| Capital Punishment Debate |
Article Index for Capital Punishment |
Shopping Debate |
Website Links For Capital Punishment |
Information AboutCapital Punishment Debate |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT DEBATE | |
| capital punishment | |
| controversies | |
|
ETHICS AND PHILOSOPHY Ethical debate of the Death Penalty can be split into two main philosophical contexts, a Deontological context and an Utilitarian / Consequentialist context. The a priori argument can be further subcategorised into Right argument and Virtue argument. Legal debate also generally falls into prior argument based on legal text. (See, "Law, Judiciary and the Death Penalty" section) Consequentialist argument can be largely reduced to utilitarian formula through what amount to cost or benefit of the death penalty depends on the criteria such as life, economics, or even more philosophical concept such as virtue or popular consensus. (See Economics and the Death Penalty section) Deontological argument In short, the deontological objection to the death penalty asserts that the death penalty is "wrong" by its nature, mostly due to the fact that it amounts to the violation of the right to life, which should be universal. In philosophical debate, however, the virtue school tends to argue that the death penalty is also "wrong" on the ground that the process is cruel and inhumane. It brutalises the society at large and desensitises and dehumanises participants of the judicial process. In particular, it extinguishes the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption of the perpetrator(s). Deontic justification to the death penalty on the other hand, argues that the death penalty is "right" by nature, mostly on the ground that retribution against the violator of another life or liberty is "just". In virtue context, they point out that, without proper retribution, the judicial system further brutalises the victim or victim's family and friends which amounts to secondary victimisation, (see Victims' Rights Amendment ). Moreover, the judicial process which apply the death penalty reinforces the sense of justice among participants as well as the citizens as a whole and might even provide incentive for the convicted to own up. State of Nature Almost all who participate in the philosophical debate under the deontology context agree that life imprisonment cannot be a substitute for the death penalty. This is because life imprisonment or any other length of incareceration is a direct violation of liberty. Moreover, the possibility of irreversible misscarraige of justice exist in both death penalty and incareceration. Most agree that there is no logically consistent deontological argument, which can be applied as an a priori objection to the violation of one type of right (life) while at the same time not apply deontological objection to the violation of other right (liberty). For this reason, anyone who objects to the death penalty on priori grounds accept that, logically, any punishment in any form of violation of human rights is wrong on priori ground. If any restriction is placed on the perpetrator, then it must be on the ground of prevention rather than retribution. Proponents of the death penalty in turn assert that a deontological objection is, therefore, unrealistic from a consequential perspective. They point out that if there is indeed no penalty for murder or other crime, then there is no effective barrier against initial crime bar some psychological one. They further point out that without punishment, there is nothing to prevent the victim or his/her family and friends to take revenge, which in turn prompt the other side to retaliate in defence. In essence, this will revert the situation to Hobbesian State Of Nature , that is "war of all against all". A Priori Position in Consequentialist Context Most opponents of the death penalty concede that the ideal state which take priori objection to logical conclusion is impractical. However, they still asert that the Lockean State Of Nature , where humans are essentially good, is still valid as a guiding principle in the implementation of the judicial process. This is indeed the case of judicial procedure for juveniles where the retribution aspect is explicitly removed and any restriction placed on the perpatorator is essentially for rehabilitation purposes. Moreover, the principle of rehabilitation is increasingly applied to other area, such as parole system and various psychological, vocational and educational programs offered within prison system. They argue that while we may never reach the ideal state, where no cime or punishment takes place, we can still aim toward such state whenever we can, which are only be constrained by the resource and the willingness of the civilisation. For this reason, they assert that replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment or indefinte incarceration is a step in the right direction given that there is no practical problem in implementing such policy. Theose who argue for the death penalty on priori (retribution) ground argue that rehabilitation only apply when the victim survive. In case of murder, they point out that {possible} rehabilitation of one life cannot redeemed another life taken. Alternatively, some concede that the merit of rehabilitation may prevail over the merit of retribution in some circumstance such as manslaughter, negligent homocide, crime of passion or juvenile crime. However, in case of planned multiple homocide committed by an adult who shows no sign of remose at the time of crime, the death penalty is the only just course of action. HUMAN RIGHTS The concept of Human rights originated from the natural rights formulated by the Classical Liberals of the enlightenment period. However, the concept over the centuries has grown to become the dominant political, philosophical and legal principle in the world. Most anti-death penalty organisations, most notably Amnesty International , base their stance on human right arguments. Wrongful convictions The death penalty is often opposed on the grounds that, because every criminal justice system is fallible, innocent people will inevitably be executed by mistake A general overview of the judicial fallibility problem: Amnesty International, "Fatal flaws: innocence and the death penalty in the USA" (November 1998) and the death penalty is both irreversible and more severe than lesser punishments. The supporters of the death penalty point out that lesser punishments including life imprisonment can also be imposed in error and incarceration is also irreversible if the innocent dies in prison. Moreover, whether money is an acceptable compensation for long period of incarceration is matter of subjective opinion. They also point out that, given significantly large number of people who are incarcerated rather than executed, it is more common for miscarriages of justice to occur in non-death penalty case though each individual execution is undoubtedly more severe except arguably for a case where the innocent were incarcerated for his or her natural life. For supporters of the death penalty, failure for anti death penalty to oppose life imprisonment and/or incarceration invalidate their argument. The opponents of death penalty often argued that even a single case of an innocent person being executed is unacceptable, most arguments about wrongful convictions proceed on the basis of empirical evidence and statistics. Opponents of the death penalty in the United States, for example, point to the fact that between a suspect is considered innocent until proven guilty, the fact that a convict is exonerated and released from death row means merely that there is insufficient evidence to prove their guilt, rather than that they are necessarily innocent. Some opponents of the death penalty believe that, while it is unacceptable as currently practiced, it would be permissible if criminal justice systems could be improved. However more staunch opponents insist that, as far as capital punishment is concerned, criminal justice is irredeemable. The US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun , for example, famously wrote that it is futile to "tinker with the machinery of death". In addition to simple human fallibility, there are numerous more specific causes of wrongful convictions; for example:
The proponent of death penalty argue that all these criticism apply equally to life imprisonment, which imply that some innocents might have spent entire life being incarcerated. Therefore, this would make argument of substituting death penalty with life imprisonment moot. Right to life Critics of the death penalty commonly argue that it is a violation of the Right To Life or of the 'sanctity of life'. Many national constitutions and international treaties guarantee the right to life; arguments based on these legal provisions are discussed below (under the 'legality' heading). However many also hold that the right to life is a Human Right or Natural Right that exists independently of laws made by people. The proponent of the death penalty commonly counter that the critics does not appear to have problem with a violation of the right to liberty as in case of incarceration as substitute. Therefore, they implicitly accept that exception can be made to natural right. Therefore, the proponent view the critics' argument to be nonessential. The right to life and the right to liberty was stated to be a natural right by 17th-century Philosopher John Locke who specifically accepted incarceration and execution in response to violation of right to life and liberty. Right to life and liberty are also declared to be human rights by famous documents such as the United Nations Universal Declaration Of Human Rights and the American Declaration Of Independence while actual U.N. treaties specifically exempt death penalty in certain circumstance including serious criminal offence. Opponents of the death penalty argue that the right to life demands that a life only be taken in exceptional circumstances, such as in Self-defence or as an act of war, and therefore that it violates the right to life of a criminal if she or he is executed. Critics often hold that because life is an unalienable right the criminal cannot forfeit the right by committing a crime. Supporters of the death penalty point out that opponent do not actually consider right to be inviolable. Rather that the opponent find right to life to be specifically inviolable whose distinction is arbitrary. The proponent insist that the right to life is not irrevocable, and so can be forfeited, especially by a criminal who takes the life of another. They sometimes go further to argue that the death penalty is ''necessary'' to protect the right to life of the victims of murder, either because this entails the right of a victim to have their murder avenged, or because the death penalty is necessary to prevent, by means of incapacitation or deterrence, future murders. Inhumaneness Opponents of the death penalty usually argue that is inhumane, or even that it constitutes a form of Torture . Those who make this argument commonly insist that, in addition to violating the right to life, the death penalty is also contrary to the right to be free from torture or inhumane treatment. This right is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other documents as the right to be free from torture or "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". Some arguments about the humaneness of the death penalty apply only to specific methods of execution. Of methods of execution currently in use the , which is considered by some to be a form of torture. The proponent of death penalty point out that that incarceration often produce sever phychological depression, but this is obviously not a valid ground for abolishing penal system. By this logic, physical or psychological pain inflicted in the ordinary course of carrying out the procedure cannot constitute valid objection to death penalty or incarceration. Minority among the proponent further argue that great suffering is somewhat desireble by the principle of retribution, by its deterent effect or by other perceived advantages of capital punishment. Occasionally arguments from humaneness are made in favour of capital punishment. The political writer Peter Hitchens has argued that the death penalty is less humane than life imprisonment. Brutalising effect The brutalising effect, also know as the brutalization hypothesis, argues that the death penalty has brutalising or coarsening effect either upon society or those officials and jurors involved in a criminal justice system which imposes it. It is usually argued that this is because it sends out a message that it is acceptable to kill in some circumstances or due to the societal disregard for the 'sanctity of life'. Some insist that the brutalising effect of the death penalty may even be responsible for increasing the number of murders in jurisdictions in which it is practiced. The theory states that through executions perfomed by the state, murders performed by individuals are justified under certain circumstances. Individuals often state that their actions should be classed as "justifiable homicide" because, like the state, they feel their action was appropriate.Sorensen et al.: "Capital punishment and deterrence: Examining the effect of executions on murder in Texas." , Crime and Delinquency 45, 4: 481-493., 1999. Discrimination It is argued that the s, minority religions and Activists . A major example of this is the People's Republic Of China from which there are many reports of the death penalty being used for politically motivated ends.Amnesty International, "Human Rights in China in 2001 - A New Step Backwards" (September 2001) Proponents of death penalty point out that some political prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment or long incarceration die in prison as well. Given that life imprisonment is proposed as substitute for death penalty, the proponents argue, this fact makes analogy irrelevant. They also point out that the debate could easily turned into more equitable application of death penalty which may increase the support for death penalty among oppressed minorities. The proponents argue that the problem of racism or political system is falsely attributed to the validity of death penalty itself. Arguments from democracy An argument used both in support of and against the death penalty is that one should follow the majority opinion in the country concerned. For example, if a majority of Americans support the death penalty, while in other countries, the public opinion is against, then whatever choice democratic process produce may be considered as "right" policy for that country. There are two possible objections to this argument. Firstly, that voters make up their minds on the basis of ethical arguments offered to them and not the other way round - i.e. ethical arguments should not be decided on the basis of uninformed voting either for or against death penalty. Secondly, that modern democracy is not Direct Democracy but Representative Democracy . This means that representatives have difficulty understanding the collective wishes of their constituents, such as whether the votes find life sentences as an acceptable alternative or how much priority they place on the issue of death penalty itself. No representative can be elected if they base their action in direct opposition to the wishes of the voters. In a modern democracy, freedom of speech is an important thing in the society. If someone is put to death, he/she won't be able to speak. LAW, JUDICIARY AND THE DEATH PENALTY Some argue, from the perspective of simplified version of Legal Positivism that whatever law passed through legistrative process is "legal" and moral and ethical debate is rather futile. This lead to rather consequentialist conclusion that whaterver collective consensus achieved through democratic process is "better" if not "just". However, this misses the point of Liberal Democracy where certain built in mechanism exist to prevent The Tyranny Of Majority . Critics of the death penalty commonly argue that the death penalty specifically and explicitly violates the right to life clause stated in the most of modern constitutions and human right treaties. It violate the section 3 and 5 of Universal Declaration Of Human Rights . While it is not a legally binding document, the declariation served as the foundation for the legally-binding, International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights , which most of countries signed (with some legal reservation). The treaty specifically allow implementation of death penalty in case of serious crimes or national emergencey. Nonetheless, most modern constitution contain right to life as a foundamental constitutional right with varying degree of exemption ranging from explicit exemption of "except in case of serious crime or national emergency" to vaugue exemption of "without due process" or "except in defence of public interest". Consequently this make legal debate essentially a priori argument based on legal text. Rules of legistrative construction When the constitution does not explicity exempt death penalty from the right to life clause, the judiciary are required to interpret the meaning of clause based on Rules Of Construction . Most common method is Plain Meaning Rule or Golden Rule , which is based on Strict Constructionism or Textualism which dictate that law are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute. In this sense, right to life clause establish priori ground for the prohibition of death except when it is used as a detterent to murder. In jurisprudence which practice death penalty, dettrence is the most common justification cited in the highest court. However, some jurist argue that this may not be the correct legal interpretation because Plain Meaning Rule apply only to the extent that they do not produce an absurd or totally obnoxious result, such as removing any priori justification of punishment. These jurist often advocate Social Purpose Rule , Mischief Rule or Purposive Approach which is loosely based on Originalism . Under this criteria, it is possible to go back to the sources outside of legal text such as the intention of the law makers or the meaning of the term during the original formation of the concept, which in this case often means 18th to 19th century Europe and America. The proponents of death penalty may claim, citing such source as Locke or more appropriately Thomas Jefferson in case of U.S. that, the original argument was that people form implicit Social Contract , ceding their right to the government to protect Natural Rights from being abused. Therefore, protection from abuse is the basis of such rights and those who violate such right automatically forfeit such right. Therefore, priori case against punishment does not exist. Critics from Legal Formalism argue that such approach might cause judge to inadvertently take sides in legislative or political issues which amount to "legistrating from the bench" and that the question is for the legislature to address, not the Judge. On the other hand, adovocate of this approach assert that unlike modern judicial activitism which does not follow precedent, the limit is clearly set in term of Originalism and the past precedent, therefore, the approach allow middle ground between possible absurdity of textualism and the danger of judicial activism. Protection from discrimination, persecution, and cruel and inhumane treatment The death penalty or particular conviction of death penalty may still be declared to be in breach of the constitution if it violate equal protection clause or clause prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment. This cover the case where judicial process is used to prosecute particular minorities, political opponents or individuals. In U.S. the most commonly cited example is disproportionate number of racial and economic minorities in the death row. In legal term, mere prevalance of certain minorities in death row or in prison general population does not amount to the violation of equal protection because it may simply be a result of these minorities committing more crime which fall into capital crime. Rather, it must be shown that there is inherent fault in the system or there was an implcit or explicit policy to persecute minorities or political opponent or that jury or judge's decision was shown to be slanted by their prejudice for "individual cases". In U.S. it is generally considered among jurist that race does not fall into this category except jury bias which would result in the reversal of conviction. Similarly, incompetent defence by court appointed Public Defender is also valid case of retrial and stay of execution. Similary, killing, pain or pshychological fear of killing cannot be a valid argument under the prohibition of cruel and inhumane treatment if the death penalty is declared constitutional. It must be shown that pain is inflicted for the purpose other than execution such as torture. Then the court can declare that particular method of execution to be unconstitutional but not the death penalty itself. Right to Fair Trial and Miscarriage of Justice Most often cited examples of miscarriage of Justice is U.S. which probably reflect both the high crime rate as well as vigorous nature of it's judicial process to correct it's mistake. Between 1973 and 2005 , 122 people in 25 US states were released from death row when their conviction is declared unsafe or clear new evidence of their innocence emerged . Recent progress in forensic science particularly of DNA testing have brought to light previously unavailable evidence and revealed errors in many old convictions based on circumstancial evidence such as witness testimony . Opponent of the death penalty also point out that certain procedure may be at fault, such as quality of Public Defender , which "is a better predictor of whether or not someone will be sentenced to death than the facts of the crime". Most unique to U.S. is it's heavy use of Plea Bargaining . Because of large case load of each public prosecutor, it is often commented that the American criminal justice system would simply cease to function without plea bargaining. In majority of Common Law and almost all Civil Law countries, the prosecutor is not allowed to offer reduced sentence in exchange of guility plea or hostile testimony in serious criminal cases. Plea bargainin are considered as unjust because it is inherent in the process of plea bargain to induce the innocnet to plead guilty, false testimony against the innocent and the overcharge by prosecutors. In legal term, (possible) advance in forenstic science, or existence of possible miscarriage or justice or some fault in the procedure cannot be a priori argument for the unconstitutionality of death penalty because such argument would lead to absurd conclusion that death penalty as well as any form of incareceration is unconstitutional given that the innocents could be falsely incarcerated or worse, died in prison before being exonerated. However, particular fault in procedure or evidence can be used to overturn individual case of conviction including the death penalty case or that particular system of judiciary process such as "plea bargaining" or the system of public defender can be declared unconstitutional. However, these does not provide legal argument to declare death penalty as constitutionally invalid. DETERRENT, PREVENTION AND ECONOMICS OF THE DEATH PENALTY Economics is derived from Utilitarianism (from the Latin ''utilis'', useful), which is a dominant approach in social science. It is a theory of ethics (or non ethics) that prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population. It is a single value system and a form of Consequentialism and Moral Absolutism . In effect, it assert that the issue of the death penalty ought to be decided solely on the ground of its cost and benefit to the society rather than on the ground of priori argument such as right or retribution. A Priori Objection Main objection of utilitarianism is that the aproach is almost by definition, majoritarian/totalitaian in the sense that, for example, action which save two lives at the expense of one life is considered as "better". This argument is the primary justification for use of death penalty against drug traficking or war or in some instance, extra judicial killing or persecution of political minorities. In the death penalty debate, it is objected on priori ground that it does not even have retributional justification of specific individual. More specifically, most object the implication that mistaken execution of innocent is regretable but still justified if the overall effect of death penalty still save more life. Therefore, abandoment of deontological or natural law position is implcitit in utilitarian approach. However, the proponent point out number of advantage. The deontological debate help to clarify respective position of the debate. But it offers no way to reach consensus because each argument stands on different priori ground. Similarly, legal argument can clarify priori legal or constitutional ground on the death penalty. However, it offer no insight over whether such law or constitutional clause can be justified on its merit. Utilitarian approach is attractive because it offers a possible way to reach "consensus" among different stance on the subject. (example, see Copenhagen Consensus ) For this reason, it is becoming increasingly common especially in the social science, including Criminology , and the law especially in Law And Economics , to use analysis based on the utilitarian(economic) approach. However, it should be stated that the measure of objectivity in humanities are often invariably coloured by priori ideological affiliation of the participants. Appeal to Evidence Arguably, the most "objective" criteria of analysis is the number of life being saved or lost as a result of the death penalty. The most specific case under this criteria is Incapacitation , that is, the death penalty prevents the perpetrator committing further murder in the future. Less specific justfication is detterent effect, that is the threat of death penalty deters potential murders or other serious crimes such as drug traficking. In the pre-modern period, when authorities had neither the resources nor the inclination to detain criminals indefinitely, the death penalty or other punishment such as caning or hand decapitation was probably the only available means of prevention and detterent. Opponents commonly argue that that today's incapacitation or detterent is equally well served by other means, especially life imprisonment. The proponent, in turn, argue that life imprisonment does not prevent murder within prison and also the life imprisonment is less effective detterent than the death peanlty. However, the debate over incapacitation is not intense. Despite the number of murders and other serious crimes within prison, the issue can be dealt with simply by confining the dangerous inmates to solitary confinement. The question of whether or not the death penalty deters murder usually revolves around the statistical analysis. Studies have produced disputed results with disputed significance.Death Penalty Information Center, Facts about Deterrence and the Death Penalty . Some studies have shown a correlation between the death penalty and murder ratesJoanna M. Shepherd, Capital Punishment and the Deterrence of Crime (Written Testimony for the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, April 2004.) - in other words, they show that where the death penalty applies, murder rates are also high. This correlation can be interpreted in either that the death penalty increases murder rates by brutalising society or that higher murder rates cause the state to retain or reintroduce the death penalty. However, the use of statistics is misleading because statistics show Correlation Not Causation . In fact, sufficient "proof" from Epistemological or Scientific ground amount to actual demonstration that detterence effect actually took place. This poses a near impossible problem in criminology. The opponent would invariably point to the death row inmate and argue that they are the "proof" that the death penalty does not work as detterent. However, the proponent can easily counter by pointing to far larger number of murderers (many of them repeat offenders) who are serving life imprisonment or long sentence and argue that life imprisonment or long incarceration does not work as substitute. In fact, this is result of sampling problem where those who do refrain from committing crimes due to detterent effect automatically rule itself out from statistics. This mean that it is almost impossible to prove the detterence effect of death penalty or incareceration by empirical demonstration. This further invites debate as to which side has the burden of proof. The opponents of the death penalty argue that the burden of proof is on the retentionist to prove that the death peanlty works better than the life imprisonment. Given the lack of (statistical) evidence, therefore, the death penalty ought to be abolished. The proponent argue that, given that existence of detterent effect is already acknowledged, the burden of proof is on the abolitionists to prove that the life imprisonment works equally well as a detterent. Given the lack of (statistical) evidence that life imprisonment works as equal detterent, the death penalty ought to be retained. Appeal to Common Sense The lack of demonstrative proof in turn reduce the debate to Appeal To Common Sence which is part of epistemological orientation called epistemological particularism. In this case, it start from the common sense premise that punishment do work as detterent and as a "general tendency", sever form of punishiment has higher detterent effect. The proponent of death penalty argue that not only death penalty works as detterent it is more effective than life imprisonment or long incarceration. The opponent argue that death penalty and life imprisonment equally works as detterent as an ultimate punishiment because criminals are unable to distinguish the difference. Similarly, the proponent might claim that if a criminal has already committed a lesser crime which carries a life sentence, the absence of the death penalty would mean that the criminal has nothing to lose by escalating the level of his wrongdoing, such as by killing witnesses or simply resort to indiscrimately killing before being caught just for the sake of it. This appear to be the reason why the most perpatorators of indiscrimate mass killing in the U.S. commit suicide before being caught. The opponent argue that if criminals believe they will face the death penalty, they are more likely to use violence or murder to avoid capture. Therefore the death penalty might theoretically even increase the rate of violent crime.1. By common sense, most would agree that those who commit crime of passion (see Diminished Responsibility / Diminished Responsibility In English Law ) and juvenile are unlikely to distinguish the difference. Moreover, weaker case can be made that typical criminal who tend to come from lower socio-economical background has less tendency to distinguish the difference between simple armed robbery and robbery accompanied by murder. Proponent point out that fear of death penalty rather than life imprisonment would be more effective to these groups. The argument can be further refined asserting that those who commit crime on more professional basis would indeed avoid killing in course of robbery or other crimes because they are aware of the potential implication in criminal trial. Opponent point out that professional criminal would likely to consider life imprisonment as final. Utilitarian question is how many. In utilitarian criteria, objectivity require that all life are equal. For the abolitionist to prevail, number of Executed including the wrongly convicted plus Murder committed as a result of death penalty must be greater than murders not committed specifically due to the death penalty). Additionally, a special case of appeal to common sense debate exist in the case of military discipline. The opponent argue that the death penalty eroding the morale of troops and striking a wedge between the commissioned and enlisted servicemen as the latter are likely to consider shooting their own as murder. The proponent counter that, against the imminent danger of death in the combat, the threat of death penalty under court martial is the only effective mean of maintaining the discipline if not the moral of the troops. Appeal to Economics This is not a primary argument for or against the death penalty. The issue was initially raised by the opponent who propose anecdotal argument that the death penalty is more expensive and time consuming than the life imprisonment. The proponent countered that the death penalty actually has more economic benefit, however, they did not argue that the death penalty should be retained for this reason. Arguments have been produced from both opponents and supporters of the death penalty based on economics.Martin Kasten, "An economic analysis of the death penalty" (1996); Michael Coles, "The Cost of Capital Punishment" (August 2002); Phil Porter, "The Economics of Capital Punishment" (1998). The term "economic" in the context of the death penalty is sometimes used in the wider sense of any Utilitarian argument, not merely financial arguments. Opponents of the death penalty point out that capital cases usually cost more than life imprisonment due to the extra costs of the courts such as appeals and extra supervisions. Proponents counter this argument by stating that the severity and finality of death as punishment demands that the extra resources be expended. In U.S. in particular, the accused is allowed to plead guilty so as to avoid the death penalty. This plea requires the accused to forfeit any appeal arguing innocence on material or procedural grounds. Furthermore, by waiving the threat of the death penalty, individuals can be encouraged to plead guilty, accomplices can be encouraged to testify against other defendants, and criminals can be encouraged to lead investigators to the bodies of victims. Proponents of the death penalty, therefore, argue that the death penalty significantly reduces the cost of the judicial process and criminal investigation. Quite few opponent of the death penalty concede that the economic argument may be in favour of the death penalty especially in term of plea baragaining. However, they point out that the Plea Bargain increase the likelihood of Miscarriage Of Justice which should be counted as the cost. Moreover, had the plea baragaining abolished, the economic link between the death penalty and life imprisonment will disappear. The proponent point out that in such case, those in life imprisonment would appeal indefintely, making the cost comparison irrelevant. FOOTNOTES |
|
|