Free Research Paper About Restructuring Death Penalty In California So That We Could Make It An Effective Deterrent Of Crime

Solutions

Restructuring the manner in which the death penalty is being viewed and applied in the California State needs a different approach and understanding. The death penalty debate has faced challenges from the local, national and international levels where opponents of the practice fight its abolishment. The need to offer a secondary option to it was debated upon, but the proponents of the death penalty were strong enough to propagate the idea due to its active probe in the society (Johnson, 2014).
The morality aspect of the matter offers a bigger argument for supporting the need to restructuring how the death penalty can be implemented in the California State. The morality version of the proponents’ perspective suggests that an equal measure of punishment must be subjected to an equal measure of crime. The possibilities of such an approach will prove relevant to the general population to deter and reduce crimes especially those that carry capital punishment. The scenarios of blacks facing more chances of being executed for their capital crimes has to take another angle as they are mostly involved in the crimes due to their background upbringing. Facing death sentences seems an ordinary occurrence for them as they experience the same during their daily activities from fellow gangs and rival enemies (Jost, 2010). The approach however, lacks the legal backing of the society, but the proponents’ approach seems to take a bigger support from the American Society. The stages set or morality will mean that the given laws on capital punishment also get reorganized to fit the need of preventing any crimes that might arise in the Californian community. Deterring crime through a moral approach will enhance the manner in which every member of the society is protected from capital offences that force the courts to administer a capital punishment of murder. The approach advocated for by proponents will beat the logic of harm done to those causing the same harm to others as propagated by the opponents of using death sentence to curb crimes (Johnson, 2014)..
A utilitarian approach also has how the structures of death sentences are well organized and structured to have potent deterrent effects to those who are budding offenders in the society. This will mean that proper structures and procedures are set through legislations in the manner in which an execution can be conducted. The laws covered must be elaborate and precise on the crimes that should carry the capital punishment. Murder has the most influential characteristics in the society and brings an equal measure of death by a prescribed form. The measures put in place are to prevent the temptation of others to participate in activities that will lead to the murder of other persons whether intentionally of by accident (Jost, 2010). When the law is clear and precise in the area of death sentences, the people and the courts will be in a position to take the necessary steps and precautions to avert or apply the laws as required. The position has been criticized by the opponents group who delinks capital punishment in any given area as a way of reducing or preventing the occurrence of crimes (Potter). People will make better decisions knowing the consequences of their actions in case they intend to commit a crime. The courts will not be compromised under pressure from the public while making their decisions on a given issue surrounding the death penalty. When the law is clear, the steps to be followed will be done so irrespective of the person on the stand. Issues of racial conflicts will not arise in the region as seen in the past as a position to prevent administering a death sentence by the courts. When the federal and national states are clear on the type of system to be put up, the necessary fiancés will also follow suit to support such programs as a manner of curbing crime in the region (Jost, 2010).
The proponents have also encouraged the practicability of ensuring death penalty remains a significant form of punishment in the society to control serious crimes. It is the view of those supporting the restructuring that it incapacitates any type of crime and a repetition of the same murders in the society. This approach means that those sentenced to death are executed and do not have a chance to commit the same capital offence. Another view in relation to the same is that, criminals involve with murder also have the possibility of committing other criminal offences in the society. The steps of deterring such chances will be to promote the manner in which the procedures and institutions set to conduct the executions are established (Kronenwetter, 1993). The other practical support of the restructuring death sentences to deter crime in the California Society is to save innocent lives of those likely to be victims of offenders. When the community is informed of any consequence of an offence, individuals are less likely to engage in criminal activities hence safe guiding the safety of members of the society. Most of the criminals set free for minor offences after serving their terms agree that punishments for capital offences make most of them deter from committing further crimes in the society. Unlike the proponents, the opponents of the practical approach expect that the other ways of reducing crimes like parole or life sentence can offer an opportunity to save the lives of the members of the society. This practical aspect of opponents suggested by them also ensure their own lives and others are saved from the anger of the public (The Case Against the Death Penalty, 2015). The proponents still fight against such decisions as the offenders will still have the chance to commit more crimes against other prisoners or even the society while on parole services. The steps to restructure death sentences will mean that protection is given to the society through appropriate measures under the proper legislations made in the region. Each aspect of the practical nature of the law to deter crimes must be created and appreciated by the concerned parties in the California State (Potter).

Conclusion

In conclusion, death penalty restructuring has faced different approaches in the society where there are those who support it and others are opposed to the scheme. The steps taken by the proponents need lots of campaigns and rallies to facilitate the idea to be acceptable in the society (Jost, 2010). The morality, utilitarian and practical approaches require the support of the California community to adjust to the needs of preserving lives and deterring crime in the region. The manner in which the public has taken the debate imposes a responsibility to the federal government to come up with procedures and institutions that will be mandated to fight crime through advocating for capital punishments for capital offences. The racial aspect should not be used as a limiting factor when it comes to death sentence cases as observed in the past. Crimes committed should be handled independently from racial surroundings and each case handled on its merits and demerits. Where a case that requires a death sentence to be given, the law should take its due course and the same applied in cases where death sentences are not involved. The reduction of criminal activities will considerably reduce in due time based on the harsh nature of the consequences likely to occur to them if they engage in them.

Work Cited

Haines, Herbert H. Against Capital Punishment: The Anti-Death Penalty Movement in America, 1972-1994. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.
Johnson, Michelle. "Death Penalty." CQ Researcher 13 May 2014. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.print
Jost, Kenneth. "Death Penalty Debates." CQ Researcher 19 Nov. 2010: 965-88. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.print
Jost, Kenneth. "Rethinking the Death Penalty." CQ Researcher 16 Nov. 2001: 945-68.
Kronenwetter, Michael. Capital Punishment : A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif:
Potter, Gary. "The Advocate." “Cost, Deterrence, Incapacitation, Brutalization and the
Death Penalty the Scientific Evidence: Statement before the Joint Interim Health
and Welfare Committee 22. Print.
"The Case Against the Death Penalty." American Civil Liberties Union. Web. 18 Mar. 2015. <https://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/case-against-death-penalty>.