexander, Michelle. 2010. The Cruel Hand. Pp. 137-172. In The New Jim Crow: Mass
Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. NY: The New Press.
Bessler, John D. 2012. "TINKERING AROUND THE EDGES: THE SUPREME COURT'S
DEATH PENALTY JURISPRUDENCE." American Criminal Law Review 49, no. 4: 19131943. Academic Search Complete.
Gee, Harvey. 2011. "EIGHTH AMENDMENT CHALLENGES AFTER BAZE v. REES: LETHAL
INJECTION, CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUITS, AND THE DEATH PENALTY." Boston College
Third World Law Journal 31, no. 2: 217-244. Academic Search Complete.
Gilboa, David. 2010. "Is the Death Penalty in America Racist?." International Journal Of
Interdisciplinary Social Sciences 5, no. 7: 163-173. Academic Search Complete.
12 | P a g e

Gray, James P. 2011. "ESSAY: FACING FACTS ON THE DEATH PENALTY." Loyola Of Los
Angeles Law Review 44, no. 3: S255-S264. Academic Search Complete.
Johnson, Sheri Lynn, John H. Blume, Theodore Eisenber, Valerie P. Hans, and Martin T. Wells.
2012. "The Delaware Death Penalty: An Empirical Study." Iowa Law Review 97, 19251964. Academic Search Complete.
Kovandzic et al., Tomislav V., Lynne M. Vieraitis, and Denise Paquette Boots. 2009. "Does the
death penalty save lives?." Criminology & Public Policy 8, no. 4: 803-843. Academic
Search Complete.
Lambert, Eric, Camp Scott, Alan Clarke, and Shanhe Jiang. "Crime and Delinguency." Sage
Journals. Sage Journals, 29 Feb 2008. Web.
<http://cad.sagepub.com.ezproxy1.lib.depaul.edu/content/57/4/572.full.pdf html>.
Lancet. 2007. "Stop killing people who kill people." Lancet, February 03. 343. Academic Search
Complete.
Manski, Charles, and John Pepper. 2013. "Deterrence and the Death Penalty: Partial
Identification Analysis Using Repeated Cross Sections." Journal Of Quantitative
Criminology 29, no. 1: 123-141. Academic Search Complete.
Mukherjee, Amrita. 2004. "The ICCPR as a 'Living Instrument': The Death Penalty as Cruel,
Inhuman and Degrading Treatment." Journal Of Criminal Law 68, no. 6: 507519. Academic Search Complete.
Peffley, Mark, and Jon Hurwitz. 2007. "Persuasion and Resistance: Race and the Death Penalty
in America." American Journal Of Political Science 51, no. 4: 996-1012. Academic
Search Complete.
Petersen, Nicholas and Lynch, Mona. 2012. "PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION,
HIDDEN COSTS, AND THE DEATH PENALTY: THE CASE OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY." Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology 102, no. 4: 1233-1274. Academic
Search Complete.
13 | P a g e

Stolzenberg, Lisa, and Stewart J. D'Alessio. 2004. "CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, EXECUTION

PUBLICITY AND MURDER IN HOUSTON, TEXAS." Journal Of Criminal Law &
Criminology 94, no. 2: 351-380. Academic Search Complete.
Sun, Angela April. 2013. "KILLING TIME" IN THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH:
WHY SYSTEMATIC PREEXECUTION DELAYS ON DEATH ROW ARE CRUEL AND
UNUSUAL." Columbia Law Review 113, no. 6: 1585-1636. Academic Search Complete.
Van den Haag, Ernest. 1986. "THE ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT: A DEFENSE." Harvard Law
Review 99, no. 7: 1662. Academic Search Complete.
Unnever, James D., and Francis T. Cullen. 2012. "White Perceptions of Whether African
Americans and Hispanics are Prone to Violence and Support for the Death
Penalty." Journal Of Research In Crime & Delinquency 49, no. 4: 519-544. Academic
Search Complete.
Vidmar, Neil. 2012. "The North Carolina Racial Justice Act: An Essay on Substantive and
Procedural Fairness in Death Penalty Litigation." Iowa Law Review 97, 19691983. Academic Search Complete.
Wacquant, Loic. 2009. Welfare Reform as Poor Discipline & Statecraft. In Punishing the Poor:
The Neoliberal Government of Social Insecurity. Duke University Press. 9780822344223.
Zivot, Joel B. 2012. "The absence of cruelty is not the presence of humanness: physicians and
the death penalty in the United States." Philosophy, Ethics & Humanities In Medicine 7,
no. 1: 1-4.Academic Search Complete.

14 | P a g e