All death sentences are hereby converted to life imprisonment. All executions were to be carried out within the walls of the state penitentiary, and procedures for conducting executions were supervised by the state penitentiary superintendent.
Prior to Gregory , two methods of execution were legal in Washington: lethal injection and hanging. The Nebraska Legislature also abolished capital punishment in , but it was reinstated by a statewide vote in Additionally, courts in Washington and Delaware recently ruled that the states' capital punishment laws are unconstitutional.
States across the country will continue to debate its fairness, reliability and cost of implementation. Since , 25 states enacted 66 new laws addressing state systems of capital punishment. Trends include expanding or limiting aggravating factors, modifying execution methods and procedures, changing trial and appellate procedures, modifying laws to comply with litigation outcomes and repealing the practice all together. Lethal injection is currently the primary method of execution in 28 of the 29 states that authorize executions.
Texas was the first state to use the method, in In , South Carolina became the first state to depart from using lethal injection as a primary execution method.
It is the only state in which electrocution is primary, with firing squad and lethal injection, authorized by statute as secondary methods of execution. In addition to South Carolina, 15 other states have a secondary method of execution authorized by statute. Secondary methods of execution include electrocution, lethal gas, hanging, nitrogen hypoxia, and firing squad. For example, see La Grand v. The number of capital crimes in Britain continued to rise throughout the next two centuries.
By the s, crimes were punishable by death in Britain, including stealing, cutting down a tree, and robbing a rabbit warren. Because of the severity of the death penalty, many juries would not convict defendants if the offense was not serious. From to , the death penalty was eliminated for over of the crimes punishable by death. Randa, But if, in fact, the death penalty does not deter, and we continue to impose it, we have only sacrificed the lives of convicted murderers.
Surely it's better for society to take a gamble that the death penalty deters in order to protect the lives of innocent people than to take a gamble that it doesn't deter and thereby protect the lives of murderers, while risking the lives of innocents.
If grave risks are to be run, it's better that they be run by the guilty, not the innocent. Finally, defenders of capital punishment argue that justice demands that those convicted of heinous crimes of murder be sentenced to death. Justice is essentially a matter of ensuring that everyone is treated equally. It is unjust when a criminal deliberately and wrongly inflicts greater losses on others than he or she has to bear.
If the losses society imposes on criminals are less than those the criminals imposed on their innocent victims, society would be favoring criminals, allowing them to get away with bearing fewer costs than their victims had to bear. Justice requires that society impose on criminals losses equal to those they imposed on innocent persons.
By inflicting death on those who deliberately inflict death on others, the death penalty ensures justice for all. This requirement that justice be served is not weakened by charges that only the black and the poor receive the death penalty.
Any unfair application of the death penalty is the basis for extending its application, not abolishing it. If an employer discriminates in hiring workers, do we demand that jobs be taken from the deserving who were hired or that jobs be abolished altogether?
Likewise, if our criminal justice system discriminates in applying the death penalty so that some do not get their deserved punishment, it's no reason to give Iesser punishments to murderers who deserved the death penalty and got it. Some justice, however unequal, is better than no justice, however equal. To ensure justice and equality, we must work to improve our system so that everyone who deserves the death penalty gets it.
The case against capital punishment is often made on the basis that society has a moral obligation to protect human life, not take it. The taking of human life is permissible only if it is a necessary condition to achieving the greatest balance of good over evil for everyone involved. Given the value we place on life and our obligation to minimize suffering and pain whenever possible, if a less severe alternative to the death penalty exists which would accomplish the same goal, we are duty-bound to reject the death penalty in favor of the less severe alternative.
There is no evidence to support the claim that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent of violent crime than, say, life imprisonment.
0コメント