The Machines of Death Are Dying
Capital punishment is, by definition, punishing a crime with death. The death penalty has been used periodically throughout American history since 1608, when the first recorded death sentence was imposed. According to "Executions in the U.S.: The Espy File," by M. Walt Espy and John Ortiz Smylka, there was a gradual incline in the number of executions from that time and throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, peaking at 200 executions per year in the mid-1930s. There was a subsequent decline in imposition, followed by a moratorium, which ended in 1976 (1). The moratorium was initiated in the 1972 case Furman v. Georgia, when the Supreme Court declared that the death penalty had been applied arbitrarily and used unfairly against the poor and African American. Capital punishment was called, "excessive, unnecessary, offensive to contemporary values" by Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall (3). The death penalty was reinstated in 1976 when guided discretion statutes in Georgia, Texas, and Florida were deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court. The Court also deemed the death penalty constitutional under the Eighth Amendment, which states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." The question, then, is whether or not capital punishment can really be cleared of the identification as being cruel and unusual. The basis of the American judicial system has long been said to be the need to find fair forms of retribution for crimes. The worst of those crimes is generally considered to be the intentional murder of another human being - it is the lowest of the low in human behavior. American laws proclaim that this offense should be punished with the highest available penalty. How far should these penalties extend, though? In a world where "eye for an eye" was once the acceptable standard for justice, it has now become an issue of, "where can the line be drawn?" In many states, the form of retribution is not only incarceration, but the death penalty as well. The death penalty, however, should not be considered a viable option. Capital punishment is an unacceptable form of discipline because of its lack of efficacy on functional, moral, judicial, and economic levels.
Some proponents of capital punishment stake claim that it acts as an incapacitator to the delinquent and therefore eliminates the possibility of future murders. While this is true enough, the logic behind this argument is flawed. According to data collected by the U.S. Department of Justice, the number of annual homicides in the past fifty years has ranged anywhere from 6,820 to 24,700 (2). One individual could never commit even one-third of those homicides in his or her lifetime, let alone in one year. To sentence one person to death could potentially reduce the risk of only an infinitesimal fraction of that year's predicted murders. A life sentence without parole in a maximum-security prison is a much more plausible form of discipline than capital punishment because it duly punishes the perpetrator without losing its efficacy. The individual would remain in prison for the duration of his or her life, and would not be able to commit another murder.
Another argument in favor of capital punishment is that it acts as a deterrent, preventing more individuals from killing. For the most part, murderers often test as being psychologically or emotionally unsound, yet are still charged with capital punishment because of the few laws protecting those with extenuating circumstances as such. The idea that any person consciously choosing to take another person's life could be stable enough to consider the cause and effects of his or her actions is entirely illogical. For the rare criminal that can weigh the situation in such a manner, it becomes a matter of whether or not the perpetrator believes that he or she will be caught. Therefore, any sort of punishment could not serve as a deterrent. The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice performed a study of homicide rates in California, and observed that there was a 10% increase in homicides during the years in which the death penalty was imposed (1952-1967), and only a 4.8% increase while the death penalty was not imposed (1968-1991). While further information about this facet of the argument is currently pending, 80% of the staffs at the American Society of Criminology, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, and the Law and Society Association surveyed stated that they did not believe that there is any evidence to support the deterrence theory (1). Criminal behavior is not based on the thoughtful planning of courses of action; it is a system of immediate gratification. Capital punishment is something too abstract to be part of that immediate gratification system.
As a global leader, the United States often steps into the affairs of other countries in order to maintain human rights or influence other social issues. In most cases of the violation of human rights on a global level, the United States is the first country to step in. It seems ironic, then, that several world powers, such as the United Nations, Amnesty International, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, and the European Union have called on the United States to end its use of capital punishment. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, between 1982 and 2000 there were 32 "botched executions" - executions which went horrifyingly awry. Nineteen of these botched executions were the result of the lethal injection, the most common form of capital punishment to date. The second most common form, the electric chair, accounted for 13 of those executions. An example of a substandard lethal injection is the instance of Raymond Landry in Texas. At his execution on December 13th, 1988, the process was delayed when the needle containing the lethal drugs came out of his vein and sprayed in the direction of the witnesses in the room. It took 40 minutes for him to die. A shoddy electrocution occurred on March 25th, 1997 in Florida, in the case of Pedro Medina, when foot-high flames shot out from the headpiece of the electric chair. Experts hired by the governor determined that the error was caused by the improper application of the sponge - the conductor for the electricity - to Medina's head. Medina didn't die until after the flames subsided (1). Internal forces - particularly religious leaders within the Jewish and Christian communities - are also pushing the United States toward the goal of eliminating this inhumane process. A March 1999 joint statement issued by these two groups stated: "Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we defend life by taking life," (as quoted in Klein, 3).
Even former supporters and practitioners of capital punishment have turned their backs on this callous form of punishment. Russ Feingold, the Democratic Senator of Wisconsin, recently proposed a bill that calls upon the United States government to end capital punishment on the federal level. He has also put a moratorium on Wisconsin's use of capital punishment, as has Governor George Ryan of Illinois. Quoted in an article in The Christian Century, the Governor stated, "I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven to be so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life," (as quoted in Klein, 3). Senator Feingold said, "We are a nation that prides itself on the fundamental principles of justice, liberty, equality, and due process. We are one of the first nations to speak out against torture and killings by foreign governments. It is time for us to look in the mirror," (as quoted in Klein, 2). It has become obvious to almost every nation except the United States, it seems, that the machines of death are no longer a truly functional part of society, and should be removed entirely from its system.
It should also be taken into consideration that race and economic background play more of a role in this than our judicial system claims, extending the issues of fairness beyond the universal level. Statistics provided by the Death Penalty Information Center show that minorities compose 53% of the inmates on death row (1). Discrimination on the basis of the race of the defendant in contrast to the race of the victim is also widespread. The NAACP recorded that, in cases of those already executed, eleven cases have been such that the defendant was white and the victim black. In comparison, 159 of the executions have been the opposite, with the defendant black and the victim white (1). In Kentucky alone, 1,000 African-Americans have been murdered since the death penalty was reinstated, yet in the spring of 1999, all 39 of Kentucky's death row inmates were there as punishment for the murder of a white victim (3). The NAACP also found that 83% of capital cases involve white victims, while nationally only 50% of murder victims are white (1). It can also be concluded that the members of the lower class charged with capital punishment are, in general, poorly represented. If the person brought to court cannot afford a lawyer, he or she is assigned one by the court. The Atlantic Monthly stated that, "At the very least, three-fourths of state prison inmates and half of federal prison inmates have taxpayer-financed court-appointed counsel. The quality of this representation is questionable," (as quoted in Klein, 3). Low-quality lawyers often misrepresent the lower class, while upper class defendants can afford high-grade lawyers to argue their cases. There are also many cases in which the prosecution will engage in misconduct to win the indictment. According to an article in the New York Times by Jim Yardley, "Lawyers Call For Changes in Death Penalty in Texas," a recent study by a committee of the State Bar of Texas found 41 cases in which state officials "intentionally distorted the truth-seeking process," including examples of prosecutors changing theories or presenting false evidence to win convictions, (3). Capital punishment - an irrevocable form of discipline - at the very least cannot be distributed unless racial identification, economic status, and prosecutorial error can be removed from the equation.
The death penalty is a tremendous financial burden to American taxpayers as well. As reported by the Dallas Morning News in 1992, the cost of the court proceedings and the actual method of death for one individual in Texas is about three times higher than the cost of keeping a single inmate in a maximum-security prison for 40 years (as quoted by the Death Penalty Information Center, 1). The death penalty costs about $2.3 million more per case (1). It seems irrational to ask taxpayers - not all of whom are necessarily for or against capital punishment - to pay such a great amount of extra money when it is equally efficient and less costly to sentence the criminal to life in prison. Most taxpayers are not even aware - as their state government does not tell them - that the costs are so much higher in comparison. Nationally, the figures translate to an added cost of $1 billion dollars since the moratorium ended in 1976 (1). The death penalty is one instance in which the costs definitely outweigh the benefits.
As it stands, the death penalty should no longer be used in America because it is riddled with imperfections in so many ways. Capital punishment does not serve as an effective incapacitator or deterrent to criminal behavior. It is an inhumane and costly procedure that dehumanizes American culture. As a nation that practices this flawed form of discipline we are isolated from our Western culture counterparts, and the fact that we continue this practice reduces America's credibility as a global leader. In order to place the American judicial system - and culture as a whole - where it belongs on all levels, the system of capital punishment must be abolished.Partner sites: Bulldog, Study Spanish in Mexico, and The Great Gatsby