Death Penalty Case Study Examples

<First name, Surname>
<Instructor/Professor>
<Course/Unit>
<Submission Date>

The debate on whether or not the death penalty is fair and just has been ongoing for years. Those in support of the penalty believe that it accords justice to the victims of assault. However, a large number of the people in the society support the eradication of the death penalty from the legal system as a form of punishment. These are largely human rights activists who advocate for the right to life.
The success of legal systems in a country is dependent on the efficiency with which the public receive justice with minimal or no delays. The death penalty sentence is a controversial topic. However, it is clear that when such a sentence is the solution for the proportionate crime that happened it results in justice.
In the case of Troy Gregg, he is found guilty of two counts of murder after it was brought to light that he killed Fred Simmons and Bob Moore who had stopped to offer him a ride on their vehicle. Having taken two lives through death, it was only fair and just that the jury hands him a sentence that is equally proportionate to the crime committed and therefore issued a death sentence.
However, in the jury is not always right in issuing justice. It is crucial that the jury grants justice as lack of justice portrays a bad image of the entire legal system and may result in the people’s loss of confidence in justice being granted. The case of William Alvin Smith is one such kind of justice denied to the offender but served to the victim. William, who is mentally retarded and, therefore, has poor cognitive skills, killed a store owner. On the trial, the jury hands him the death sentence irrespective of the fact that he was not in a position to understand that his actions were wrong. The jury was, therefore, unjust in according him a death sentence although the sentence is proportionate to the crime committed.
The principle of double effect aims at trying to come to an understanding as to whether it is morally right for an individual to pursue a good deed. The individual pursuing the good deed has full knowledge that it might result in two contrasting results such as either edifying effects or harmful effects. The general conclusion, in this case, is that it is permissible if the individual did not perform an act that is wrong in and did not intend for the results to be harmful.
In the legal system, an individual on trial can use this principle to defend himself or herself. For example, in the case of Troy Gregg, he uses the principle of double effect to defend himself when he claims that Simmons had attacked him and had therefore fired in self- defense. The jury found Gregg guilty of murder and despite his stand that it was for self-defense, and he did not mean harm. In this case, there is a need for evidence that Simmons and Moore were harmed and meant to cause harm. If this were true, the jury would then reconsider his plea and by application of the principle of the double effect grant leaner sentence.

Conclusion

The legal systems in any nation should have competent personnel in the jury who clearly understand the legal requirements and procedures in making a decision such as a sentence ruling. It is a necessity that the jury clearly understands the underlying circumstances of the crime committed fully. The ultimate goal should, however, be ensuring justice is served to both the offender and the victim regardless of the magnitude of the crime committed.