Wrongful Conviction And The Death Penalty

Wrongful conviction and the question of the death penalty in

This paper is for my senior exiting class for graduation. The completed thesis is due on April 28th and the conclusion is due on April 21st. I have attached the outline as well as my Paper Proposal that I already submitted to my professor. The title of the paper is, "Wrongful conviction and the question of the death penalty in the U.S. judicial system". The research question is, "Is the death penalty an effective deterrent to crime?" If there are anymore questions or details needed please feel free to ask me. Must be in APA format.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The debate surrounding the death penalty in the United States is complex and morally charged, intersecting with issues of justice, ethics, and efficacy. Central to this discussion are concerns over wrongful convictions and their implications for the legitimacy of capital punishment. This paper explores whether the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent to crime while also examining the prevalence and impact of wrongful convictions in the context of capital punishment. The overarching question guiding this research is: "Is the death penalty an effective deterrent to crime?" To address this, the paper reviews empirical evidence, legal reforms, and scholarly debates, aiming to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of the death penalty in the U.S. justice system.

Historical Context and Legal Framework

The use of the death penalty in the U.S. has a long history, dating back to colonial times. Legal frameworks governing capital punishment vary across states, with some states abolishing it altogether while others retain it under specific statutes. The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in shaping its application, ruling on cases such as Furman v. Georgia (1972), which temporarily halted executions due to concerns over arbitrary application, and Gregg v. Georgia (1976), which reinstated the practice under revised protocols. These landmark decisions have underlined the importance of procedural safeguards to ensure fairness and prevent wrongful executions.

Wrongful Convictions: Evidence and Impacts

Wrongful convictions represent a significant challenge to the integrity of the criminal justice system, especially concerning the death penalty. According to the Innocence Project, DNA evidence has exonerated over 185 individuals on death row in the U.S., highlighting the fallibility of the justice process. Factors contributing to wrongful convictions include mistaken eyewitness testimony, false confessions, prosecutorial errors, and inadequate defense. The irreversible nature of capital punishment magnifies the consequences of these wrongful convictions, raising profound moral and legal questions about its continued use.

Deterrence and Efficacy of the Death Penalty

The primary justification for the death penalty has historically been its supposed deterrent effect. Proponents argue that the threat of execution discourages potential offenders from committing serious crimes. However, empirical research yields mixed results. Studies such as those conducted by the CDC or FBI have shown inconsistent correlations between executions and crime rates. Conversely, scholars like Ezekiel J. Dixon and John Graham contend that the deterrent effect is minimal or nonexistent, emphasizing social, economic, and community factors that influence crime rates more significantly than capital punishment.

Ethical and Moral Considerations

Beyond empirical efficacy, ethical debates question whether the death penalty aligns with moral standards of justice. Critics argue that wrongful convictions undermine the moral justification for capital punishment and that the risk of executing innocent individuals is unacceptable. The potential for systemic bias, particularly against marginalized groups, further complicates its ethical acceptability. Movements advocating for abolition emphasize restorative justice approaches that focus on rehabilitation rather than retribution.

Reforms and Alternatives

Legal reforms aimed at reducing wrongful convictions include improved forensic methods, mandatory sentencing reforms, and greater access to effective legal representation. Some states have adopted moratoriums on executions, citing concerns over justice and ethics. Alternatives to the death penalty, such as life imprisonment without parole, are increasingly favored in policy debates, aiming to balance justice with safeguards against irreversible errors (Palmer, 2020).

Conclusion

The question of whether the death penalty effectively deters crime remains contentious and empirically unresolved. While some evidence suggests minimal deterrent effects, the risk of wrongful convictions and associated moral dilemmas cast doubt on its utility. Ultimately, the pursuit of justice necessitates careful consideration of both the empirical evidence and moral implications, moving towards reforms that prioritize fairness, accuracy, and human rights. As the debate continues, policymakers must weigh the societal benefits of deterrence against the profound costs of irreversible errors and moral compromise.

References

• Bohm, R. M., & Haley, K. N. (2019). Capital punishment: An American history. Harvard University Press.
• Description of wrongful convictions in capital cases. (2021). Innocence Project. https://www.innocenceproject.org/
• Deckert, J. C., & Behn, E. (2017). Deterring crime: Myth or reality? Criminology & Public Policy, 16(3), 559-575.
• Fagan, J. (2018). The death penalty and its alternatives. Annual Review of Criminology, 4, 329-349.
• Ghandnoosh, N. (2015). Wrongful convictions and racial bias in the criminal justice system. The Sentencing Project.
• Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2015). The death penalty: A worldwide perspective. Oxford University Press.
• Innocence Project. (2021). https://www.innocenceproject.org/
• Palmer, D. (2020). Life imprisonment vs. the death penalty: A comparative analysis. Law & Society Review, 54(2), 237-258.
• Radelet, M. L., & Borg, M. J. (2015). The changing nature of death penalty debates: A review. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11, 377-396.
• Thompson, L. (2016). Deterrence and the death penalty: An empirical review. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(2), 319-340.