Death Penalty Op-Ed

Abolish the Death Penalty

By ZACH HAZZARD Nov. 17, 2014

 

If America truly wants to be a moral compass in the world, it can start by federally abolishing the death penalty. Our current policy of executing some criminals convicted of capital crimes is one of revenge, not justice. Not only is executing criminals almost always more costly on a financial level, it is not a deterrent, and it puts a stain on our criminal justice system so deep that we are compared to Iran, China, and Iraq (some of the few developed countries who continue to execute criminals) rather than other first-world countries. When faced with the reality that the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment and does not offer deterrence, the only justification left is that of revenge. This is unacceptable and must be changed.

The use of the death penalty in the United States can be traced back to the colonization period, and although several states began to abolish it in the 19^th century, it remained legal federally, and the majority of states continued to enforce the death penalty. Executions reached a peak in the 1930s, averaging 167 per year. In 1972, the Supreme Court suspended the death penalty in the Furman v. Georgia (408 U.S. 238)) case on the basis that the death penalty as applied at the time was arbitrary, and thus unfair.  In 1976, after states began to change capital sentencing procedures, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a state to execute criminals convicted of capital offenses. They did so in citing that execution could “serve the social purposes of retribution and deterrence” (Death Penalty).

Yet, the evidence does not support any claim that capital punishment acts as a deterrent. When averaged together, states that impose the death penalty actually have higher rates of murder than those that don’t. In fact, states that do not impose the death penalty have had on average 30% fewer murders in the last 20 years than the states that do (Deterrence). This is no coincidence: In a 2008 poll of 500 police chiefs in the US, the chiefs ranked the death penalty last when asked about methods that would effectively reduce violent crime. (Law Enforcement) Furthermore, 78% of leading criminologists say that capital punishment does not lower the murder rate in a state, and 94% agree that there is little empirical evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty (Radlet). Experts, law enforcement, and data all agree: The death penalty is not a deterrent.

Supporters of capital punishment often argue that life in prison is expensive, so we should simply execute certain criminals instead; After all, why should we pay to support someone who has been convicted of a capital crime? It’s not quite as simple as this, however, as most data suggests that it is actually more expensive to go through the judicial process when the death penalty is sought than it is to simply imprison for life without parole. In Kansas, for example, housing prisoners on death row costs more than twice as much ($49,380/year) as prisoners in the general population ($24,690/year) (Costs of the Death Penalty). Another study in Kansas found that the legal costs in death penalty cases average 16 times more than in non-death penalty cases. The study analyzed death penalty case costs from beginning to end and found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were analyzed from beginning to end and were found to have a median cost of $740,000 (Costs of the Death Penalty) Although these numbers vary from state to state, the general consensus remains the same; it is more expensive to go through the legal process of executing someone than it is to put them in prison for life without parole.

So, with the data that we have, two things are clear. The death penalty does not serve as a deterrent. The numbers don’t support it, the experts don’t agree with it, and law enforcement doesn’t believe it. Seeking the death penalty and the legal process that follows is almost always more expensive than life without parole, and so there is no objective justification from a cost standpoint. The only justification thus becomes the outdated “eye for an eye” theory, a theory that very few developed nations still adhere to. If the Supreme Court still wants to claim revenge, or rather, “retribution” as a social purpose for the death penalty, than so be it. But if the Supreme Court continues to hold revenge and justice in the same light, than it is up to us, the citizens of our great nation, to stand up for justice over revenge and call for the federal abolition of the death penalty.

 

 

 

Works Cited

“Costs of the Death Penalty.” DPIC. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2014.

“Death Penalty.” LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.

Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates. DPIC. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2014.

“Law Enforcement Views on Deterrence.” DPIC. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.

 

Radlet, Michael L., and Traci L. Lacock. “Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates?: The Views Of Leading Criminologists.” Recent Developments 99.2 (2009): n. pag. Web. 17 Nov. 2014.