SHAYLA MCBRIDE
Critical Thinking Paper
Criminal Justice
shaylamcbride10@gmail.com
10/3/2014
In this document, I will discuss for and against the death penalty regarding Deterrence, Retribution,
Innocence, Arbitrariness and Discrimination, Cost, and the Eighth Amendment Rights.
People believe that if they execute a criminal, it will discourage other criminals to
commit a similar crime and that is referred to as deterrence. Isaac Ehrlich estimated that if
every criminal that is eligible for the death penalty were executed, each additional execution
between 1933 and 1967 could have saved up to 8 victims. His data was criticized, but
researchers are continuing to find proof of the deterrent effect. In my opinion, there aren't
enough death sentences that are carried out to be able to accurately measure the effectiveness
of Ehrlich's research. Murderers are rarely considering the consequences of the crimes they are
committing, especially young adults. Considering the fact that a lot of times they are not caught
for the crime they just commit, they love the rush and the satisfaction after committing the
crime and do not think about what would happen if they did get caught. Half of prisoners were
under the influence when they commit a crime, so they are not thinking straight. If there was
one hundred percent certainty of concern, then few people would commit the crime. Because
most crimes do not result in an arrest, the effect of certainty is lowered. Because of that fact,
making the punishment worse will have little impact on the criminal. I think that general and
specific deterrence both are effective ways of punishing someone. If they commit the crime and
get punished for it, then they perhaps would not commit that same crime. Also, some people
will not commit a crime if they see other criminals being punished.
I am a strong believer in retribution. Why does someone who commits murder get to go
to jail when the other person does not get to live? If they dismember a body, their body should
be dismembered, too. You cannot use retribution for many things other than murder, though.
You cannot use this for robbery, theft, arson, etc. They say you cannot use an eye for an eye on
children or mentally ill either and I guess that makes sense in some cases, but they are still a
threat. I do not want to make it sound like I do not have a heart, but some serial killers are
messed up from when they are small children and it just gets worse as they get older. The
parents of the woman in Utah that just delivered a baby and put the baby in the dumpster say
that she is mentally ill and did not know what she was doing. I find that so hard to believe.
There are pictures of her at a club with a beer in her hand. If she is able to do that, then she
should know that putting a child to die in a dumpster is a type of crime.
Humans have an instinct to harm someone who harmed them. That has existed for
centuries and it is one of the most powerful human impulses. Everyone feels that way at times,
and some may see it as wrong, but it's a natural way to feel. In the movie, Law Abiding Citizen,
the main character watches his Wife get raped and murdered right in front of him. The men
that commit that crime get away with it. Of course he is not pleased with the way things
worked out so he goes after every person that harmed his family, or didn't help put those men
away during the trial. That movie is a good example of retribution, and wanting to harm
someone who harmed you.
Leo Frank was wrongfully imprisoned for the death of 13 year old Mary Phagan. Because
crimes against children are not easily tolerated, Frank was lynched by a group of 25 men. A man
came forward and confessed that he had commit the crime. Because the attorney had made an
oath he did not make it known that that man had killed the young girl. Doesn't that man have a
conscience? I know the attorney made an oath, but they are putting an innocent man in prison
and letting the guilty, dangerous man be free.
There is also the case of Thomas Kennedy. His 11 year old daughter lied that her father
raped her because she did not like that he was not home often enough. He was sentenced to 15
years in prison for something that never occurred. It took 9 years for her to come forward and
tell the truth that her father had not actually commit that crime. The Justice System needs to be
improved. If we improved the justice system and spent more time investigating crimes like that,
then we would put the guilty criminals away instead of innocent men like Thomas Kennedy.
This leads to the question of who we can trust. The daughter was 11 years old at that time. I
think it is clear that we cannot trust people who are too young to process what could happen
when there are accusations made to that extent. It also makes me wonder where a child would
even come up with something like that. My father was also never home when I was growing up,
but I never would have even thought of making that accusation against him. I wonder if
someone else in her life played a part in accusing him of that. Things like this needed to be
looked into more to determine the truth in a case. Another issue we might come to is if we do
not trust anyone then the same outcome might happen. I guess that is why they say you are
innocent until proven guilty, and that is a good way to start for every criminal.
There was a lot of research conducted by Cassia Spohn and David Holleran concerning
discrimination in sentencing. African American criminals are more likely to go to prison than
White criminals. About 43% of all inmates in state and federal prisons are African Americans.
The rate of imprisonment for minorities and unemployed persons rose drastically. Spohn and
Holleran also researched that characteristics such as race, employment, etc., did not determine
the length of a sentence. Some people say that the Justice system should be "color blind" and
not use someone's race or ethnicity to determine their sentence. Should the Justice system do
the same for woman and be "gender blind" as well? Judges are known to go easy on woman
that commit crimes and they are less likely to go to prison than men. The Sentencing Reform
Act of 1984 emphasized the idea of gender neutral sentencing but that Act has not occurred as
of today. Look at the television show, The Voice, for example. Their chairs are turned around
when someone comes out to sing. They do that so the judges cannot pick their team based on
the person's appearance. They choose someone based on their voices only. The same type of
thing should be applied in the Justice System. Whether a man or a woman, or any race commit
the crime they should sentence everyone equally. There is also the chivalry effect where
woman should be treated more leniently than men. I do not agree with that at all. Some
woman can be just as dangerous as men, and need to be imprisoned and off of the street
because of that risk. (Pg. 370-372)
A jurors race, religion and attitude toward the death penalty will influence their first
vote against an offender. White jurors are said to be about 20% more likely to cast vote for the
death penalty than black jurors.
Nearly all death row inmates are unable to afford an attorney on their own so the state
appoints one for them. The attorneys that the Court assigns to a case are generally not
experienced enough, are overworked and underpaid, and cannot give proper representation for
the defendant. A defendant that is poorly represented is much more likely to be sentenced with
the death penalty.
Why should we let someone live if they took a life away? Why should the taxpayers
money go toward giving that person food, a bed, showers, shelter, etc? I can't see how keeping
the person in prison for a long time would be less money. Let's say someone goes to prison at
age 25 for murdering several people, and he lives until he is 85. That is 50 years of food, water,
sewer, prison fees, and much more. According to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
lethal injection only costs $86.08. Other research I did said that the death penalty costs millions
of dollars and I just can't see why. They are in prison, they have most likely taken away
someone else's life, and tax payers are paying for that person to live. I cannot see how it is a fair
thing.
The Eighth Amendment states that there are no cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.
The Cruel and Unusual Clause restricts how severe the punishments can be that the state or
government place on any person who is convicted of a crime. If there is a punishment that is
too harsh compared to the crime that has been committed, there will be an appeal and the
punishment will be overturned. Every punishment forced upon a convicted person must be
comparable to the crime they commit. The Cruel and Unusual Clause does not allow crucifixion,
breaking on the wheel or any punishment that lingers death. Rape and kidnapping crimes will
overturn the death penalty. What is difficult about Cruel and Unusual punishment is that a
punishment might sound barbaric to a judge on one day, and the next day the punishment
might sound logical to another judge. It depends on what each person's beliefs are. For
example, I believe that if someone murders a person, they should be murdered in the same
way they commit the crime. The Eighth Amendment will emerge as society emerges.
There is a case against Christopher Simmons. He was 17 years old when he commit
murder. Before he commit this crime, he had discussed it with 2 of his friends and told them he
wanted to murder someone. They met up one night and broke into a woman's home. They tied
her up, put a towel over her head and surrounded her face with tape. They threw the woman
over a bridge into a river where she drowned. Simmons thought because he and his friends
were underage that they would get away with the crime. Simmons was bragging to his friends
that he had killed a woman. Fishermen discovered the woman's body and her husband found
the house in disarray and his wife missing. Simmons was arrested at his high school, but
because he was 17, he was out of jurisdiction for juvenile court so he was tried as an adult. The
Jury decided on the verdict of murder and they continued to the penalty phase. Defense
counsel brought up the point that he cannot drink, vote, serve jury duty, because legislatures
have said at that age you are not responsible enough. Those ordinances may be set in place but
that does not mean that a person is not crazy enough to commit murder. Simmons family all
testified of how he cared for a grandmother and had the capacity to show love for them. The
jury recommended the death penalty and the judge granted the death penalty for Simmons.
After the case had run its course, the United States Supreme Court ruled that if you commit a
crime under the age of 18, the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and was barred
by the Constitution. (Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-0633) Because of that, Simmons was sentenced
to life in prison without eligibility for probation, parole, or release.
I do understand why the Constitution will not allow a minor to be sentenced to the
death penalty for some cases. But regarding this particular case, Simmons was bragging about
what he had done. He knew very well what he had done and did not seem to have any remorse
for it. I do not agree that he should get to live when he took away someone's daughter, wife
and mother and his family will continue to see him during visitations in prison. Not only with
this case, but with any that commits murder, they are only a bigger risk to society, and should
not have the opportunity to keep living.
Works Cited.
Larry Gaines, Roger Miller. CJ 1010 Criminal Justice. Mason: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.
"Welcome To The'Lectric Law Library®." Free Legal Forms & Law Dictionary. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Oct.
2014.
"10 People Who Were Wrongfully Accused of Heinous Crimes - Listverse."Listverse. N.p., n.d. Web. 01
Oct. 2014.
"The Trial of Leo Frank: An Account." The Trial of Leo Frank: An Account. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.
"Death Penalty Focus." Death Penalty. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2014.
"Law Library - American Law and Legal Information." - JRank Articles. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.
"Juveniles and the Death Penalty." DPIC. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2014.