Sever 1

Austin Sever

Moore

English 1301

28 October 2017

Texas: Punishment with a Capital P

As some may know, Texas utilizes the death penalty as a way to end the careers of

criminals who have been convicted with serious charges; a majority of these charges are different

variations of homicides (Marquart 456). In fact, Texas justice system is responsible for nearly a

third of all U.S. executions (Goldberg and Bunn 52). This amount of criminals taken off of the

streets is impressive; however, not all of those executed were guilty of the crime they were

charged for. When these facts are brought into the light, they raise questions of whether this

punishment is reasonable, functional, and/or entirely necessary.

The concept of capital punishment is simple enough; if the crime is severe and there is

substantial enough evidence of the perpetrator being an apparent threat to society, they should be

executed. However, there is questioning of the validity of the death penalty. It is accused of

being unconstitutional, that it violates the eighth amendment. This may not be entirely true. Both

the fifth and fourteenth amendment reference capital punishment directly by stating that no

person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; (Riley).

Due to the fact that the justification is made, this heavily implies that the death penalty may

indeed be constitutional. That being said, it may be just; although it may not be 100 percent

effective. Former Texas Attorney General John Cornyn once claimed, I would say anything that

involves human beings will never reach perfection. But criminal defendants are not entitled to a

perfect trial, they are entitled to a fair trial. Our system does provide that. (Goldberg and Bunn
 Sever 2

148). These statements demonstrate that there is indeed a large degree of balance in Texas

capital punishment system.

As stated, the death penalty does not work the way it is intended to in every case.

Sometimes, the person who is convicted is innocent of the crime they are convicted for and is

only proven so after they are executed. Although occasional innocents are rumored to have been

killed by these scenarios, (as of 2000) there have been no cases like this ever since Texas

reinstated capital punishment in 1976 (Goldberg and Bunn 55). At any rate, the death penalty

remains in use in order to eliminate those who are truly dangerous. The problem is figuring out

who should and who should not be in the position to suffer from the decision. The fact is that

there is no way to know if the person is indeed guilty. There are, however, measures in place to

determine whether the person convicted is to receive the death penalty. The way this is

determined by the jury is based upon three questions: if the defendants actions that caused the

death of another person were deliberate and were expected to result in death; if it is probable that

the defendant will commit further acts of violence that constitute them as a threat to society; and

if the actions made by the defendant were reasonable in response to any action that the victim

had taken (Marquart 450). The death penalty is only considered if the answers to all three

questions are yes (Marquart 450). The determination process is also based on three other

factors: the persons criminal record and past behavior, the persons current behavior, and an

analysis of the persons mental state performed by a professional psychologist (Marquart 451-

452). Depending on these three criteria and the accompanying three questions, the person may or

may not be approved to receive the death penalty; however, according to Marquart, (as of 1989)

no research has measured the accuracy of this process (451).

 Sever 3

Capital punishment is not used in every capital case. When it is, the death penalty is not a

convicts final punishment until they are executed. The use of the death penalty is meant for

especially dangerous people. Even when convicts are sentenced, some of those unfortunate

enough to be selected for the death penalty may be taken off of death row based upon their

behavior whilst incarcerated. Those convicted of capital crimes may also make an appeal to have

their case reviewed and have themselves removed from death row. In a study of ninety-two ex-

death row inmates, most of them refrained from violent acts whilst imprisoned; only one killed

another inmate (Marquart 464). Of twelve prisoners released after being on death row, only one

committed acts of violence again (Marquart 465). These trends show that the death penalty is not

necessary in ever single case. The data shows that a significant amount of prisoners that have

been on death row make attempts to abstain from their previous violent tendencies once taken off

of death row. This means that although the death penalty is a usable option, it does not need to be

implemented in all of the cases that it may fit into. In practice, a long term or perhaps even

lifetime prison sentence works almost as well as the death penalty does.

Bringing light to the facts demonstrates that capital punishment is indeed viable as a

prisoners sentence, that the system works the way it is intended to, and that not every single

case that the death penalty can be applied to utilizes it as punishment. Even when sentenced with

the death penalty there are ways to be relieved of it before execution. The death penalty exists as

both a threat to criminals and as a shield for the people by executing dangerous people so that

they do not continue to harm the public. Texas usage of capital punishment, although vast, is

used only to bring justice to extremely harmful individuals. It is not utilized as a means to

permanently eliminate the criminal population.

 Sever 4

Works Cited

Goldberg, Guy and Bunn, Gena. "Balancing Fairness & Finality: A Comprehensive Review of

the Texas Death Penalty." Texas Review of Law & Politics, vol. 5, no. 1, Fall2000, p. 49.

EBSCOhost, libproxy.uhcl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=

true&db=i3h&AN=6937410&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed Oct. 28, 2017

Marquart, James W., et al. "Gazing into the Crystal Ball: Can Jurors Accurately Predict

Dangerousness in Capital Cases?." Law & Society Review, vol. 23, no. 3, Aug. 1989, pp.

449468.EBSCOhost, libproxy.uhcl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx

?direct=true&db=ahl&AN=19865145&site=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed Oct. 28,

2017

Riley, Jim L. The Death Penalty Justified, Regis University, 2001, academic.regis.edu/jriley/

capunish.htm. Accessed Oct. 28, 2017