What Goes Around Comes Around

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Jessica Baeza

Sociology 102

What Goes Around Comes Around: Murder Creates Death

For centuries, the Constitution has served as a foundation for the United States of America. The foundation has not been set in stone and throughout years of refining and reconstructing the foundation, there has been twenty-seven amendments made. One of the amendments, the Eight Amendment, states that there shall not be any cruel or unusual punishments towards any individual. Yet, the murder penalty stands strong in many states to this day. The death penalty has been instituted for the control of deviance. Although it is a controversial topic, the death penalty has been assumed to end the homicide rates while Christian beliefs suppress the death penalty due to the morality of their beliefs. Though these are opposing views, they both have one similarity; they differ from the reality of the death penalty.

The death penalty does not terminate murder. Murder, along with the death penalty, is part of an undefined mystery. In logic the death penalty would prevent murders, yet it has not effect on the murder rate. This conclusion alters the purpose of the death penalty. Since murder is a crime of passion, murderers do not have time to think about the death penalty but rather only have time to think about the actual murder. The controversy of the death penalty also opens up new questions. Questions such as, what if an innocent human was being tried without justice because of prejudice and discrimination according to their race, gender, and ethnicity.

For years, the death penalty has been justified by the statement that if the death penalty was instituted murderers would fear arrest and it would prevent convicted murderers from killing again. [1] Studies have shown that although its purpose of the death penalty is to prevent murder, it has failed as well as created more murder. [2] The logical outcome for the death penalty would be lower murder rates but over a century and a half of studies, that has shown to be indifferent. "Murder and capital punishment are not opposite that cancel one another, bit similar that breed their kind," George Bernard stated. [3] Clear thinking individuals would understand the consequences of murder but murderers are clearly not clear minding individuals but impulsive ones. [4] 

In other countries were the execution rate is low or nonexistent, homicide rates are very close or equal to the United States’ homicide rates. [5] According to George E. Pataki, after the death penalty was reinstituted in New York, in 1995 violent crime dropped twenty-three percent and assaults dropped twenty-two percent. He also justifies the death penalty by stating that most murderers and criminals serve absurd prison terms for the crimes they commit. In 1973, Arthur Shawcross was sentenced to fifteen years in prison for the brutal rape and murder of two children and in twenty-one month killing spree and killed eleven others. Shawcross was not sentenced to death because in the year of 1973 the death penalty was considered unconstitutional. Pataki stated that the death penalty would have been the only way to save the innocent eleven lives Shawcross had caused. [6] "Preventing a crime from being committed ultimately is more important than punishing criminals after they have shattered lives," George Pataki stated. [7] 

Pataki’s argument is valid provided he used actual facts but that is in New York, not every state functions the same. Murderers are guilt-free individuals, so why would they fear death if they don’t fear guilt? Michael J. Godfrey and Vincent Schiraldy contradict George Pataki with their statement that studies have shown that crime rates actually go up and not down in the aftermath of a publicized execution. This is due to the "brutalizing" effect that publicized violence causes. Viewing the violence on television, allows for criminals and murderers to "lead by example" and engage in these activities. In the years of executions, the homicide rates were up to ten percent and in non-execution years the rates were almost up to five percent. [8] If the death penalty was an efficient deterrent it would decrease homicide rates, yet it has proven to increase rates.

"Ironically, the same reality that makes it difficult to show that capital punishment deters murders also makes it difficult to show racial disparity." [9] In every aspect of American history, race and ethnicity have played an important role in the lawmaking decisions. Today, this is not as evident but it is still a backbone in society. Blacks who murder whites are treated more harshly than blacks who murder blacks or whites that murder blacks. The study of Leigh Bienen verified that it was not the murderer’s race that determined the outcome but the victim’s race. Cases where the victim was white were eleven times more likely to be declared in a death penalty sentence than cases with a black victim involved. [10] 

Murder cases were there has been interracial, white-on-black crimes have also been treated more harshly because in the public eye that can be constituted as "hate crimes." Sixty-five percent of criminals that have committed a crime against a white individual either were sentenced to the death penalty or life imprisonment, while twenty-five percent of criminals that committed a crime against a black individual did. [11] "Abolishing the death penalty would eliminate the most visible outcropping of injustice… Most importantly, it would not address, in any substantial way, the total structure of unfairness." [12] 

Since the beginning of chivalry ideals, women’s honors have been justified by the lynching of men and today that lynching has been classified into the death penalty. Women are treated more leniently than men in murder trials and men are sentenced longer. Men who murder are six times more likely to be given the death penalty sentence than women who murder. Yet women are still being discriminated upon in the courtroom. Domestic violence murders more than likely never reach a death penalty sentence. [13] "Even if the victim, did nothing a prosecutor or jury believe "provoked" the murder in that moment, these decision-makers may believe that simply by being involved with an abusive man a woman has some responsibility for her own murder" [14] Chivalry is alive in the court system, women, the court believes, are inevitable to violence and cannot defend themselves so the court intervenes and allows them to be treated according to their "abilities." [15] Even with the years of struggles against discrimination in the courts, the courts are still seen as unequal and instead of creating justice they degrade the Declaration of Independence which states that all men are equal.

A juvenile, sentenced to the death penalty, has been a controversial issue in the court system. It is disputed whether or not a juvenile should be tried as an adult, despite their inability to think and act like an adult. Some contenders argue that the youth and immaturity of the defendant plays on the murder. Juveniles do not have a premeditated reason to commit murder but they do it out of spike and rage. Yet, the power of the death penalty and its supporters argue that the only way to stop a murderer from killing is to kill him, despite the age. Although, when we reach the juvenile stage we often act on our feelings and do not think twice about the consequences. Juvenile individuals are more likely to commit murder in a time of panic than adults, even without the prime intention to commit murder. If they had no initial intent, why would they have a second attempt at something they did not plan on? The murder affects the victims as if an adult committed the crime, yet the juvenile has not reached the maturity of an adult. [16] "Society remains equally as safe whether a juvenile murdered is imprisoned or executed." [17] Can an adult really state and contemplate that during the adolescent stage they never did something childish or regretful?

"…punishment is imposed in order to vent society’s sense of outrage and need for revenge…If one commits murder without specific intent, or even accidentally, should one be killed? Need the adolescent offender be killed to satisfy society’s need for retribution?" [18] We are only human and because we are human we make mistakes. Too often mistakes happen in the courtroom and the people that were once proven guilty were proven innocent, sometimes too late. What if a contender is sentenced to death and is proven innocent only after the death has occurred? In normal circumstances, the prisoner that is found innocent can be set free but prisoners on death row are not so lucky, death cannot be undone. To sentence the death penalty is harsh but unless all things line up, not just anyone should be sentenced to death row. [19] "…the capital system is haunted by the demon of error." [20] 

The death penalty has been used as a control for deviance, yet it has done the exact opposite. Murderers don’t fear death whether it is themselves or others put under the threat of death. The death penalty can only prevent captured murderers to stop killing but cannot deter new or non-captured murderers from killing. [21] By sentencing murderers to the death penalty, it is setting an example that death and murder are sometimes the only methods to use. Although society has proven it means business through the death penalty laws, it cannot deter murder but it can institute that murder is wrong for clear-minded individuals. The media, family, friends, and school teach right from wrong but it is a personal decision and state of mind that determines which path an individual will take.