Running

head: DEATH PENALTY TODAY

The Death Penalty Today;

Referenced to Glossip V Gross

Tiffany E. Harrison

Ethics in Criminal Justice - SOCJ 475

November 3, 2015
DEATH PENALTY TODAY 2

As the rubric states, this is not an opinion-based assignment, but does in fact require the

students to adjudicate and answer the question, Is the death penalty as currently used in the

United States ethical? Throughout the paper I will respond to the question antecedently stated,

and provide thorough explanations to inform my audience that the current use of the death

penalty is ethical. The assignment requires us to be particular and address if how the death

penalty is executed is ethical and morally correct in todays specifications and standards. By the

denouement of the paper, the reader will concede why Oklahomas executions are ethical. This

paper is in reference to the recent United States Supreme Court case, Glossip V. Gross. I

anticipate my audience will find the information as alluring as I did.

Capital punishment, defined as being the infliction of death for certain crimes, dates back

to the primordial year of 1608, when Captain George Kendall was executed for being a spy from

Spain (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2012). These executions were for the public to witness, and

caused a prolonged and agonizing death. Not only was the way of execution shameful and

embarrassing, it disgraced the offenders family. Capital punishment was a deterrent to not break

and violate laws. As time went on, capital punishments way of execution evolved into a more

humane process. The year 1888 established the electric chair (Bohm, 1999). New York was

the first state to use the chair. Subsequently, other states began to follow. The use of cyanide gas

was later introduced in 1924 as a morally improved execution method (Bohm, 1999). Execution

had a drastic change come the year of 1977, and the States still use the fundamentals of this

method today (Bohm, 1999). Oklahoma became the first state to adopt lethal injections in their

executions (Bohm, 1999). Slight changes have been made, and as of June 29, 2015, the death

penalty is administered by a lethal three-drug injection (Glossip et al V. Gross et al, 2015).

This is the most ethical and humane form of execution the United States has had to date.
DEATH PENALTY TODAY 3

Capital punishment is constitutional; therefor it must be carried out in a constitutional

manner, as noted by Justice Alito (Keim, 2015). Oklahoma in particular is one of the states that

follow the basis of the 1977 method, and had just recently settled on a three-drug protocol

consisting of sodium thiopental, a paralytic agent, and potassium chloride (Glossip V. Gross et

al, 2015). As always, controversial propositions have a following of advocates against the

motion. Majorities of people against capital punishment make the declaration that it is Gods will

to determine when a person shall pass, not the commonalities (Thiroux, Krasemann, 2012).

These same people forget to take into account that God obliged his own son, Jesus, to die for not

only innocent people, but conjointly those with indisposed minds and hostile hearts just to make

the world a convalescent place. If Jesus, a pure person, can succumb to ameliorate society, and it

is religiously glorified and celebrated, why is it profane for someone who has negatively affected

society to be condemned to capital punishment? With religion in mind, the eye for eye; tooth

for tooth belief comes directly from the book of Matthew (Thiroux, Krasemann, 2012).

Retribution is a biblical means. By executing the offender, the victim if still alive, along with

their family and friends, will have tranquility and be at ease knowing the same perpetrator will

not at any time have the opportunity to attack again. Under a utilitarian ethical theory, this is

green light; go (Pollock, 2012)! The majority being the victims will have a more secure life

knowing their offender, a single person, is gone.

The death penalty today is also deemed ethical under theories of punishment. In regards

to the retributive theory, also referred to as just desserts, punishment should only be given when

it is deserved, and should match the crime committed (Davenport, 2011). In terms of this theory,

those who murdered should foresee execution on the near future. Capital punishment is moral in

the sense that it is a forceful and efficient deterrent. When one is aware that they will pass in the
DEATH PENALTY TODAY 4

hands of the government, instead of the presence of loved ones, they may not commit crimes that

would sentence them to death (Thiroux, Krasemann, 2012). The death penalty also reminds those

who are likely to be involved in crime that the United States justice system is tough and obstinate

on crime. It is routine protocol to euthanize a dog that attacked a bystander or trespasser. Why is

it argued for humans (Glossip V. Gross et al, 2015)? Richard Glossip violated the laws of

morality and of the government when he hired his coworker to kill their boss by beating him to

death with a baseball bat (Richard E. Glossip et al V. Kevin J. Gross et al, 2015). Glossip

partook in criminal conspiracy of first-degree murder, he had intent to kill, and malice

aforethought was present (Davenport, 2011). The Res gestae theory requires those who were

involved in an act where someone was murdered, regardless if they were the one who pulled the

trigger or not, will get charged the same as the person who did pull the trigger (Davenport,

2011). People involved in mass murders, numerous rapes, and premeditated murders where

innocent people are harmed have the mindset of a mad dog and chances of rehabilitation are

slim (Thiroux, Krasemann, 2012). There is no commencing reason to risk the mental sanity of

the social worker or therapist assigned to aid the remorseless offender. If someone has desire to

violate the morality of society and violate laws, their rights should be forfeited (Thiroux,

Krasemann, 2012). As expected, not everyone will agree on this theory.

Anti-death penalty advocates aimed to make this new and improved form of execution

insurmountable, so they pressured pharmaceutical companies to suspend their distribution of

sodium thiopental, then later pentobarbital, for execution purposes (Glossip V. Gross et al,

2015). Oklahoma no longer had access to the binary pair of drugs, so they began to use a 500-

milligram dose of midazolam as their first drug in the three-drug protocol (Glossip V. Gross et

al, 2015).
DEATH PENALTY TODAY 5

Though I wish it were possible to just oversee the offender, it is not ethical. All offenders

who are sentenced to death are granted the opportunity to appeal their case and gather evidence

to prove themselves innocent. When the appeals in regard to their case cease, prisoners on death

row have the ability to challenge the method of execution. Oklahoma death-row inmates filed a

case under the 42 U. S. C. ss 1983 action stating the use of drugs distributed during the capital

punishment process will not be substantially effective to numb the pain that follows the second

and third drugs administered (Glossip V. Gross et al, 2015). The District Court denied the motion

due to the prisoners lack of ability to identify an alternative method of execution that would

promise a less severe risk of pain (Glossip V. Gross et al, 2015). The motion also held that the

prisoners failed to prove that the use of the drugs administered had a risk of severe pain (Glossip

V. Gross et al, 2015). There was no cruel and unusual punishment present.

Having ethical theories to support, and claims under the eighth amendment denied the

reader should now understand that capital punishment, as a whole is ethical. Oklahoma had now

obtained midazolam, a drug that pharmacies would distribute without hesitation, and a new

protocol was established. First, midazolam is given to the one under execution. They will

become unconscious and insensate (Richard E. Glossip et al V. Kevin J. Gross et al, 2015).

Midazolam is an anesthetic agent with a vigorous record of effectiveness when being used in

extremely painful procedures such as cardiac catheterization (Glossip V. Gross et al, 2015). This

drug in particular is one of the only benzodiazepines able to produce a surgical anesthesia that

will depress the central nervous system. With the central nervous system down, any sensations

will not be felt (Glossip V. Gross et al, 2015). Midazolam is known for reducing anxiety, which

will benefit the person under execution, as their nerves will be through the roof (Glossip V.

Gross et al, 2015). When a high dose is dispersed, as warned by the FDA, a coma occurs
DEATH PENALTY TODAY 6

(Glossip V. Gross et al, 2015). Doctor Lubarsky conceded that Midazolam has the ability to

completely and entirely destroy consciousness, and would take no more than a diminutive

amount of minutes for it to occur. (Glossip V. Gross et al, 2015). For the sake of the person

being executed, these are all positives.

Following unconsciousness vecuronium bromide, which is a paralytic agent that inhibits

all muscular or skeletal movements, is prescribed. The third drug potassium chloride, which

induces cardiac arrest, is administered. The death of the inmate happens moments later (Glossip

V. Gross et al, 2015).

Oklahomas current execution protocol requires two medical professionals to be present

during the process to monitor the person being executed, determine when they become

unconscious, and pronounce death (Glossip V. Gross et al, 2015). This team of two consists of a

physician and a paramedic (Glossip V. Gross et al, 2015). The room where execution takes place

is equipped with an ultrasound machine, which locates the veins where the intravenous tube will

be inserted, assuring that even the most basic step is as painless as can be (Glossip V. Gross et al,

2015). There are other machines that monitor the inmates pulse, blood pressure, and respiration

from the moment drug administration begins until they are pronounced dead (Glossip V. Gross et

al, 2015).

As said in the process listed above, those being executed are highly assured their death

will be painless and quick; a peaceful death that most law abiding and good-hearted citizens do

not get to experience. It must be taken into consideration that based on a 2005 study, 67.8% of

people incarcerated are not rehabilitated, and instead reoffend within three years after their

release (Durose, Cooper, Snyder, 2014). Since 1973, there have been over 1,400 executions

(Durose, Cooper, Snyder, 2014). As of today, only 0.008% of those people were wrongfully
DEATH PENALTY TODAY 7

executed (Durose, Cooper, Snyder, 2014). There have been a miniscule amount of exonerations,

roughly ten percent, where the innocent are wrongfully accused and are set free from prison and

the death row (Durose, Cooper, Snyder, 2014). As technology improves, it has become nearly

insurmountable to wrongfully accuse someone of a crime that would result in capital

punishment.

From the theories stating capital punishment is ethical to the drugs and medical staff that

ensure the execution a painless and peaceful procedure, it is acceptable to conclude and deem the

death penalty as ethical. As previously stated, statistical data shows wrongful executions are slim

to none. The death penalty is much more humane and appealing to an offender as opposed to

wasting away in a high security prison for the remainder of their life. Capital punishment will not

depress the offender, nor will it allow them to attempt or commit a suicide, which would heavily

affect those held in prison, and those who work in the prisons. The death penalty assures those

convicted that they will not undergo abuse while in prison, because prison would not be a long

lasting option. Life stops for a murderer when they are sentenced to multiple life terms, as it

would when they are strapped down and administered death-causing drugs. The death penalty as

a form of punishment for those who offend makes it so more effort to be put into rehabilitating

those who can benefit because those who are unable to be rehabilitated will no longer be in the

correctional system. In conclusion, the death penalty currently used in the United States of

America is ethical. It is the most moral form of punishment for the offender and allows the

victim to be at peace of mind. Capital punishment is a win-win on this double-edged sword.

DEATH PENALTY TODAY 8

References:

1. Davenport, A. U. (2011). Basic Criminal Law: The Constitution, Procedure, and

Crimes (3rd ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.

2. Durose, Matthew R., Alexia D. Cooper, and Howard N. Snyder, Recidivism of Prisoners

Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010, Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report, April 2014.

3. Glossip et al V. Gross et al, (2015)

4. Keim, J. (2015). Glossip V. Gross: Holding the Line on Lethal Injection. Retrieved from

nationalreview.com

5. Pollock, J. M. (2012). Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice (8th ed.).

United Kingdom: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

6. R. Bohm. (1999) Deathquest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital

Punishment in the United States. Anderson Publishing.

7. Richard E. Glossip et al V. Kevin J. Gross et al, (2015)

8. Thiroux, J. P., & Krasemann, K. W. (2012). Ethics: Theory and practice (11th ed.).

Boston: Prentice Hall.

DEATH PENALTY TODAY 9