Capital Punishment Essay - The Death Penalty in the United States Argumentative Persuasive Essays

The Death Penalty in the United States

The death penalty is a controversial topic in the United States

today and has been for a number of years. The death penalty is currently

legal in 38 states and two federal jurisdictions (Winters 97). The death

penalty statutes were overturned and then reinstated in the United States

during the 1970's due to questions concerning its fairness (Flanders 50).

The death penalty began to be reinstated slowly, but the rate of executions

has increased during the 1990's (Winters 103-107). There are a number of

arguments in favor of the death penalty. Many death penalty proponents feel

that the death penalty reduces crime because it deters people from

committing murder if they know that they will receive the death penalty if

they are caught. Others in favor of the death penalty feel that even if it

doesn't deter others from committing crimes, it will eliminate repeat

offenders. Death penalty opponents feel that the death penalty actually

leads to an increase in crime because the death penalty desensitizes people

to violence, and it sends the message that violence is a suitable way to

resolve conflicts. Death penalty opponents also condemn the death penalty

because of the possibility of an innocent person being put to death, and

because it can be unfairly applied.

Death penalty opponents feel that the death penalty must be

abolished because it cheapens the value of human life. The death penalty

desensitizes people to murder and violence because, by executing people,

the state sends the message that violence is an acceptable means of

resolving conflicts. The death penalty also reduces the gravity of the loss

of human life by making it legal for the state to kill people it deems to

be beyond reform (Winters 57). Death penalty opponents defend their claims

that the death penalty actually causes an increase in crime citing

statistics such as that in California, between 1952 and 1967 there were an

average of 6 executions per year. From 1968 until 1991, there were no

executions. In the period from 1952 to 1967 the murder rate was double that

of the murder rate in the years from 1968 to 1991. Also the average murder

rate in states with the death penalty is 8%, whereas in states without the

death penalty the murder rate is only 4.4% ("Deterrence"). Another argument

that death penalty opponents point to is the fact that states that abolish

and then reintroduce the death penalty do not seem to have any change in

their murder rates (Bedau).

Death penalty opponents also point to the fact that over half of

the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, including all

other major industrialized, democratic nations (Flanders 35). In the five

countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death

penalty, the murder rate is 21.6 murders per 100,000 people. In the five

countries with the highest homicide rates that do impose the death penalty,

the murder rate is 41.6 murders per 100,000 people ("Deterrence").

Furthermore, the United States has the highest crime and murder rates of

any of the other major democratic nations, all of which have abandoned the

death penalty (Hauss 53). In 1965, Great Britain called for a five-year

moratorium on executions following a recent decline in the imposition of

the death penalty and growing anti- death penalty sentiments in the country.

In 1969, the government abolished the death penalty altogether because

there had been no surge in homicides or crime (Flanders 45). Death penalty

opponents feel that these statistics lend credence to the argument that the

death penalty does not cause a decrease in homicides and in some instances

may even lead to an increase in murders.

Death penalty statutes currently in place in the United States are

also said to violate contemporary standards of decency and various

international treaties, because they allow the execution of the mentally

disabled and minors. According to the National Bar Association, the current

laws that allow the mentally retarded to be put to death violate

contemporary standards of decency ("U.S."). The National Coalition Against

the Death Penalty states that people with mental disabilities often may be

unaware of what they are doing, and can often be easily coerced into

confessing. A case in point is Jerome Bowden who signed a statement

confessing to murder even though he was illiterate. He signed it because

police had told him that signing it would be to his benefit. He was later

convicted and executed ("Mental"). Another example of a mentally retarded

person receiving the death penalty was when Morris Odell Mason was executed

in 1985. On his way to the death chamber he told another inmate, "When I

get back, I'm gonna show him how I can play basketball as good as he can."

He clearly did not understand his impending fate ("Mental"). At present

over 10% of the death row population are said to be afflicted by mental

retardation ("Mental"). The current statutes that allow the execution of

minors are in contradiction of every major human rights treaty on the

subject of capital punishment ("U.S."). The United States is one of only

six countries that have executed juveniles since 1990. The other five are

Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran ("Stop"). The US has

sentenced to death the most juveniles of any of these countries. Even China,

famous for its human rights abuses, has criticized the US for this practice

("U.S."). In 1996, prosecutors in some states sought the death penalty for

children as young as 13. This has brought about widespread criticism from

other nations of the world ("Stop"). Death penalty opponents use these

facts as evidence that society is not competent enough to carry out the

death penalty.

Death penalty opponents also feel that the judicial system is not

flawless, and that in the United States the death penalty is handed down

unfairly ("Executing"). One example of the unfair application of the death

penalty is that women make up only 1% of the death row population in the

U.S., even though women are responsible for 20% of the homicides that occur

in the United States (Bedau). In addition, minorities are far more likely

to receive the death penalty than whites. For example, 90% of the people

that Federal prosecutors seek to execute are black. These statistics are

blown even further out of proportion when one looks at the punishments that

killers of whites receive versus killers of blacks. In Maryland, a person

who kills a white person is 7 times as likely to receive the death penalty

as the killer of a black person. Furthermore, 90% of people executed in The

United States were convicted of killing whites, even though minorities

account for over half of the homicide victims in The United States.

According to the National Coalition For the Abolition of the Death Penalty,

of the 486 people executed in the United States only 6 were whites

convicted of killing blacks ("Executing").

The death penalty is also applied almost exclusively on those who

are from the poorest segments of society and are unable to afford to defend

themselves. According to Nick Dispoldo, author of "Capital Punishment and

the Poor," "In researching a book in progress about the 300 year history of

the death penalty in The United States, I have discovered only 6 cases in

which those executed were individuals of influence or affluence." There

have been 7,000 executions in this century alone (Winters 164). Over 50% of

people on death row were unemployed at the time of their conviction, and

almost all of the people on death row were unskilled. This is problematic

because often their court appointed attorneys are overworked and underpaid,

and thus they are unable to provide the same quality of defense as a

private lawyer. Many states, such as Louisiana, also pay the public

defenders very little. Public defenders are paid up to $1000.00 for pre-

trial work. The average amount of pre-trial time put into a capita l case

is 2000 hours; this comes out to $0.50 an hour pay for the public defenders.

The amount of money that can be spent for investigative purposes is often

limited at $500.00; this is not nearly enough to pay for expensive blood

and DNA tests (Star). The State, on the other hand, has nearly unlimited

resources at its disposal to bring about a conviction. Despite the fact

that the defendants in capital murder trials are given so little money to

defend themselves, the death penalty is extremely expensive. Various state

government studies, according to an NCADP fact sheet, have stated that a

single death penalty case costs taxpayers between 1 and 3 million dollars.

The cost of life imprisonment costs taxpayers $500,000 ("Millions"). The

high cost of the death penalty is another one of the concerns expressed by

death penalty critics because the $1,000,000,000 that has been spent on the

death penalty over the last 18 years could often be used more effectively.

In 1991 the state of New Jersey spent $16,000,000

to impose the death penalty. The next year the state was forced to lay off

500 police officers because it could not afford to pay them (Winters 134-

138).

Perhaps the gravest concern expressed by opponents of capital

punishment is that innocent people can be executed. According to ex-

Supreme Court justice Harry Blackmun, 23 innocent people have been executed

this century (Winters 84). In 1994, the state of Texas executed Robert

Nelson Drew even after another man confessed to the murder and exonerated

Drew ("Guilty"). Cases as clear cut as this are admittedly rare, but there

are other cases where people have been executed for crimes that would be

considered by many to be less than first degree murder or have mitigating

circumstances. One such example of this is the case of Alan Jeffery

Bannister, who was executed on October 22, 1997. He was charged and

convicted of murder for hire. Alan Bannister stated that he had killed in

self- defense. This defense seemed to many people to be pretty strong. The

investigating officer, who had testified against him in his trial, later

admitted that the police had no conclusive evidence proving that the murder

had b een for hire or even that Bannister had committed murder in the first

degree. (Matthews). Death penalty opponents feel that since there is no

conclusive proof that the death penalty has no deterrent effect, it is

unfairly administered, and because there is a risk of executing innocent

people; the death penalty must be eliminated.

Death penalty proponents hold that the death penalty is an

effective deterrent to crime despite what critics of the death penalty may

think . They also feel that the death penalty eliminates the possibility

that any murderer will murder again. Death penalty supporters support their

claim that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime with statistics. One

of the most widely cited studies in favor of the death penalty is the study

conducted by Isaac Erlich at the University of Chicago. His findings stated

that each imposition of the death penalty saved between 1 and 8 innocent

lives (Ortman). The death penalty saves lives by deterring would-be

murderers from committing crimes. It does this, according to those in favor

of the death penalty, by making people fear that if they kill somebody they

could be executed themselves. It was based on Erlich's studies that the

Supreme Court decided to reinstate the death penalty in the United States

(Flanders 50).

The response to death penalty opponents' arguments that claim that

the death penalty does not save lives is that if the death penalty were

properly enforced more lives would be saved. Since there have been 333,000

murders and only 486 executions since 1977, the death penalty is not being

adequately enforced. Death penalty opponents feel that the reason that

murderers don't fear the death penalty enough is because they know that

there is an extremely slim chance that they will be executed (Winters 114-

119). Death penalty supporters have attributed the drop in murder rates

between 1993 and 1998 to the increase in executions during that same period.

Most studies conducted by death penalty opponents were conducted in the

1980s and early 1990s. During this period there were relatively few

executions per year as compared to the amount of executions in the late

1990s. For example, there were only 21 executions in 1989, as opposed to 79

in 1997. Death penalty supporters feel that if the rate of executions

increases, the murder rate will drop accordingly (Winters 114-119).

Death penalty proponents feel that the death penalty is worthwhile

despite its monetary costs because of the priceless lives that it saves.

They also contend that the reason it costs so much is because death row

inmates file so many frivolous appeals. One death penalty expert, Kent

Scheidegger, states numerous examples of people spending up to 20 years on

death row repeatedly filing redundant appeals to state and federal judges,

hoping that one judge would finally agree with the appeal [Winters 126-129).

For example, Duncan McKenzie remained on death row filing appeal after

appeal for 20 years. Ironically his last appeal was on the grounds that the

extremely long amount of time that he had spent on death row constituted

cruel and unusual punishment. This appeal was overturned in 1995 (Winters

108). Scheidegger and many other supporters of the death penalty feel that

this was a great abuse of the system, and a waste of millions of dollars of

taxpayer money.

Death penalty supporters also feel that the likelihood of an

innocent person being put to death is very low due to the safeguards in

place. They claim that the release of many people on death row demonstrates

the success of these safeguards. The recent release of Rolando Cruz serves

as an example of the system finding its mistakes and then fixing them. As

pointed out in the preceding paragraph, condemned inmates are given more

than enough appeals to prove their innocence. Some inmates have even

remained on death row for twenty years or more while their cases are

exhaustively reviewed and appealed at both the state and federal levels.

The death penalty is considered by proponents to be justifiable, even if

there is a chance that an innocent person could be executed. This is

because the enforcement of the death penalty would save far more innocent

lives by deterring people from murdering than would be lost from the

execution of innocent people. Furthermore, in the article of Stephen

Markman, a former U.S. Attorney General; in a Gallup poll taken in June of 1995, 57% of

Americans stated that they would still be in favor of the death penalty

even if 1% of those executed were in fact innocent (Winters 85).

Death penalty supporters claim that even if the death penalty were

not a deterrent to crime, it should still be the penalty for first degree

murder. This belief is based on the assumption that it is only fair that if

a person kills somebody, he or she should pay for the crime with his or her

life. The death penalty also ensures that murders will never be able to

kill again, because they will be dead. For example according to John

DiIulio, a noted professor at Princeton University, the average murderer

spends only 8.5 years in prison. This makes it likely that they will kill

again because reform is nearly impossible in that amount of time (Winters

106). Death penalty supporters also have stated that the death penalty

prevents people from committing murder while in prison. Without the death

penalty, prisoners facing life imprisonment may attempt daring escapes that

might involve the murder of prison guards if they know that they can get no

worse of a penalty.

The death penalty remains a controversial issue in the United

States, even though 80% of the population is in favor of it, because of the

numerous ethical and practical issues that must be taken into consideration

(Winters 139-144). Experts on both sides of the argument have numerous

statistics and studies to back up their claims and to refute the claims of

their opponents. Death penalty supporters hold that the death penalty is a

deterrent to crime, and brings justice to killers. However, death penalty

opponents maintain that the death penalty does not deter criminals, and

desensitizes people to violence. There are no easy answers to the questions

surrounding the imposition of the death penalty in the United States. Thus

one should pursue this question with an open mind and consider all sides of

the argument, because as Thomas Jefferson once said, "difference of opinion

leads to inquiry, and inquiry leads to truth" (Winters 11)