The Irrevocable Punishment

The use of the death penalty in the United States today is not only appalling but also unnecessary.  Statistics from the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) have proven one is more likely to be executed if one is of particular race or economic standing.  Furthermore, these statistics have shown the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime.  Hence, the money spent on those executions, provided by tax payers, is being spent on something that does not fulfill its goals.  Capital punishment is also applied to too many offenses, with too much power given to judges and juries.  Most inhumanely, however, it is applied to the mentally disabled.  Overall the death penalty is an unreasonable and undeserved punishment enforced in too many cases where the defendant is innocent.

Capital punishment is theoretically supposed to only be applied to those truly guilty of crimes as heinous as murder, and to no one else.  This is not always the case.  Statistics show one’s innocence greatly depends on the prejudices of those on juries, especially when race is concerned. Though black people make up 12.85% of the total population in America, they make up 41.2% of the total population on death row.  They also make up 51% of those exonerated from death row since 1973 due to evidence proving their innocence.  There is no evidence to support any theories of black people being more prone to kill than any other race, as there is among men and women.  Another influence upon one’s innocence comes from one’s economical standing. Those who are poverty stricken are often forced to take court appointed lawyers.  These people are underpaid, overworked, inexperienced, and wholly not the best legal representation.  Therefore, those who can afford a more experienced and generally more expensive lawyer are more likely to be judged as innocent.  To correct this overwhelming problem, new regulations should be set for public defenders.  This would include a guaranteed higher pay, which would potentially attract more experienced lawyers, and a strict limit set on the number of case loads a lawyer could take at one time.

Since 1973, 129 people have been released from death row due to evidence of their probable innocence.  In the same time, 1,099 people have been
executed.  This is a ratio of eight-and-a-half people executed to one person found innocent.  An investigation by students in Columbia University showed two-thirds of all capital punishment cases had major errors in them.  (A major error is constituted as any of the following: unexplored evidence, incorrect witness testimonial, use of incompetent “experts,” or false confession.)  There will always be the chance of convicting an innocent person.  However, even though the thought of locking up an innocent person for years without cause seems immutable, practicing capital punishment would make the punishment on said innocent person completely irrevocable.

Simple statistics have shown capital punishment is not an effective disincentive to crime.  Since the 1980s, shortly after the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, crime rates have spiked dramatically.  There are many states that enforce the death penalty, but have higher murder rate.  For instance, in Massachusetts, where the death penalty is not enforced, the murder rate is 2.7 (out of 100,000 people;) in Texas, where capital punishment is enforced more than in any other state, the murder rate is 6.2.  Of the states that do not tolerate capital punishment, 86% these states have relatively low murder rates (under 5.0).  Of the states that do condone capital punishment, only 42% have murder rates under 5.0.  These statistics show that with a death penalty the murder rate is higher than it would be without it entirely.  If the policy is not fulfilling its goal, then why should tax payers’ money be spent uneconomically on such a task?  Though government officials may want to protect the general public by eliminating those who pose a threat, they have no right to impose anything more than life imprisonment if doing so will only increase the rate of future crimes of the same caliber.

The main argument for keeping the death penalty is that it is the most cost effective criminal punishment system.  Though the death penalty seems to be the cheapest method of (allegedly) reducing crime, only some of the cost involved in capital punishment is considered.  That amount totals to around 19.8 billion dollars annually; this only includes prisoner housing.  However, the following nickels and dimes are not considered in this final price tag: the investigations in death penalty cases are three times more than those in non-death penalty cases; it costs $508,000 for a death penalty trial whereas a non-death penalty case costs $32,000 respectively; appeal costs in a death penalty case are 21 times that of non-death penalty cases; the median cost of a death penalty case is 1.26 million as compared to $740,000 in non-death penalty cases as investigated by the State of Kansas.  It would cost only three-percent more to house those who would potentially be executed, than it would to execute them; this three percent is quickly effaced when one includes the mentioned additional costs involved in capital punishment.  If capital punishment were eliminated, the money that would have previously have been wasted could be spent on truly effective deterrents to crime.  The question is: what are these effective deterrents?  A survey of the police chiefs in America sponsored by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) showed a general consensus that reducing drug abuse would drastically cut crime rates.  The general consensus was that drug abuse, which received 31% of the vote, could be very easily and cheaply reduced. 

Some states also allow capital punishment to be practiced on the mentally disabled.  These people have impaired cognitive functions.  The maximum punishment for these people should not even be a penalty, but sentenced medical help.  For most mentally disabled people, a guardian should be provided, as supervision is quite important.  Those with more extreme cases should be sent to clinics specializing in the care of the mentally disabled.

Turning the table away from the criminals, it should be mentioned that the twelve unlucky people situated in the jury’s box may be unfortunate enough to find their guilty verdict may lead to the death of a fellow human being.  The psychological meltdown that may affect the lives of those on the jury is not something that should be imposed on third party citizens.  The jury does not stand alone though as judges face the same responsibility at times.  Cases with the option of the death penalty in the same sentences are not rare.  There are over 60 offenses, some of which do not include murder, which could lead to execution.  Therefore, if the government refuses to abolish the death penalty for the sake of those on trial, perhaps they would consider those on the jury. 

Overall the death penalty should be eliminated from the jurisprudence system all together.  The system in influenced by elements other than the evidence presented in the court, and is a costly and ineffective way to decrease crime rates.  Innocent people are killed because they are unable to get off death row due to a wide assortment of ridiculous reasons which even includes negligence on the part of their lawyers.  Even the mentally disabled are legally murdered for problems that they have no control over.  Lastly, though the prisoner is generally the main concern in a death penalty case, the jury and judge should also be considered as they must make life or death decisions.  The United States has one of the higher murder rates in the world.  What are other countries doing that America isn’t that leaves them with such control over crime?  They aren’t using the death penalty.