In the United States, approximately 46 people are placed on death row each year for crimes such as murder, terrorism, rape (although this is less common) and espionage. Historically, those on death row were either killed by the usage of electric chairs, hanging, gas chambers or firearms, but presently the most common (and, probably the most humane) way of serving justice is through a lethal injection. This topic is quite controversial in that those seeking to abolish the death penalty walk a fine line between defending murderers and rapists, and questioning the justice system’s effectiveness. However, in this article, I’m going to evaluate how well (if at all) capital punishment works.
The death penalty’s main aims are to serve as both retribution and deterrence. It essentially deems that those who commit heinous crimes do not deserve to live any longer, and should receive a punishment that is equivalent to their transgressions. The severity of the sanction also works to deter potential criminals and can prevent many crimes from being carried out. Before I start to state my reasons on why I do not agree with the death penalty, I want to talk about the positive effects that it can have in theory. In terms of acting as a deterrent, it could be quite effective provided that it is well publicized. When creating a law, legislators must consider the purpose; if this law will be carried out ex-post the event (after the fact), they will be much more lenient, and will be focused on rehabilitation. At this point, there is no point in creating deterrence and the law would rather rehabilitate someone who has already committed a crime. If this law, on the other hand, will be proclaimed ex-ante (before the fact), legislators will be much more stringent in order to deter would-be offenders. If the punishment is harsh enough, the crime won’t be committed in the first place. This is why the death penalty, theoretically, is so effectual; by promising the highest punishment, most people would stay within the law’s boundaries.
However, in real life, does the deterrent theory actually hold any water? A study done by the Death Penalty Information Center in 2018 compared the number of murders in non-death penalty states compared with death penalty states; surprisingly, non-death penalty states have considerably lower rates of homicide (for exact statistics, visit the Death Penalty Information Center Fact Sheet).
Of course, this does not prove much as there are a variety of factors that influence murder rates. Let’s dig a little deeper. In 1935, Robert Dann analyzed an experiment in which he recorded murder rates in Philadelphia 60 days before 5 highly broadcasted executions and the murder rates for 60 days after. Although he and many other experts hypothesized that the murder rates would drop, the exact opposite occurred; homicide levels were significantly higher after the executions. So far, there is very little evidence that the death penalty is a larger deterrent than life in prison; in fact, a study by The National Research Council shows that 88% of US’s top criminology experts reject the claim that the death penalty serves as a better deterrence than life without parole, with 7% claiming to have no opinion. (More statistics can be found on the Death Penalty’s Information Center Fact Sheet). With an overwhelming amount of evidence that the death penalty is no more of a deterrence than other forms of punishment, all that is left is for us to reevaluate why we may support the death penalty. Capital punishment supporters rely less on gathered evidence, and more on an intuitive notion that the death penalty should serve as a deterrent. Many argue that it is simply common sense that the threat of being executed is enough to prevent such transgressions, but most criminals do not even make the distinction between death row and life in prison.
If the death penalty does not function as a disincentive, is it a suitable form of retribution, or punishment? Many would claim that there is no greater disincentive than death. Contrary to that belief, however, many inmates such as Micheal Passaro and Timothy McVeigh (a murderer and domestic terrorist respectively) have claimed numerous times that they would prefer death to a life in custody. Their lawyers later claimed that they saw death as not a punishment, but an escape from their punishment. Between 1993 and 2002, 75 of the incarcerated volunteered for death, and in the past ten years the number of felons that have requested to be executed was higher than those that pleaded for life without parole. Is this quick escape from their crimes a justified punishment? Supporters may claim that it follows the same principle that tort law follows; restitution in the form of a life for a life. However, we must remember that although a victim has lost their only opportunity at a fulfilling life, criminals are choosing between death in prison and an immediate death. They are choosing between a long life, locked in a cell, with nothing but their own thoughts to reflect on, or instant escape. In this situation, most criminals choose the latter. The life for a life notion is flawed because it compares two very different qualities of life. Granted, this evidence is not concrete; there are too many variables in play to determine whether the death penalty is the direct cause of murder and homicide rates. However, when death penalty supporters claim that capital punishment serves to lower crime rates there is no evidence to show that. Countless studies have found little to no correlation between lower crime rates and the death penalty, and the only argument that can be put forward is based off of what they would call “common sense”. This “common sense” is only referred to because it has been reinforced in our minds throughout history that this is the way the law works, and this is how it should be. But if we take a second to step back and look for evidence to prove this, we would find almost nothing.
Something about the finality of capital punishment appeals to people, as many death penalty defenders are afraid that life in prison offers too many opportunities of clemency. However, in the history of this sentence, there has not been a single instance where a guilty felon has been released; this is what the phrase “without parole” means. The only circumstances in which someone may be let off from the death row is if they have been proven to be wrongfully convicted, and are innocent. The only difference is, with the death penalty, there is no chance of redemption if someone is found to be guiltless. Studies show that more than 4% of those put on death row have been deemed innocent after being injected, which sums to more than 1,500 people. Given that the current justice and law enforcement system is so fundamentally flawed, is the death penalty something that we can trust? In countries such as Singapore, it works as a very effective deterrent. The US, on the other hand, has a long way to go before it will be able to handle this power successfully. I want to make it clear, now, that although I am in disfavor of the death penalty, I can appreciate how it would work theoretically (as it does in certain other countries). I can also appreciate that some crimes are so vile that the one thing most people would want is for the perpetrator to be executed. But I still do not believe that the US is in a stable enough position to exercise this punishment so freely, especially considering that the deterrent effects and retributional ideologies have little to no correlation with capital punishment. Regardless, capital punishment mst be evaluated thouroughly for each country in order to justify either its abolition or imposition, as different justice structures and societies may respond differently to the death penalty.
The final common argument that upholds the death penalty is less of a vague, ethical question. Why would we waste our money and valuable resources on those who have committed felonies when they could be used in society instead? This represents a much broader question about where money is being allocated to, and is a common misunderstanding that many death row supporters believe. As strange as it seems, keeping someone in prison without parole is much cheaper and much more economically feasible than carrying out their execution. In the California death penalty system (the Death Penalty Focus Organization claims) a death row sentence may cost up to 18 times as much as a sentence of life without parole.
This is because of the extensive, mandatory judicial processes that are required for someone to be put on death row. Given that this punishment is irreversible, it is expected that a lot of time and money would have to go into complex court cases and legal proceedings; the US has to be especially careful, because of their high rates of false incarcerations and a justice system which operates through biases, covert corruption and systemic flaws. This money could be used instead to support the families of victims, or go towards the betterment of society, rather than funding a long-winded process that puts someone (who may or may not be innocent) to death. Let’s break down the costs to further understand the distinction: In Kansas, for example, defense costs for death penalty trials averaged $400,000 each. In contrast, the defense cost for non-capital trial cases averages just $100,000. In Oklahoma, death penalty trials costed 3.2 times more than regular trials. From 2008 to 2017, the state of Louisiana (who, in this time, only sentenced one person to capital punishment) spent 140.4 million dollars to maintain death row punishment; this cost excludes court proceedings, trials and prosecution costs. In 2017, the rising costs of lethal injections (the most common form of carrying out punishment) cost $16,500 per dose. The economic aspect is easily twisted; however the burden on tax-payers and on the government that capital punishment imposes is much higher than if criminals were put in prison for life without parole. Is this how we want to allocate resources? Is this where we want to put our money?
To conclude, I understand how controversial this subject can be. Being detached from this kind of reality makes it difficult to empathize with families of victims who have suffered tremendous amounts of pain and loss. It may be seen as callous, therefore, to comment on how criminals should be treated. However, I want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to brush aside the pain that victims must go through, nor am I trying to sympathize with felons who commit such treacherous crimes. It is understandable that those who have been affected by death-row inmates would have varying levels of anger and ideas on the justice they deserve. I am in no way trying to be insensitive to that, or trying to downplay the extensive pain that victims feel. I am merely trying to point out the flaws in an ancient judicial system, because I truly believe that for any societal change to occur in America, the core aspects of the justice system need to be reevaluated and reformed.
Comments