The Death Penalty

In 1972 capital punishment was banned by the Supreme Court, under the premise that it is "cruel and unusual punishment", and thus prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Four years later, in 1976, it was reinstated with the promise that it would be used fairly. And even though most Americans support the death penalty, many of these would prefer a life sentence without parole given the choice, and a movement to abolish the death penalty once and for all has been growing since its reinstatement.

Politicians who support the death penalty claim that it deters crime. But there is absolutely no basis for that belief. Statistics show that the death penalty does not deter crime any more than life sentencing. Countries and states without the death penalty do not have higher murder rates, and countries or states that abolish the death penalty do not see even the slightest increase in murder rates. No evidence, anywhere, at any time, has ever suggested that the death penalty deters crime more than other punishments, it is only assumed that it does because "it seems like it would", which is a completely irrational assumption. A 1996 United Nations study concluded, "Research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment and such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming." In January 2000, after reviewing studies on the effects of the death penalty, Attorney General Janet Reno said, "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point."

In 1994, Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the US Supreme Court said, "Twenty years have passed since this Court declared that the death penalty must be imposed fairly, and with reasonable consistency, or not at all, and, despite the effort of the states and courts to devise legal formulas and procedural rules to meet this daunting challenge, the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice, and mistake." In their zeal to find a culprit, many prosecutors push to convict a defendant even where there is tenuous evidence against them. It makes them look good to convict someone, and brings them the appreciation of the victim's family. The defendant's guilt is often irrelevant. Prosecutors have been found again and again withholding evidence, inventing evidence, and paying witnesses to commit perjury. They are not necessarily trying to convict what they believe to be an innocent person; often they have convinced themselves of the defendant's guilt and are attempting to prove it, even as the evidence against the person dwindles. Also, a jury may convict the defendant simply because the crime is so gruesome, whether or not there is enough evidence linking the defendant to the case. Prosecutors also reject potential jurors if they are opponents of the death penalty, which disproportionately includes minorities and women.

Race is often used to determine whether the crime deserves capital punishment. A black person who has killed a white person is far more likely to receive the death penalty than one who has killed a black person. A study of death row inmates in Georgia, for instance, showed that defendents whose victims were white are more than four times more likely to receive the death penalty than defendents whose victims were black. Furthermore, 83% of death row murder victims are white, but only 50% of murder victims in general are, and in a Federal murder case a non-white person is four times more likely to receive the death penalty than a white person. Minorities make up three fourths of the defendents in capital cases, according to the New York Times. Furthermore, working class people do not have access to the expensive lawyers that richer people do. Less than 2% of death row inmates have enough money for their own lawyers. The rest are stuck with public defenders who are often incompetent and don't even try to defend them, and the defendant ends up on death row where a rich person wouldn't have, regardless of their guilt. Just look at O. J. Simpson.

In the last 30 years, more than 85 death row inmates have been released because they were proven innocent. These are innocent people who would have been killed for no reason. Furthermore, according to a 1987 study, at least 23 innocent people were executed between 1900 and 1985. If someone has been given the death penalty, and new evidence comes up that proves their innocence, such as DNA evidence, it's too late, and they have been unjustly killed. But if someone is serving a life sentence and new evidence comes up that proves their innocence, they can be let free. According to the ACLU, one in eight death row inmates are innocent.

Many death penalty advocates say "Would you rather have an innocent killed or a murderer walking the streets?" This is illogical for two reasons. First, if an innocent is executed there is already a murderer walking the streets: the person who truly commited the crime. Second, we are certainly not suggesting that murderers go free by any means, but they be given life without parole instead. The real question ought to be, "Would you rather have an innocent killed or an innocent in jail, with a murderer walking the streets either way?" I think it's safe to assume that most people would choose the second.

It is said by death penalty advocates that taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill to keep a murderer in prison for life. I am shocked that anyone would even suggest deciding whether or not a person should live based on the cost — but even so, numerous studies show that it is actually more expensive to try a capital case than to keep a person in prison for life without parole. For example, in Texas, the cost of a death penalty case is about three times the cost of life imprisonment. Furthermore, a death row inmate may sit on death row for what amounts to a life sentence, waiting to be killed.

The main argument of death penalty advocates is that execution is the only way to bring justice in murder cases. But what is this justice that it supposedly brings? It has not brought the victim back to life and it does not ensure the repentance of the convict. The only thing it seems to accomplish is the need for revenge, and even George W. Bush agrees that vengeance alone is no reason to execute someone. It was always my understanding that laws are in place to prevent crime that is destructive to society, not simply to punish criminals with the elusive idea of "justice". Once you separate justice from prevention, it becomes merely vengeance. The purpose should be to prevent crime and keep convicted criminals off the streets, both of which are just as easily accomplished with a life sentence and no chance of parole.

Many pro-death penalty advocates say that the victim's family is suffering and the death penalty will bring them justice, but many family members have reported years later that they never felt the closure they thought they would. Celeste Dixon, whose mother was murdered in 1986, said after the execution of the killer, "Instead of healing, I found myself focusing on my anger and hatred, which only seemed to increase the pain I felt over the loss of my mother. Eventually I came to realize that capital punishment was not the answer because wishing for another human being to die wasn't helping me heal." Killing the victim's killer will not help to heal the family's wounds any more than a life sentence. Furthermore, the family of the convicted murderer will suffer just as great a pain at the loss of their family member. Rather than granting "closure", the death penalty will only cause more pain for more people. As Ghandhi once said, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."

In conclusion, the death penalty is issued unfairly, kills innocent people, is hypocritical, costs more than life without parole, and does not deter crime any more than other punishments. For all these reasons I believe it should be abolished. Bill Schultz, executive director of Amnesty International, says of the death penalty, "It's not a coincidence that most of those countries with the lowest murder rates are countries that do not have the death penalty. That's no coincidence. The fact is that just as we don't steal from the thief, or rape the rapist, or torture the torturer in retaliation — we ought not to kill the killer."

links:
Death Penalty Information
Death Penalty in the USA
ACLU and Death Penalty
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
Campaign to End the Death Penalty
The Moratorium Campaign
The Economics of Capital Punishment
Bush Kills
Fight the Death Penalty in USA
The Wrong Man
Irreversible Error in Texas
Death Unplugged
The Death Penalty's Other Victims
Death Penalty is still wrong
Death Penalty (cartoon by Tom Tomorrow)
Al Gore & the Death Penalty (cartoon by Tom Tomorrow)

back to rants
back to expression
home