One of the major problems with capital punishment is that it is not equally applied in all facets of the issues. Like in all areas of the death penalty, there are opponents and advocates of the execution of the mentally retarded. People oppose capital punishment for the mentally handicapped because of previous rulings which state that execution violates the Eighth Amendment and because the United States’ government should try to rehabilitate its citizens rather than to punish them. Advocates, however, believe if one faction of people is exempt from the penalty, then all citizens should be excused under the Eighth Amendment. People also favor the use of the death penalty for the purpose of retribution. When dealing with the mentally retarded, people do not sympathize with one's incapability to comprehend the magnitude of one's actions and still want those responsible to suffer.
The application of the death penalty under the constrictions of the Eighth Amendment has now been extended to juveniles as well due to the Roper v. Simmons Case. As a result of this case, one must be of legal age to receive capital punishment. Experts have conducted studies that prove that in cases such as Earl Washington’s, many of the accused that are mentally retarded have the mental capacity of a young child. What does this say about our justice system if one of the most advanced countries in the world was trying children and people of their intellectual aptitude at one point in time? In order to resolve this debate over the usage of capital punishment, my theory is that the system should develop a uniform system for execution throughout the nation. If the death penalty cannot be applied equally to all, it should be abolished entirely. This is because the death penalty is not only administered disproportionately in terms of mental retardation and juveniles, but also in terms of geography and race. Due to these controversial factors and moral arguments, debate arises. Additionally, shouldn’t the United States try to rehabilitate all criminals as it does with the mentally retarded? Is the death penalty showing a certain type of selective process through capital punishment?
4 comments:
I completely agree with the fact that America prides itself on considering all its citizens to be equal. However, is being equal really equal? The saying I will be fair but not always equal was constantly said to me as a child. What does this mean in respect to our nation's judicial system? While it isn't equal to allow capital punishment for one group of average-intelligence citizens but not for a group of mentally challenged, it would be considered fair. The mentally challenged may not know what his or her actions were and why the action is considered wrong in our society. The citizen of average intelligence does know exactly what the crime was and how cruel and atrocious it was.
In addition, the question proposed, “shouldn’t the United States try to rehabilitate all criminals as it does with the mentally retarded?seems logically at first glace. But after careful consideration, these adults being tried know what they did. Unless some psychological factor is present, the actions committed by the suspect cannot be taken back, and rehab would most likely be totally unsuccessful.
I agree that the death penalty needs to either be uniform or not exist at all. The punishment here is too extreme to allow interpretation by different courts, judges, or juries. It is not at all just for someone to receive the death penalty in one court, but perhaps not in another. Clearly it would be wrong to execute some groups of people such as youth or mentally handicapped. Therefore, as you cannot justify the death penalty as a universal punishment, it is very improbable that a truly fair, consistent guideline for the death penalty could be implemented, so I believe it would be best to do without it altogether.
I definitely agree that the death penalty should not be administered if it is not equal in all regards. If we continue to make exceptions for certain individuals, the system becomes disorganized and does not have a basis for the rationale behind the punishment. This is a great reason for the death penalty to be abolished because if we can not agree on a common medium of punishment for all individuals, then maybe there is a flaw in the system itself. In spite of everything “all is fair in justice and crime” right?
However, it is understandable to reconsider the punishment for young adults and the mentally retarded because they often times do not realize the affects their actions have on others.
I agree with you that capital punishment isn't a uniform system in this country at all. But, I feel as though it's a more complicated issue then it appears to be. I think abolishing the death penalty for the whole nation would come in conflict with state's rights, which is why I feel that we haven't done it yet. Yet because of varying applications of the death penalty across the states justice isn't really being administered equally across its citizens like you said. Its there for each community to decide on who is eligible for the punishment and who isn't and thats what bothers me about it. The political views and exposure to 'diversity' of vary region by region. Its a sad thing that a person's value of life can be judged by a select group of people. I guess the checks and balances system doesn't work so well after all.
Post a Comment