How Do We Deal Death Penalty Reform in the United States?

The penalty of death is the most severe, and controversial; of all penal laws in the United States. Each year an average of 3200 Americans sit awaiting execution, and an average of 50 death sentences are carried out across our country. With each case, both activist and propionates of this ultimate punishment are locked into a bitter debate, from moral and justice affiliations. How can the death penalty be reformed to better serve all of America? What is cruel and unusual punishment and what effect does it have on the ways in which the death penalty is carried out? How can we ensure that only those individuals who truly deserve this ultimate punishment are put to death? These are all questions that must be resolved if we are going to reform are nation's highest penalty.

In the short two-hundred year history of the United States, the death penalty has been imposed countless times. There really are no accurate records to attest to the local law enforcement official number of executions. In our modern times, records show that 3860 condemned prisoners have been put to death. Begging with the first, William Kemmler who put to death in New York State on August 6, 1890, for the murder of his common law wife, there have been those who question the validity of the death sentence.

Death penalty activist will inevitably see execution as a deterrent for people to commit horrible crimes. Opponents will just as vehemently claim that there is never justification to kill another human being. It is not my intention to debate the moral outlook of execution. The laws of our government state that the death penalty is an acceptable form of punishment. My intention is offer personal opinion, and insight into how the criminal justice system could reform executions to better serve the American legal system.

The penalty of death is reserved for the worst of the worst of our nation's offenders. I myself wonder if this penalty is in fact underused. It seems far too often in fact that a defendant is allowed to plead guilty in court in order to escape the penalty of death. Most often they instead receive the penalty of life in prison without the possibility of parole. What good does this sentence really do for our legal system? If a person loses every chance of ever regaining their freedom, then what reason is there to keep that person alive? To allow these individuals to remain incarcerated for decades on end, until they simply die peacefully of natural causes, is a waste of space and taxpayer's dollars. Many of the people sentenced to life in prison have committed just as heinous if not worse offences as their death row counterparts. They simply had the luck or luxury of obtaining better defense attorneys who were able to spare their life.

Each year is cost tens of thousands of dollars to keep a maximum security inmate incarcerated. If the average life without parole inmate stays in jail for forty years, then taxpayers are spending millions of dollars per inmate, just to have them sit in jail. This money could certainly be put to better use. Perhaps to fund research to ensure the guilt of prisoners.

The idea of prisons is to create an environment where a person is locked away from society, until a time in which they are no longer a threat to the public. If a person commits a crime so horrible that the criminal justice system feels that they will always be a threat, than that inmate should simply be put to death. It is a waste, of money, space, and manpower to do anything else.

I understand that over the course of our Nation's judicial system many people have been wrongly imprisoned. In all likelihood a few innocent people have been condemned to death. Naturally if the United State's justice system is going to support the death penalty, then every effort must be made to ensure that only those truly deserving people are sent to death.

We live in an age of technology. Through forensic science and DNA testing, law enforcement agencies can be certain that only the guilty pay for their crimes. In following the scientific method, a scientist does not try to prove a theory true. Instead many scientists spend lifetimes trying to disprove a theory. Only after it becomes apparent that a theory can not be proven false is it labeled true. Perhaps this same method should be used to sentence a person to death. During the trial phase of the legal system, the district attorney's office tries to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that a person is guilty. At the same time the defense attorney tries to prove doubt that an individual committed an alleged crime. Too many times the justice process stops working the moment the verdict is read. Perhaps there should be another governing body that steps in after the trial to ensure proper handling in death penalty cases. Independent from prosecutors and separate from appellate courts, an investigative unit set up as a system of checks and balances against misconduct, or possible wrongful conviction.

Once a person is sentenced to death, an inmate can easily spend ten years or more exhausting all appeals. This process should most certainly be streamlined. DNA testing should be mandatory is every possible case. When a person is convicted in a case in which DNA testing is available, the results should be retested by an independent investigative body. When these results are confirmed all appeals should come to an end. In cases in which DNA testing is not available, an inmate should receive one mandatory appeal, in which all evidence is carefully scrutinized. This way you can ensure the correct person pays for their crime. All appeals should be concluded within one year of the original sentencing. This way a convicted inmate does not waste years of time and countless dollars dragging out the legal system.

Although the laws of our country support the death penalty, they also protect a person from receiving cruel and unusual punishment. Cruel and unusual punishment is defined as: Punishments that are both cruel an unusual. Punishments are allowed if cruel, or if unusual however not if they are both cruel and unusual. In short this means that we are not allowed to conduct experiments or torture inmates. We are also not allowed to kill them in a way that causes unnecessary pain. Many opponents of the death penalty use this law to denounce executions.

In our country, lethal injection is the most recent and common form of execution. Lethal injection is a form of execution used in our country since 1982. It is a method of execution that works by injecting a condemned individual with lethal doses of sodium pentothal, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride. Recently this form of death has come under fire for two very different reasons. First it has been suggested that condemned individuals can seem to be in pain while the execution is being carried out. Death penalty activist counter that this is nothing more than spontaneous facial movements caused by the drugs coursing through an inmate's body. With lethal injection it takes only minutes for an inmate to be put to death. This is a very short period of time, especially for someone who has been convicted of atrocities with no forethought to the pain they are causing their victims. How much sympathy are we really expected to have over a few brief facial twitches of a convicted killer? Is he in pain? Perhaps, so what?

The second reason that lethal injection has come under scrutiny, is based on the assistance of a medical doctor for the procedure. Doctors in our country take an oath to preserve life. Some feel that participating in executions is a violation of this oath. I personally do not understand what the problem is? I do not feel an unwilling doctor should be forced to participate in an execution. However I do no not feel a doctor should live in fear of losing his license just because they choose to carry out a procedure the government endorses. Having a medical professional carry out a lethal injection helps to ensure proper care and the least possibility of cruelty.

What is the future of the death penalty in the United States? With our current technology and testing ability, our justice system is going to continue to capture and convict people of violent, heinous crimes. Many of these individuals will be sentenced to death. How best in the future will these sentences be carried out? Perhaps the least cruel way of enforcing the death penalty is for the procedure to take place in the operating room. Imagine if a person who is sentenced to death is first rendered unconscious through the use of anesthesia. A trained doctor could then operated and sever the brain stem rendering a person dead. A condemned person would literally drift off to sleep and peacefully die, feeling no pain as justice is carried out.

This futuristic approach of carrying out the death penalty has one distinct advantage over all other forms of execution. It would make possible for condemned individuals to donate their usable organs. Any condemned person could have their organ tested for transplant ability. Perhaps then even through death, a more deserving individual may gain the chance at life.

Our nation's penal system, has always used the penalty of death as a deterrent for people to think of before committing horrible crimes. For this system to remain effective in today's society some updating and streamlining must be done. The death penalty should never be abolished be our nation. Only reformed from time to time to maintain its effectiveness.