Students Will Read Chapters 13, 14, And 15 Of The Kappeler A ✓ Solved

Students will read chapters 13, 14, and 15 of the Kappeler a

Students will read chapters 13, 14, and 15 of the Kappeler and Potter text, The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice. Upon completion of the weekly reading assignment, students will submit a two-page case study outlining discrimination and the death penalty. The summation should include either the crime rate in the United States from Chapter 13 and/or the juvenile death penalty from Chapter 14. Ensure that factual information provided in your essay is supported by listing your references at the end of your case study and citing your references within your essay.

Paper For Above Instructions

The death penalty remains a profoundly controversial instrument within criminal justice, raising enduring questions about fairness, bias, and the moral responsibilities of a society that retains capital punishment. In this case study, I examine (1) how discrimination shapes the application of the death penalty in the United States, (2) what the crime rate data from Chapter 13 reveal about the context in which capital punishment operates, and (3) how the juvenile death penalty from Chapter 14 has evolved in law and policy. Drawing on Kappeler and Potter’s analysis (Kappeler & Potter, 2010) and corroborating scholarship, I argue that discrimination—racial, geographic, and socioeconomic—maps onto death-sentencing decisions, contributing to unequal outcomes even as the law seeks formal equality. This essay also engages with legal developments, including landmark Supreme Court rulings that constrain or redefine capital punishment in light of evolving standards of decency and scientific understanding of juvenile and cognitive capacity (McCleskey v. Kemp, Atkins v. Virginia, Roper v. Simmons). Throughout, I connect empirical trends in crime and punishment to broader questions about justice, legitimacy, and public safety, using evidence from Chapter 13 (crime rates), Chapter 14 (juvenile sentencing limitations), and Chapter 15 (contemporary issues in criminal justice policy).

First, discrimination in capital sentencing is not a relic of the past but a persistent feature of the modern system. The literature consistently shows racial disparities in the likelihood of receiving a death sentence, as well as disparities tied to the race of a victim and to defendants’ socioeconomic status and geographic location. The “race-of-victim” effect—where crimes againstwhite victims are more likely to be punished capitally than crimes against Black victims—has been repeatedly documented in capital-case data analyses (Baldus, Woodworth, & Pulaski, 1983). Although courts have rejected broad claims of racial bias in every case, the preponderance of comparable studies across jurisdictions indicates systematic disparities that cannot be explained solely by offense severity or criminal history (Baldus et al., 1983; McCleskey v. Kemp, 1987). These findings align with Kappeler and Potter’s discussion of how myth-making and public narratives around crime shape policy choices, sometimes masking underlying inequities (Kappeler & Potter, 2010). This convergence suggests that discrimination in death-penalty decisions persists despite formal guarantees of equality.

Second, Chapter 13’s crime-rate data situates capital punishment within a broader pattern of societal risk and alarm. Crime levels, particularly violent crime rates, influence political rhetoric and policy agendas surrounding punishment. While increases in crime have historically been associated with greater punitive responses, the relationship is not straightforward: jurisdictions with lower crime rates may still rely on capital punishment due to political dynamics, prosecutorial discretion, and public sentiment, whereas some high-crime areas have chosen alternative approaches. The statistical relationship between crime rates and the application of the death penalty is therefore mediated by institutional factors, including prosecutorial practices, appellate review, and local governance structures (Kappeler & Potter, 2010). In addition, the death-penalty landscape must be understood within the broader ecosystem of deterrence theory, public safety concerns, and ethical debates about punishment proportionality (Kappeler & Potter, 2010; Alexander, 2010).

Third, the juvenile death penalty presents a distinct and evolving set of legal and moral questions. Chapter 14 highlights the shift in jurisprudence from broad capital punishment for juveniles to more protective standards grounded in capacity and maturity. The landmark decisions in Atkins v. Virginia (2002) and Roper v. Simmons (2005) curtailed capital punishment for intellectually disabled individuals and for those who were under 18 at the time of their offenses, respectively. These rulings reflect a constitutional concern with evolving standards of decency and with the recognition that juveniles’ cognitive development, impulse control, and social contexts differ markedly from those of adults (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002; Roper v. Simmons, 2005). The practical implication is a narrowing of the circumstances under which the state may resort to execution for young offenders, which in turn affects the equity of punishment, because juveniles’ backgrounds—trauma, poverty, and exposure to violence—often intersect with race and class to shape criminal trajectories (Kappeler & Potter, 2010; Alexander, 2010).

Finally, the ethical and policy implications of these realities demand ongoing scrutiny. A just system must reconcile the punitive aims of public safety with the imperative to avoid disproportionate harm to marginalized groups. The empirical literature on death-penalty use, when augmented by the criminological insights from Chapter 13 and the juvenile-specific considerations in Chapter 14, suggests that reform efforts should emphasize transparency in charging and sentencing decisions, enhanced mental-capacity assessments, robust appellate safeguards, and targeted policies to address underlying drivers of crime and violence—without relying on a practice that systematically disadvantages certain communities. The moral legitimacy of capital punishment rests not only on the proportionality of the punishment to the crime but also on the equity of its application and the accuracy of adjudication in each case (Kappeler & Potter, 2010; DPIC, 2023).

In sum, the case study indicates that discrimination in death-penalty decisions persists across racial, economic, and geographic lines, and that juvenile capital punishment has become increasingly constrained by constitutional doctrine and social understanding of juveniles’ development. The crime-rate context provided by Chapter 13 helps illuminate why some policymakers advocate for harsher penalties, while the juvenile-penalty shifts in Chapter 14 demonstrate a trajectory toward limiting capital punishment on the grounds of maturity and culpability. A rigorous engagement with these sources—paired with ongoing empirical analysis and principled legal reasoning—remains essential to advancing a fair and effective criminal-justice system (Kappeler & Potter, 2010; McCleskey v. Kemp, 1987; Atkins v. Virginia, 2002; Roper v. Simmons, 2005).

References

1. Kappeler, V. E., & Potter, G. W. (2010). The Mythology of Crime and Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
2. Baldus, D. C., Woodworth, G. F., & Pulaski, C. A. (1983). Equality of Justice in the Georgia Death Penalty: An In-Depth Examination. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 74(1), 1–19.
3. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).
4. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
5. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 552 (2005).
6. Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). (2023). Facts about the death penalty. https://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-death-penalty
7. Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press.
8. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2022). Crime in the United States, 2021. Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
9. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (2020). Capital Punishment, 2018–2019. NCJ 252667. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
10. Amnesty International. (2016). Death Sentences and Executions 2015. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ACT50/3679/2016/en/