The Death Penalty

The Death Penalty is a surprisingly touchy subject in the United States justice system. It still has a shocking amount of support in the country, with Gallop reporting that an estimated 60% of the population is in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder. This number has diminished greatly over time, however there the fact remains that the process still holds. Further, the locations in which the overwhelming majority of these executions are taking place in the world may surprise you. Data from 2010 suggest that the large majority of executions in the world took place in China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, and the United States. That is a problem from the perspective of our world reputation, however there are many other factors to consider.

Arguments both for and against capitol punishment exist in plenty, and many are effective which is part of the reason that the American public has had such a difficult time putting a stop to executions. People who argue for the death penalty are often proponents of stances that are very hard on crime, and often seek to convey justice through an unshaken devotion to doing what is right. The number one reason people say they support the death penalty is the logic of an 'eye for an eye,' or rather that the punishment fits the crime because the person convicted took a life, with the second reason being that it saves taxpayer dollars and reduces the costs associated with prison. However, we have and have had evidence for a long time that that is simply not true. Firstly, capitol punishment is significantly more expensive than a life sentence. Sources show that cases without the death penalty average $740,000, whereas cases involving the death penalty average $1.26 million, and the cost of maintaining death row inmates costs $90,000 more per year than other prisoners, coming out of public funds. What's more, the constant appeals process and legal fighting divert legal talent and money from other cases, bogging down the entire court system. I will discus the arguments against the 'eye for an eye' logic in an upcoming section.

Gallup data suggests that the third largest reason to support the death penalty is simply 'they deserve it,' with about 10% stating it as their main reason for supporting the death penalty. Surprisingly, more and more we hear stories of people who simply did not deserve it, people who were wrongly convicted, and people who were mentally ill being convicted and executed. Amnesty USA reports, "Since 1973, 140 people have been released from death row due to evidence proving their wrongful conviction. In this time period more than 1,200 people have been executed." Now it is simply a fact that the death penalty has killed innocent people. Just as normal trials occasionally give out unjust verdicts and the wrong person ends up being punished, these trials have seen people convicted without proof of guilt, or in many worse cases simply due to racial bias. The case of Walter McMillian is the ultimate example of a case in which everything that can go wrong with the death penalty did - save the execution. McMillian was accused without evidence, moved to death row prior to sentencing (a practice almost unheard of), and sentenced to the death penalty despite dozens of witnesses - including a police officer - who testified that during the time of the murder he was accused of, he was truly at a fish fry held at a local church. Cross-examination of the witness claiming to have seen him at the location of the murder made clear that the witness was lying. Significantly, the jury consisted of eleven White people, and only one African American, due largely to the fact that prior to the trial the case was moved out of the original court to a neighboring court in a town with an uncommonly low proportion of black residents. Shockingly, the jury convicted Walter to a life sentence, however the presiding judge Robert E. Lee Key Jr. overruled the jury's recommendation in favor of the death penalty. Stories such as this highlight a truly broken system in which racial bias, economic status, and a number of other unnecessary factors - such as a system which elects judges, making attack ads for people who do not give the death penalty common - make executions more likely for some than others. This is not justice, nor do the people receiving these punishments 'deserve it.'

An additional problem with the death penalty is the misconception that the death penalty is an effective deterrent for violent crimes. There is no source to suggest that the death penalty is any more an effective tool for deterring crime, especially considering that life in prison requires a prisoner to remain in a cell for decades longer than if they were on death row, a mentally transforming experience. Amnesty USA reports that 14 states without the death penalty in 2008 had homicide rates below the national rate. 

Now, I want to highlight the moral arguments against the death penalty, and I do so knowing that due to one's upbringing these arguments may not be convincing or important to some readers. First is the idea that 'an eye for an eye' is medieval. Revenge is not an idea preached by any credible religion or moral creed we want to teach our children. Getting even with people is not a priority in life, nor should it ever become that. On this note, killing killers sends a backward message about justice. If we are no better than those who kill we are actually creating sympathy for those who murder, regardless of their reasons. Mistakes made in the process are far too common to allow for the process to continue in its current state. Mistakes such as racial prejudice, jury white-washing, the removal of mental illness from deciding factors, all of these factors are things that are not morally right and need to be improved in the justice system over-all, not simply death-penalty cases. Further, there is no closure provided to family members of victims by executing the convicted killer. Killing does not solve killing, nor does it bring a loved-one back to life. Having licensed physicians present at executions is entirely contradictory to their code of ethics, as the American Medical Association directly states that it is the job of medical practitioner to protect lives, a role which they ignore in presiding over executions. Finally, the death penalty puts us all in a position of weakness, not simply because we seem backward in a global stage or because we are no better than what we claim to be against, but because we actually afford our adversaries arguments to condemn us with. For example, President Putin loves to point out to his people and any in the world who would listen that the United States is hypocritical, for how can we claim to criticize his human-rights record (a record which, mind you, is significantly worse than the United States'), while we attack the very values we claim to uphold? The bottom line is that the death penalty puts us in a terribly weak, terribly immoral position, and action needs to be taken to abolish the method under any circumstances if we're to remain the great power we claim to be.