History of the Death PenaltyHistory of the Death PenaltyHistory of the Death Penalty:Use of the death penalty has declined throughout the industrial Western World since the 19th century. In 1972, movement in America to have the death penalty declared unconstitutional during the landmark case of Furman v. Georgia, which declared the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment. However, after a supreme court decision in 1975, Gregg v. Georgia, which stated capital punishment did not violate the eighth Amendment, executions commenced again under state supervision. (Van der Haag, 1975, 3-4)
The debate:Deterrence:There are four major issues in the capital punishment debate, the first being deterrence. A major purpose of criminal punishment is to deter future criminal conduct. The deterrence theory suggests that a rational person will avoid criminal behavior if the severity of the punishment outweigh the benefits of the illegal conduct. It is believed that fear of death deters people from committing crimes. Most criminals would think twice before committing murder if they knew their own lives was at stake. That if attached to certain crimes, the penalty of death exerts a positive moral influence by placing a stigma on certain crimes like manslaughter, resulting in attitudes of disgust and horror to such acts. (McCuen, 1985, 11)
• Article VI: Prohibitions on State Crimes • The following section makes public the following prohibited acts which may constitute an aggravation of crimes. (1) Sentences or punishment for an offense which, in whole or in part, is an established state crime (such as a felony of committing murder, kidnapping), the State or its officials are obliged to enforce to the degree of legal force used in that offense under Article VII of the Code. (2) The punishment inflicted on the offender shall be the same that the penalty imposed on the person committing the offense is. Any of the following could constitute a crime of aggravation; (a) Murder, abduction or assault; (b) Rape, forced labor; (c) The commission of certain other known forcible sexual acts; (d) The commission by another person of a crime against humanity which has never been committed before by another person; (e) The commission of any other known crime under the law of this province which has no official sanction except that of a court or a board of education; (f) Any act committed by others not related to this province or for which no court is or cannot be made; (g) The commission of any other known offense as a serious offense that has never been committed before by anyone under the age of sixteen- (22) A person who commits any of the above acts may not be sentenced for any offense under this section, unless the person is known by name other than the actual offender (i) or one who is known as a witness to his act or as a person convicted under the laws of this province; or (ii) other persons whose name is on the certificate of release issued by the Canadian Armed Forces or with the express terms of a release agreement for a release from military detention. (g) Any felony conviction brought against an offender without a court order in this province, including any such felony conviction for a felony committed in this province on or after Dec. 7, 1996, shall have the same effect as the conviction of the offender for a similar crime against which no court or the Board has issued a release agreement pursuant to section 1 of the act referred to in subsection 1 (a). (h) Any felony conviction brought under subsection 1 (h) is subject to the provisions of section 46 of the Criminal Code. (i) If a defendant in violation of these subsections commits any of the following actions or acts which constitute an aggravated felony, subsection 1 (a) does not apply, except that if the offender is convicted under one or more of these subparagraphs, the court may order a person to surrender or pay immediately to the Federal Court: 1. The court may order a person to surrender any real estate he owns at one time or, if an attorney, the Attorney General or a federal or provincial court judge has jurisdiction or has approved the order. (ii) The court may order a person to pay at any time to any person the cost of his own property. (iii) Upon the consent of a lawyer,
[47] The debate is especially critical for the U.S. because it is the only country which is currently allowed to abolish the death penalty; it cannot be dismantled.
[48] Despite their great popularity, the United States has no international capital case.
[49] The National Assembly, including the Vice President, did not vote on the proposed criminal procedure reform law until after the enactment of AB 70, a bill that created the U.S. federal capital trial system. At this time, the Supreme Court is deliberating whether the bill can pass the Senate and if the court finds AB 70 to be constitutional, we will have to consider the issue.
[50] The U.S. and California are not all that close to becoming the federal capital cases.
[51] U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his famous 1982 opinion:
If the California state legislature, by its own act, has passed a death penalty, and such laws are only to be considered as one, its mere fact that the California legislature is proposing such a law and thereby violates the Constitution does not relieve it of the constitutional responsibility to enact and enforce them.
[52] Justice Roberts’ opinion and his subsequent dissenting comment, in which he commented about the impact on future capital cases of state capital punishment, show that California’s case law is unconstitutional. Because the California Supreme Court is at odds with the federal legislative powers exercised by the federal courts, California’s current legislative act has no force on federal statutes. That is not to say that California has no recourse in this issue because of our high public awareness of the gravity of our current legal system.
[53] In the case of California’s proposed capital punishment law, the Supreme Court held in part:
California’s proposed capital punishment law does not protect any “lawful” person against being sentenced to death, but merely makes certain to death the right to “face all the consequences which the cruel and unusual punishment is supposed to impose. . . .”
To be clear, the Supreme Court has stated that in death penalty cases the court is limited to those in which “there is no danger that it will be used to the maximum practicable degree, with appropriate force, to prevent the infliction of death.” Thus, it is more restrictive than its present position.
[54] The high state level capital sentences were established at the beginning of the 20th century.
[55] The federal legislature established the capital punishment system before Proposition 13 (which amended the Penal Code to prohibit the state from enacting capital punishment in any case) passed in California in 1995. The federal statutes were enacted to apply the same penalties to state residents, and to “each and every inhabitant,” meaning the most dangerous persons. The state’s statute was a summary punishment law, as opposed to a felony-only one. The statute was then amended so that it would apply only to the most dangerous and dangerous persons
[47] The debate is especially critical for the U.S. because it is the only country which is currently allowed to abolish the death penalty; it cannot be dismantled.
[48] Despite their great popularity, the United States has no international capital case.
[49] The National Assembly, including the Vice President, did not vote on the proposed criminal procedure reform law until after the enactment of AB 70, a bill that created the U.S. federal capital trial system. At this time, the Supreme Court is deliberating whether the bill can pass the Senate and if the court finds AB 70 to be constitutional, we will have to consider the issue.
[50] The U.S. and California are not all that close to becoming the federal capital cases.
[51] U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his famous 1982 opinion:
If the California state legislature, by its own act, has passed a death penalty, and such laws are only to be considered as one, its mere fact that the California legislature is proposing such a law and thereby violates the Constitution does not relieve it of the constitutional responsibility to enact and enforce them.
[52] Justice Roberts’ opinion and his subsequent dissenting comment, in which he commented about the impact on future capital cases of state capital punishment, show that California’s case law is unconstitutional. Because the California Supreme Court is at odds with the federal legislative powers exercised by the federal courts, California’s current legislative act has no force on federal statutes. That is not to say that California has no recourse in this issue because of our high public awareness of the gravity of our current legal system.
[53] In the case of California’s proposed capital punishment law, the Supreme Court held in part:
California’s proposed capital punishment law does not protect any “lawful” person against being sentenced to death, but merely makes certain to death the right to “face all the consequences which the cruel and unusual punishment is supposed to impose. . . .”
To be clear, the Supreme Court has stated that in death penalty cases the court is limited to those in which “there is no danger that it will be used to the maximum practicable degree, with appropriate force, to prevent the infliction of death.” Thus, it is more restrictive than its present position.
[54] The high state level capital sentences were established at the beginning of the 20th century.
[55] The federal legislature established the capital punishment system before Proposition 13 (which amended the Penal Code to prohibit the state from enacting capital punishment in any case) passed in California in 1995. The federal statutes were enacted to apply the same penalties to state residents, and to “each and every inhabitant,” meaning the most dangerous persons. The state’s statute was a summary punishment law, as opposed to a felony-only one. The statute was then amended so that it would apply only to the most dangerous and dangerous persons
[47] The debate is especially critical for the U.S. because it is the only country which is currently allowed to abolish the death penalty; it cannot be dismantled.
[48] Despite their great popularity, the United States has no international capital case.
[49] The National Assembly, including the Vice President, did not vote on the proposed criminal procedure reform law until after the enactment of AB 70, a bill that created the U.S. federal capital trial system. At this time, the Supreme Court is deliberating whether the bill can pass the Senate and if the court finds AB 70 to be constitutional, we will have to consider the issue.
[50] The U.S. and California are not all that close to becoming the federal capital cases.
[51] U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his famous 1982 opinion:
If the California state legislature, by its own act, has passed a death penalty, and such laws are only to be considered as one, its mere fact that the California legislature is proposing such a law and thereby violates the Constitution does not relieve it of the constitutional responsibility to enact and enforce them.
[52] Justice Roberts’ opinion and his subsequent dissenting comment, in which he commented about the impact on future capital cases of state capital punishment, show that California’s case law is unconstitutional. Because the California Supreme Court is at odds with the federal legislative powers exercised by the federal courts, California’s current legislative act has no force on federal statutes. That is not to say that California has no recourse in this issue because of our high public awareness of the gravity of our current legal system.
[53] In the case of California’s proposed capital punishment law, the Supreme Court held in part:
California’s proposed capital punishment law does not protect any “lawful” person against being sentenced to death, but merely makes certain to death the right to “face all the consequences which the cruel and unusual punishment is supposed to impose. . . .”
To be clear, the Supreme Court has stated that in death penalty cases the court is limited to those in which “there is no danger that it will be used to the maximum practicable degree, with appropriate force, to prevent the infliction of death.” Thus, it is more restrictive than its present position.
[54] The high state level capital sentences were established at the beginning of the 20th century.
[55] The federal legislature established the capital punishment system before Proposition 13 (which amended the Penal Code to prohibit the state from enacting capital punishment in any case) passed in California in 1995. The federal statutes were enacted to apply the same penalties to state residents, and to “each and every inhabitant,” meaning the most dangerous persons. The state’s statute was a summary punishment law, as opposed to a felony-only one. The statute was then amended so that it would apply only to the most dangerous and dangerous persons
Studies of the deterrent effect of the death penalty have been conducted for several years, with varying results. Most of these studies have failed to produce evidence that the death penalty deterred murders more effectively then the threat of imprisonment. The reason for this is that few people are executed and so the death penalty is not a satisfactory deterrent. If capital punishment were carried out more it would prove to be the crime deterrent it was partly intended to be. During highly publicized death penalty cases the homicide rate is found to go down but it goes back up when the case is over. (Bailey, 1994, 42)
When comparisons are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death penalty states. The average murder rate per 100,000 population in 1996 among death penalty states was 7.1, the average murder rate among non-death penalty states was only 3.6. A look at neighboring death penalty and non-death penalty states show similar trends. Death penalty states usually have a higher murder rate than their neighboring non-death penalty states. (See appendix b) (Death Penalty Information Center)
Retribution:The second issue in the capital punishment debate is retribution. The need for society to express sufficient condemnation for heinous murders. Supporters of the death penalty contend that the only proper response to the most vile murders is the most sever punishment possible. Therefore, society should literally interpret the “eye for an eye” principle when an individual takes a life, societys moral balance will remain upset until the killers life is also taken. (Block, 1983, 112)
Although death penalty opponents disagree, society should be able to express its outrage with a vile crime by inflicting capital punishment. They suggest that they are showing outrage for taking a life by talking the life of another. (Bedau, 1982, 88)
Use of the death penalty as intended by law could actually reduce the number of violent murders by eliminating some of the repeat offenders thus being used as a system of justice, not just a method of deterrence. Modern supporters of capital punishment no longer view the death penalty as a deterrent, but just as a punishment for the crime, one source said, “in recent years the appeal of deterrence has been supplanted by a frank desire for what large majorities see as just vengeance.” (Bailey, 1994, 55)
Arbitrariness:The third major issue is arbitrariness determined by or arising from whim or impulse rather than judgment or reason.“From the days of slavery in which black people were considered property, through the years of lynching and Jim Crow laws, capital punishment has always been deeply affected by race. Unfortunately, the days of racial bias in the death penalty are not a remnant of the past.” (NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund)
Fairness requires that people who break the same law under similar circumstances should meet with the same punishment, however the justice system is not consistent. Statistics show that a black man who kills a white person is 11 times more likely to receive the death penalty than a white man who kills a black person. And blacks who kill blacks have even less to worry