This seems to be a topic that we are sufficiently divided upon, and I for one am opposed to the death penalty. I used to be a strong proponent of the DP, but after I looked more into it there were things that turned me away from it and I want to go over some of those here. All of the information has come from the Department of Justice. The DP was reinstated in the United States in 1976 and since then 82 people sentenced to death were later found to be not guilty; that is 1 in every 7. One in seven! Assuming that nobody executed was innocent one in seven is too much room for error.
Now I am an economist so I also look at this economically. All of us can agree that we don't want to execute an innocent person, so how can we be more sure they guilty? We have to have more detailed trials, longer appeals, better public attorneys, higher qualified jury members, etc. These things cost a lot of money, but they are all necessary to insure that the person really is guilty-sure people complain about the costs when the person turns out to be guilty, but no one complains when it is found that the person was really innocent. Taking all the costs into account the average death row inmate costs 2 million dollars and life in prison costs on average 500 thousand. The cost of the death penalty is four times as much. This can only be justified if we as a society value putting someone to death over removing them from society so much we would be willing to pay an extra 1.5 million dollars per person.
The Death penalty has also been shown to not be a deterrent to crime. Crimes worthy of the death penalty are often crimes of passion or committed by people who don't care about consequences. The death penalty does not deter since the type of people who kill are not calculating the risk of getting caught or what the consequences may be. Illogical acts to not beget logical thought. Texas, with the most people executed than any other state, has a murder rate 6 times higher than Wisconsin who does not have the death penalty. That is taking into account the population difference already. The United States also has higher murder rates than all the countries in the world that have abolished the death penalty since the money spent of the death penalty process is channeled into other sicial programs aimed at reducing crime or increasing education.
Personally I think that the death penalty is something we as people should outgrow. Killing a killer is not the solution to a societal problem. We should be better than that, but that's just me. Also, I would like to remind everyone that arguments against the court system are not arguments for the death penalty. If you think it should be run differently then blog that, but don't think that the system being flawed supports the death penalty. If anyone can show me a system that does not convict innocent people and always knows who is guilty while spending less that 500 thousand dollars I will then reconsider my position.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My argument against the court system strengthens my argument against the death penalty. Not only do you run the risk of a wrongful conviction, but the death penalty is often put up against innocent defendants in order to coerce a plea bargain. Given the risk, and the chance that your public defender will not be as skilled or have as many resources as the prosecutor, countless innocent people take time in jail over a chance at being sentenced to death. My other problem with the death penalty is that we have yet to find a civil way to execute death row inmates. Lethal injection, firing squad, electric chair... in my mind they should all be banned by the "cruel and unusual punishment" restriction in the Constitution.
ReplyDelete@Spencer
ReplyDeleteGreat post. It was very insightful. You have brought up some issues that I wouldn't have considered before.
@Bob
Is there a civil way to put a human being to death? I don't think any way of "human disposal" could be civil.
Having said that, here is my position. I believe that if we could perfect the way of carrying out the death penalty, then it would seem justified. Yet, there really is no way to make it perfect because it seems immoral. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I do agree that it costs us too much money and the margin of error is too high. Being that I have never taken an official position on the issue(except to get a rise out of Phil... no hard feelings Phil) I guess now would be a good time to do such.
My heart goes out to those families who fall victim to the crimes of the people on death row. Yet, this does not justify "an eye for an eye". I would say that considering Phil's impeccable argument of following Christs example, Spencer's economical argument, and Bobs somewhat weak argument about the court systems, I would have to agree.
I am against the death penalty. Mostly because of some things that Phil the Thrill said. How can we profess to be disciples of Christ and yet, support something that is so blatantly against his teachings? We cant. I believe that Jesus Christ would be against the death penalty. I have heard some who support the DP use the imbecilic argument of "Let God sort them out".
Let God sort them out????? First, God will sort the guilty out whether we put them to death or not. Second, we will be included in the sorting if we "play God" and put someone to death.
I believe it is morally wrong to execute the death penalty. Because ending someones life is always wrong. (exceptions noted. i.e. war, self defense, etc.. I don't want to get blasted here.) There is no perfection in ending the life of another. Spencer said "Killing a killer is not the solution to a societal problem. We should be better than that, but that's just me." That's not just you. That's me too. This is why the perfect way of having the death penalty can not exist. Ending human life is imperfect.
Now, you may want to print this out, put it in your journals, keep it around, etc... for when I am very successful. You can say that you experienced the first time that I took a stance on the death penalty... Unless I have a change of heart like my good buddy Mitt did on abortion. But, that's another post. Thanks for the thoughtful post Spencer.
p.s...
please understand that in no way do I claim to be as politically deep or intelligent as all of you fine gentleman. Knowing this, please take my comment with a grain of salt considering it comes from such an uneducated buffoon. In other words, don't crush my ideas too bad. I am just trying to keep up with all of you heavyweights. :)
I believe in a civil society there are only two options when it comes to the charge of cold blooded and heinous murder (the only kind I feel may warrant death):
ReplyDelete1) The perpetrator is willing (as willing as any can be) to surrender their life to pay for what they have done
2) The perpetrator cannot be found guilty.
For me this has nothing to do with the perplexities of mans' laws. The Natural Law here is that murder has only one atonement, paying for a life taken with your own. Granted, this is based on my, primarily, primal judeo bias toward laws: namely that since all other crimes have real reparations we are left with only one kind of reparation for murder.
Further, Cicero rightly points out:
"As one and the same Nature holds together and supports the universe, all of whose parts are in harmony with one another, so men are united in Nature, but by reason of their depravity they quarrel, not realizing that they are of one blood and subject to one adn teh same protecting power. If this fact were understood, surely man would live the life of the gods!
It is probably from these root ideas that both sides of the debate found seeds of relevance. But the reality, as I see it, is that both sides need say. Currently cumbersome process requires of some perpetrators but not others their life for a life taken. Since it is neither fair nor predictable it is not just. It should be that a just system finds a means of adequately condemning those unwilling to confess even against plain evidence (too many have been the victims of false witness and "insurmountable evidence" -- OJ learned you can marshal evidence). When so found guilty I believe Nature's God demands the only atonement available. At that point God does no sorting but weighing. And I believe a person who feels that they satisfied blood for blood will find themselves the beneficiary of whatever measure of mercy is prepared for them.
In the past I have personally supported the death penalty firmly. Believing that since I do have the right to kill a man who has killed others in order to protect even more from dying. Believing such, I believed that I can then designate that power to government.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have become conflicted on the subject:
I. I have personally witnessed and experienced the dishonesty and manipulation of an over-zealous executive and judiciary system: A. The jury selection process in our country for one reason or another has the nasty habit of electing the most foolish and uneducated members of our culture. B. Police officer's will tamper with evidence or ignore evidence that doesn't lead to a conclusive result. C. Believing beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty doesn't seem to mean what it used to, now it simply means that your pretty darn sure they did it. D. Prosecuting attorneys, judges, police officers are all incentivized to have high conviction rates. Thus leading people to discard the truth for personal advancement. E. Despite being hyped up by the media as definitive, much of scientific evidence such as fingerprinting, dna, etc... is very inconclusive, and while it can create probable scenarios very little is 100% accurate. However, it is presented to jury, judges, and the general public as always conclusive. F. There is the cost factor of DP as well, and while we could definitely streamline it to radically reduce cost, considering the above issues, I don't know if I'm willing to.
II. On the other hand, we do have the right as individuals to execute men who have committed heinous crimes. I believe that even Christ would execute a man who had committed certain acts, especially to stop that individual from committing those acts on even more people. Lets face it, most criminals never rehabilitate (our prison system's abilities are another discussion). So putting men in prison isn't fixing the problem.
So what do we do?
It'll surprise no one that I absolutely don't want to trust government, especially government employees to make this decision.
On the other hand, just thinking about someone ravaging a loved one and sadistically murdering them, fills me with such righteous wrath that I would hunt the man down myself and help him on his way to judgment day a little faster.
I've really pondered this the last few days and here's what I've decided:
I am not willing to be responsible for the deaths of innocent men. So I am not willing to delegate power to my government to execute. I trust our system and people too little.
However, should any man ever commit such an act against my family, no law of man is going to prevent me, if I know truly in my heart who it is, from ensuring that man receives his just punishment.