The Death Penalty: Arguments for Abolishment by Justice Paul Stevens

This paper examines Justice Paul Stevens' arguments for the abolishment of the death penalty in the United States. Stevens claims that the death penalty is unconstitutional and results in the execution of innocent citizens. He proposes several amendments to the Constitution, including the abolishment of the death penalty, and argues that the current system is costly and takes a long time. The paper also discusses the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments, whether his views are ideological, and whether views on the death penalty are necessarily ideological.

Running Head: POLITICAL SCIENCE
Political Science
Name
Institution

POLITICAL SCIENCE 2
Political Science
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Summary of Justice Paul Steven Argument....................................................................................3
Death Penalty...................................................................................................................................5
What are his problems with the death penalty?...........................................................................5
What are the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments?..........................................................5
Does the Death Penalty violate the 8th Amendment?..................................................................6
How much, if any, is his view a result of his ideology?..............................................................6
Are views on the Death penalty necessarily ideological?............................................................7
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
References........................................................................................................................................8

POLITICAL SCIENCE 3
Introduction
John Paul Stevens who is a former Supreme Court judge published a groundbreaking
book that proposes six amendments to the Constitution. The premise of the book entitled “Six
Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution” provides six amendments on
how to change the Constitution. The death penalty has been seen a contentious issue in America
form many years and Steven argues that it should be abolished because it is unconstitutional. He
claimed that the current death penalty execution kills innocent citizens and it is a costly
undertaking and that there is the need to amend the 8th Amendment (Stevens, 2014). The paper
will examine the changes that Stevens proposed in his book and the issue of the death penalty
that he provided arguments on its abolishment in the United States.
Summary of Justice Paul Steven Argument
The first amendment that Stevens proposes is on the “Anti-Commandeering Rule” where
he claims that the United States cannot compel states to comply with the federal background
checks system. The amendment could reverse two crucial Supreme Court precedents that
include New York v. United States (1992), as well as Printz v. United States (1997) that will give
the federal government the authority to deputize state, as well as local officers to implement the
federal laws. This proposal will terminate the sovereignty of federal government in a manner that
the states will be needed to create and implement the federal regulations. This means that the
change will need states to furnish information essential for federal backgrounds checks (Stevens,
2014).

POLITICAL SCIENCE 4
The second amendment proposed by Stevens is “Sovereign Immunity”. Stevens says that
neither the 10th and 11th Amendments nor any other law under the Constitution shall be construed
to offer any state, state organization or state official with the protection from the responsibility of
breaching any action of Congress. Stevens claims that the doctrine of “sovereign immunity”
makes it impossible for individuals to sue the United States for breaching the federal laws
without the state’s permission. Stevens believes that it does not make sense to afford federal
constitutions immunity besides state breaches of entity freedom; however, then to pardon the
individuals from breaching of any liability (Stevens, 2014).
The third change proposed by Stevens is “Campaign Finance”. In this case, Stevens
believes that neither the 1st Amendment nor any other law under the Constitution will be
interpreted to ban the Congress or any state actor from enforcing rational restrictions on the sum
of finances that aspirants for public office along with their supporters will use during campaigns
(Stevens, 2014). Stevens in his proposal was meant to limit the funds that the candidates spend
during the campaign while seeking political office where the supporters will be the beneficiaries.
The author implies that campaign spending is a kind of speech safeguarded by the First
Amendment; however, this does not imply that this right is absolute (Stevens, 2014).
The last amendment that Stevens wants to be changed through the Constitution is the
“Death Penalty”. Stevens claims compellingly that the US must abolish the death penalty due to
risks that innocent individuals would be killed. Stevens believes that the justification of the death
penalty in 1982 cannot hold water at the modern society in the US. Stevens emphasizes that the
death penalty is unconstitutional where it constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment. Stevens

POLITICAL SCIENCE 5
believed that it was the time to amend the 8th Amendment by adding phrases “like the death
penalty” that currently prohibits “cruel plus unusual punishment” (Stevens, 2014).
Death Penalty
What are his problems with the death penalty?
Justice Stevens believes that the death penalty should be abolished because it may result
in killing innocent people currently in US prisons. He is convinced that the problem of the death
penalty is that it has been used unfairly and cannot be defended in any way. Stevens observes
that death penalty comes with high costs that could be otherwise avoided if it was abolished.
Stevens makes a compelling argument that the death penalty is unconstitutional and there is the
need to abolish it in the United States. He argues that the death penalty does not meet the
Supreme Court’s own principles for effecting plus that it persists only due to injudicious
political, as well as cultural grounds (Greabe, 2018). This is the primary argument of “Peculiar
Institution: America’s Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition” by David Garland. Justice Stevens
says that death penalty inflicts suffering to individuals and currently does not serve the purpose
of incapacitation, deterrence or retribution (Garland, 2010). He further claims that the execution
of the death penalty serves no “significant deterrent goals” because of the long delays in several
executions that undermine any prospective deterrence. Justice Stevens sees a problem in the
death penalty in that approving capital punishment is flaunted as a promise to law plus order. He
says that the death penalty is a cultural influence that is demonstrated by America’s thirst for
obscurities regarding murder along with vengeance (Liptak, 2010).
What are the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments?

POLITICAL SCIENCE 6
The strength of Stevens’ arguments on abolishing the death penalty is the fact that it
results in the execution of innocent individuals along with the elevated costs in relation to the
benefits it brings (Shapiro, 2014). This is true because there is an increasing recognition of the
fundamental imbalance in cost-per-person benefit analysis. In addition, his arguments that the
death penalty does more harm than good is factual and supports his arguments because there are
many innocent individuals that have faced the death penalty and many have to wait for years
without an execution (Lemieux, 2014). The weakness of Stevens’ arguments was not clearly
consistent with the Spirit of Steven while serving as Supreme Court judge 35 years ago in the
case in Texas where he never opposed death penalty. Steven rather voted against removing death
penalty and his position at moment is to change the Constitution to remove death penalty. This
means that that his weakness comes in now against death penalty that he supported 35 years ago
that shows inconsistency in his arguments (Stevens, 2014).
Does the Death Penalty violate the 8th Amendment?
Death penalty violate the 8th Amendment to execute individuals with severe mental
disabilities; individual who committed their criminal acts whilst under the age of 18 years and
individuals who stand to be convicted of child rape, rape, as well as other non-homicide crimes
against individuals. Thus, the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution bans the federal government
on imposing abnormal, as well as cruel punishment for federal crimes. This amendment prohibits
punishments, which are seen as cruel and unusual in modern times (Gottschalk, 2006).
How much, if any, is his view a result of his ideology?
Justice Paul Steven’s views on the death penalty as unconstitutional resulted in ideology
because this was his main belief and he supported through facts based on his arguments. The

POLITICAL SCIENCE 7
ideology of unconstitutionality of the death penalty is evident all through his arguments. Justice
Stevens’ views has been compiled and left a liberal imprint in the court system. Stevens adopted
affirmative action by declaring that death penalty is unconstitutional (Barnes, 2010).
Are views on the Death penalty necessarily ideological?
The views on the death penalty are not necessarily ideological because in most cases they
are used for cultural and political reasons. Stevens claims that the death penalty in the US has
been used to promote cultural and political purposes (Fuchs, 2014). The death penalty has been
used in different political domains, which exist exterior of conventional state politics. The death
penalty has been generally discussed based on federalism, judicial precedent, as well as being
tough or soft on crime (Evan, 2013).
Conclusions
In his book, Justice Paul Stevens has provided several amendments that should be
effected in the US through the change of the Constitution. These changes include removing
federalism, abolishing the death penalty, eliminating gerrymandering, removing sovereignty
immunity, and changing “Second Amendment”. Stevens in his argument further defended his
support for the abolition of the death penalty in the US because it is unconstitutional. The
arguments are reinforced by the fact that the current system of the death penalty has continued to
execute the innocent citizens, the process takes a long time and that it is costly.

POLITICAL SCIENCE 8
References
Barnes, R. (2010). Justice Stevens’ liberal legacy goes beyond ideology. The Seattle Times.
[Accessed November 1, 2018].
Evan J. M, A. (2013). Wild Justice: The Death and Resurrection of Capital Punishment in
America. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Fuchs, E. (2014). 6 Constitutional Amendments That Could Dramatically Improve America.
Business Insider.[Accessed 1 November 2018].
Garland, D. (2010). Peculiar institution: America's death penalty in an age of abolition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gottschalk, M. (2006). The Prison and the Gallows: The Politics of Mass Incarceration in
America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Greabe, J. (2018). Constitutional Connections: The death penalty and the Constitution. Concord
Monitor. [Accessed November 1, 2018].
Lemieux, S. (2014). How John Paul Stevens Would Amend the Constitution. The American
Prospect. [Accessed November 1, 2018].
Liptak, A. (2010). Ex-Justice Criticizes Death Penalty. The New York Times. [Accessed
November 1, 2018].
Shapiro, I. (2014). Amending Justice Stevens: How and Why We Shouldn't Change the
Constitution Like This. Forbes. [Accessed 1 November 2018].

POLITICAL SCIENCE 9
Stevens, J. P. (2014). Six amendments: How and why we should change the Constitution. New
York; Boston ; London : Little, Brown and Company.