This book was very interesting. I learned a great deal about the death penalty during my time as a debate captain in high school however I had never looked at it from this point of view. I agreed most with what Garland says at the very end of the book:
“The system of capital punishment that exists in America today is primarily a communication system. For the most part the system is not about executions, which, outside of Texas and a few Southern states, are relatively rare- more people are killed each year by lightning. It is about mounting campaigns, taking polls, passing laws, bringing charges, bargaining pleas, imposing sentences, and rehearing cases.” (Pg. 312)
While I personally am in favor of the death penalty in certain circumstances, I believe his opinion that much of the death penalty is political for most of the country is correct. He also states that “individuals are regarded as sacred” (pg. 306) showing how contradicting having the death penalty is. The demand for revenge is often part of why criminals are sentenced to death. However, how can the death penalty be considered a deterrent when those sentenced to death are on death row for years on end? If the criminal is old enough they will die of natural causes before they finish appeals. The book shows the issues behind the question of the death penalty without venturing into the moral aspect; it looks at the issue from the factual perspective.
*Essential Question Response: Who should decide the issue of capital punishment?
I’m not sure I’m the one to decide who is able to make the decision of who dies and who lives. Whether or not a crime is bad enough to deserve death is a subjective decision. I do not believe it should be decided only by one judge. If I had to decide, I believe it should be suggested by the jury and confirmed by a separate panel after examining the evidence and court transcripts.
Nice summary and insights, Emily Ann. I too wonder if the decision to impose the death penalty should be made only by juries (with the legalities confirmed by the judge, of course). I've read about several cases in states where this is required of juries, and it seems to me that if we are going to have a death penalty, this is the most fair way of applying it. To give the responsibility to a jury, to me, is to give the responsibility to the citizenry at large - it's like we're saying, "We're not just going to watch this on TV and cheer when a murderer is sentenced; we're going to acknowledge that we have a stake in these weighty decisions and must take responsibility for the consequences of having this type of punishment that so many of us say we want."
ReplyDeleteYou make some excellent points. I agree with Garland's statements as well about the death penalty being political but it's also very social as well. " the institutional forms and cultural practices of today's death penalty articulate the social field from which they emerge" (p.309). People take an active role due to our American culture. He mentions how the AMerican state is very "personalistic and localized" which effects the death penalty. The link between the death penalty and revenge is definitely there, although I believe justice plays a strong role as well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the method that you would choose to decide the issue of capital punishment.