1. Stewart A. Fountain
Harford Community College
Author’s Note
This paper was written for English 109 under the guidance of Professor Conklin
Capital Punishment in our Criminal Justice System

2. Capital Punishment in our Criminal Justice System 1
The death penalty has been a widely discussed topic within the United States for many
years. Multiple sources state since 1972, approximately 38 states have revised their statues on the
death penalty for arguments of unjustness and the possibility of executing innocent inmates.
While many may argue that convicting an innocent man to death is just part of the system, many
argue that capital punishment should be abolished. People often refer to the saying “Thou shalt
not kill”, which is found in the Ten Commandments, as a protest to capital punishment. With
this philosophy in mind, it is difficult to punish a criminal of their crime. The criminal justice
system is known for having punishments for every crime, yet what is not equal to murder than
the death penalty? How then can we punish someone for murder when we have nothing of equal
value? Capital punishment is the ultimate form of restitution and retribution. The doctors
involved have moral obligations to the accused, the state, and their profession. DNA evidence
can either exonerate or condemn the defendant. These three factors must be weighed when
determining whether or not the state should put a guilty man or woman to death.
Death is final, whether it is through murder or through capital punishment. Unlike less
serious crimes whose punishments are revocable, capital punishment is irrevocable, or cannot be
terminated. In the journal article “The Irrevocability of Capital Punishment”, Benjamin Yost, a
professor of philosophy at Providence College and Cornell University, argues that “If the strong
irrevocability argument is to work, it must show not only that execution is in principle
irrevocable, but also that incarceration is in principle revocable. If incarceration were
irrevocable, the alternative to execution would also be prohibited, and the abolitionist argument
would face an extremely high burden.” (321). He continues to say that the death penalty is
irrevocable because the life of the offender cannot be returned, unlike normal incarceration.
However, incarceration is not absolute. In a sense time has been taken away from the offender.

3. Capital Punishment in our Criminal Justice System 2
Unlike capital punishment which cannot restore what is lost, incarceration can be terminated at
any time allowing the offender to continue out his or her life (Yost 322-323). While capital
punishment is technically murder, it is a form of punishment that ends the life of a dangerous
criminal. Murder, as defined by Barron’s Law Dictionary, is a common law offense of unlawful
homicide with malice aforethought, or a premeditated intent to kill the victim. In his article, “The
Ethics of Capital Punishment”, J. Daryl Charles, who is a director and senior fellow at Bryan
Institute for Critical Thought & Practice, writes that in cases for premeditated murder, capital
punishment is the only form of punishment, as there can be no formal form of restitution to the
victim’s family. “Rendering life for life in the case of premeditated murder is not to be carried
out in the context of personal vengeance. Social justice requires — indeed demands — uniform
standards of sentencing”, states Charles (6). He continues by saying, “The death penalty is not an
initiation of force as murder is; rather it is a response to force – a supremely calculated and
necessary one.” (Charles 4). The point of punishing someone for their crime is that the
punishment is equal to the offense. Using capital punishment not only punishes the criminal for
their acts, but also can bring peace to the victim’s family. While it is not the perfect form of
restitution, it can bring some closure to the family. In a perfect world the victim would be
brought back to life once the criminal was executed. Since that cannot be the case, murder must
carry a mandatory death sentence to allow some restitution for the crime. Charles continues to
say “To suggest that the ultimate human crime should not be met with the ultimate punishment at
the hands of the civil authorities is not “compassion” as some would have it; rather, it is moral
prostitution of the highest order. If a person cannot be made to answer for a capital crime, then
everything in the world is arbitrary and nothing is certain.” (Charles 7) In a sense, if we were to
abolish capital punishment, there would be no equal retribution for murder. Another way capital

4. Capital Punishment in our Criminal Justice System 3
punishment is used is as a form of deterrence. In the article “Voices of the Victims: Capital
Punishment and A Declaration of Life” by William Peterson, a professor at University of Texas
School of Law, writes “Specific deterrence, which focuses on the individual offender, also
requires consideration. After an execution, there is no possibility that the offender will kill again.
The justice system shows some acceptance of the specific deterrence rationale through
consideration of "future dangerousness," which measures the danger posed by a capital defendant
if the death penalty is not imposed (such as while serving a life sentence without parole).” (781).
Not only is the consideration that the defendant could be a danger to the community, but also to
the people within the restitution process if they were to be incarcerated. Not only is the original
crime itself being considered, but potential crimes are also being added into the equation when
considering the death penalty.
While capital punishment may be an ultimate form of restitution, one must think of the
physicians who must oversee the execution. Executions in the past were either carried out by
hangings, firing squads, or the electric chair. In the article “Physician Participation in
Executions, the Morality of Capital Punishment, and the Practical Implications of Their
Relationship”, Paul Litton, who has a Ph.D. in philosophy and is an Associate Professor of Law
at the University of Missouri School of Law, explains the process of executing a criminal. Today
most executions use a combination of drugs as the primary form, while having other forms as
backup or unless specifically requested by the offender. First a saline solution is injected
followed by a barbiturate (if approved) of either sodium thiopental or pentobarbital, which acts
as a sedative. More saline is injected followed by pancuronium bromide, a paralytic agent.
Saline is injected once more and then potassium chloride in injected to stop the inmate’s heart.
The reason why physicians are required to administer these chemicals is because the Constitution

5. Capital Punishment in our Criminal Justice System 4
demands it to reduce the risk of suffering. If the drugs are administered incorrectly the inmate
may be conscious at the time of the final injection. (Litton 334-335) This would violate their
Constitutional right against the use of cruel and unusual punishment. There is much pressure
with physicians who participate in executions as well. The American Medical Association
(AMA) and other medical societies prohibit any involvement in any form of the execution,
including just monitoring life signs. Litton writes that “despite the position of medical societies,
physicians and other health professionals do participate. State laws permit or require the
participation of medical professionals, and members of the medical community do not
unanimously share the ethical position of professional societies” (Litton 336). Yet even while
professional societies condemn physicians from carrying out executions, there are those who go
against them. Since law mandates that physicians are present at the time of executions, it still
does not conclude the morality of physician participation. Many argue that the death penalty is
immoral. If that is the case, any act in association with it is also considered immoral. Litton
argues that physician involvement is “‘non-medical’ because it is performed for the state’s
interests not the individual’s” (Litton 340). Furthermore, augments that executions are non-
medical add to the controversy. Litton again states, “Many arguments regarding physician
participation in controversial non clinical-care settings share an interesting premise: that the
controversial use of medical skills and knowledge does not count as the practice of medicine.
Others argue similarly that when using her skills for a social purpose, the physician does not act
as a physician” (Litton 338). This would logically presume that the doctors feel that participating
in executions is non-medical rather than unethical. Furthermore the idea of medicine is that it
heals. Without the act of “healing”, one cannot practice the art of healing if they are executing
someone.

6. Capital Punishment in our Criminal Justice System 5
While the debate of medical physicians violating the demands of the AMA, there is also
the debate of physiatrists participating in death penalty cases. In many cases the defendant pleads
insanity. Their hope is that they can receive a lesser sentence if they can prove they were insane
at the time of the crimes While this type of defense is left up to the defense council, physicians
are often brought in to give their professional opinion on the matter. In the journal article “On
Pain of Death: Forensic Psychiatry and Capital Punishment”, authors Akintunde A. Akinkunmi
and Keith A. Caruso, both practicing psychiatrists, state that psychiatrists are often brought in to
determine the competence of the accused. Questions such as the competence to waive legal
rights or understanding interviews by law enforcement are often used to determine the state of
mind of the defendant. Other times physicians are brought in to determine the validity of
statements to see if they are false confessions, so on and so forth. The authors further explain that
psychiatrists are often brought in to analyze the facts of the case to determine if the
circumstances of the murder constitute grounds for insanity. (Akinkunmi and Caruso 129-130).
To prove such a defense, they would have to prove that the defendant had no control over their
actions and could not comprehend that those actions were wrong.
With the emergence of DNA testing in 1989, the authority of the legal system has been
put under a considerable amount of scrutiny. In the past, society has looked to law to answer
questions and resolve important issues. It is regarded as a fair system, treating everyone equal
and coming to conclusions based on solid evidence and testimony. But DNA testing has
changed all of that. As written in the journal article “Science and the Death Penalty: DNA,
Innocence, and the Debate over Capital Punishment in the United States”, authors Jay D.
Aronson and Simon A. Cole discuss the intricate steps of replicating DNA. “DNA profiling is
based on the fundamental premise that, with the exception of identical twins, no two human

7. Capital Punishment in our Criminal Justice System 6
beings have exactly the same genetic make-up”, they say (612). The authors further explain that
a small strand can be replicated thousands of time in the process of a polymerase chain reaction
(PCR). Once the PCR procedure is done replicating the stands, an analyst(s) will analyze the
results to determine if the two samples match. While technical problems can occur, it is a very
resourceful tool in processing evidence. With this relatively new technology, hundreds of people
have been exonerated based on DNA evidence. (Aronson and Cole 610-615) A new society has
emerged where science is now the definitive source of truth, the legal system has lost much
authority in determining cases.
Amongst all the controversy behind capital punishment, multiple factors can contribute to
the outcome of the accused. Many argue that capital punishment should be abolished because it
is simply inhumane. While this debate is widely accepted, people often forget the reason for
punishment. Punishments should be equal to the crime that was committed. Doctors and other
physicians play a crucial role in capital punishment cases. Whether it is performing the
execution or analyzing the accused for grounds of insanity or verifying competence in trial.
While morality may get in the way of their job, they must remember that they are being funded
by the state. Finally DNA evidence has shown that it can be a deciding factor in verifying or
nullifying evidence in trial, or even exonerating criminals. Even with the evidence for and
against capital punishment, it will be a continuous debate for years to come.
Works Cited

8. Capital Punishment in our Criminal Justice System 7
Akinkunmi, Akintunde A., and Keith Caruso. "On Pain of Death: Forensic Psychiatry and
Capital Punishment." Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology 19.1 (2008): 129-30.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 July 2013.
Aronson, Jay D., and Simon A. Cole. "Science and the Death Penalty: DNA, Innocence, and the
Debate over Capital Punishment in the United States." Law & Social Inquiry 34.3 (2009):
610-15. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 July 2013.
Charles, J. Daryl. "The Ethics of Capital Punishment." Christian Research Institute 17.1 (1994):
4-7. Web. 23 July 2013.
Gifis, Steven H. "Murder." Def. 1. Law Dictionary. Sixth ed. Hauppauge, NY: Barron's
Educational Series, 2010. 351. Print.
Litton, Paul. "Physician Participation in Executions, the Morality of Capital Punishment, and the
Practical Implications of Their Relationship." Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (2013):
334-38. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 July 2013.
Peterson, William R. "Voices of the Victims: Capital Punishment and A Declaration of Life."
The Review of Litigation (2008): 781. ProQuest. Web. 23 July 2013.
Yost, Benjamin S. "The Irrevocability of Capital Punishment." Journal of Social Philosophy 42.3
(2011): 321-23. Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 July 2013.

9. Capital Punishment in our Criminal Justice System 8
Works Consulted
Blakely, Curtis R. "Capital Punishment in the United States--A Documentary History."
Corrections Today 60.1 (1998): 72. ProQuest. Web. 23 July 2013.
Garland, David. "American Capital Punishment in Comparative Perspective." Law & Social
Inquiry 36.4 (2011): 1033-061. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 July 2013.
Steiker, Carol S., and Jordan M. Steiker. "No More Tinkering: The American Law Institute and
the Death Penalty Provisions of the Model Penal Code." Texas Law Review 89.2 (2010):
353-65. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 July 2013.
Unnever, James D., and Francis T. Cullen. "Executing the Innocent and Support for Capital
Punishment: Implications for Public Policy." Criminology & Public Policy 4.1 (2005): 3-
37. ProQuest. Web. 23 July 2013.
Waltenburg, Eric N. "The Future of America's Death Penalty: An Agenda for the Next
Generation of Capital Punishment Research." Justice System Journal 29.3 (2008): 447-X.
ProQuest. Web. 23 July 2013.