The decision to create change, throughout the history of capital punishment, was too often predicated on questions of what method of death would be easier, quicker or cheaper to administer to the accused? What method of death would least offend the public? What deterrent to crime would we have if we abolished this system? More accurate questions might have been‘What is most humane for our time? What other forms of punishment might be useful in deterring crime? Do we abolish the death penalty for all crimes, in the name of humanity, or do we merely seek new forms of inflicting death?
Although the country continues its struggle with menacing questions and concerns over capital punishmentthose who support and those who oppose, from the highest law of the land, we get this bit of wisdom regarding the death penalty. ‘The infrequency of its application, suggests that among those persons called upon to actually impose or carry out the death penalty, it is being repudiated with an ever increasing frequency.‘ Can we, opponents of the penalty get excited in thinking that this position suggests an unacceptability of such a practice in our society, at this time?
Supreme Court Justice Marshall offers these reasons why citizens (informed public) would reject the death penalty: it is imposed discriminatorily against certain classes of people, there is evidence that some people have been executed before their innocence can be established and the death penalty wrecks havoc with our entire system of criminal justice. I concur with Justice Marshall.