Democrats Views on Death Penalty

Democrats Views on Death Penalty

Death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is passed by courts depending on their jurisdictions. The courts pass the death sentence verdict and leave the execution to the relevant department (Dieter and Richard 212). The popularity of the death penalty has varied over the years across the political divide in the United States, with the lowest point being in 1966 (42%) and the peak being in the year 1994 (80%) (Sarat and Austin 30). However, only about 60% of Americans support capital punishment. In recent times, the debate over the issue has taken political interests with the Democratic Party politicians giving their views on its mode of operations. Apart from the declining support for it from Democratic Party politicians, certain pollsters, such as Gallup, have shown the majority of Americans prefer its replacement with life imprisonment.

The support by the Democrats has reduced over a period of 20 years from 75% to the current 49%. As a result, most states that support Democratic Party’s position, for instance California, have abolished it completely from its legal system. Democrats argue that death penalty should only be applied in certain cases, namely, murder in large scale, rape, killing of children and security officers, and terrorism (Steiker and Jordan 273). They further argue that the DNA test should be undertaken to ascertain the presence of accused in a crime scene, whereas the defendants should be provided with adequate and appropriate services of a counsel, and justice should be fairly and impartially administered in the court proceedings (Sarat and Austin 42). The Democrats think that the punishment is discriminatory on race, making it possible to have the punishment passed to innocent people, and it has not deterred crime.

There are instances where innocent people have been convicted, for example the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Besides, reports show there are flaws associated with the justice system, where more than 4% of innocent people have been subject of death row among all its convicts (Dieter and Richard 212). It is not right to just pass this judgment as a show of toughness in law. It has not been proven that death penalty deters crime. About 88% of the country’s criminologist believes capital punishment hardly plays any role in reducing homicide incidents (Peffley et al. 1049). Further, the penalty is immoral since it makes every American be viewed as a murderer due to the court and federal government application of the punishment on the convicts. Moreover, they hold the view that it is expensive, immoral, and irreversible form of punishment. Therefore, the advocate for the protection of crime victims’ and their families’ rights using the available mechanisms to prevent criminal activities in the society.

Overall, Democrats believe that there is a need for review of the death row cases to ascertain their merits to save innocent lives. However, there is great need for deeper dialogue above political alignment to formulate the best punishment method that would serve American citizens in a better way, regardless of whether one is progressive or liberal, without considerations of status, race, or living environment. When approached with great sobriety of mind and maturity, the dialogue has the potential of ushering the U.S. among other civilized societies that have no death penalty in their penal code.

Works Cited

Dieter, Richard C. “A Crisis of Confidence: Americans’ Doubts about the Death Penalty.” Against the Death Penalty. Routledge, 2016, pp. 207-224.

Peffley, Mark et al. “Racial Attributions in the Justice System and Support for Punitive Crime Policies.” American Politics Research, vol. 45, no. 6, 2017, pp. 1032-1058, doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17692326

Sarat, Austin. When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition. Princeton University Press, 2018.

Steiker, Carol S., and Jordan M. Steiker. “The American Death Penalty and the (In) Visibility of Race.” The University of Chicago Law Review, 2015, pp. 243-294.