Humans are a very distinct species, to say the least. There is no other kind of animal that commits mass genocide in the sake of property or superiority. But are we special enough to take another human life based on his or her past actions? This has become a very controversial practice in many modern day societies, which brings forth the question: is this capital punishment in the United States justifiable or barbaric? Even though there are many states that have outlawed it, there has been no national ban and I think that needs to change. Capital punishment is not an acceptable means of punishing a criminal, and that there are alternatives that are just as effective in many cases, such as lifetime imprisonment.
One of the more popular debates on capital punishment in the United States is its effectiveness as a crime deterrent and if killing criminals really saves the lives of the innocent. There have been many studies conducted on this, each with different results. However, experts in this field state that the evidence is not conclusive because the information in these studies was far too limited and generic to relate to capital punishment alone. There are just too many other variables that are potential causes of murder that interfere with this data. Based on this, the amount of innocent lives that capital punishment saves is impossible to discern because it is not certain whether or not it even significantly deters murder at all. Additionally, only roughly 1 in 300 homicide cases actually results in an execution, so even if you do murder someone you are unlikely to be sentenced to death. Odds like these make it seem like it is a situation comparable to a lottery, except that it is quite rare to lose. Does this indicate that we are picking and choosing who deserves to live after committing murder and who doesn’t? Not only is this unfair, but it tends to undermine one of the main reasons why we perform capital punishment in the first place; scaring people out of murdering others. It doesn’t make sense that we are killing people in the sake of frightening the masses if you only have a 0.3 percent chance of being executed after committing a murder yourself.
In fact, if we largely stopped capital punishment and instead sent the criminals to jail, it may be even more of a murder deterrent than killing them in the first place. In the economy we have today, sending someone to jail makes all the difference. A study of costs shows that death row cases cost taxpayers $2.3 million per case, compared with $750,000 for life sentence cases. With the many budget cuts the government is having to make in this economy, having a couple extra million dollars to devote to policing has the potential to be an equally effective murder deterrent. Stepping up policing in areas with high crime rates would be a much more concrete method in preventing murder. It is a shame that economic gains may be the primary argument behind restricting capital punishment, but it is a benefit behind it nonetheless.
Ultimately, many of the primary motives behind the support of capital punishment are not as definite as most people may think. But one thing is certain: our nation's policy on capital punishment, if not revised, may not even be carrying out its purpose, and if this is the case, then it is not worth the death of a human being.
In Mr. Mowry's "The Death Penalty: Should We Have The Power?", he offers a very reasoned and well written criticism of the death penalty and offers the solution of life imprisonment. I really enjoyed this article as it both taught me some things about the death penalty and also made a strong case for a ban against the death penalty on the national level.
ReplyDeleteThe facts cited in the article were both interesting and useful. I had no idea that cases involving the death penalty cost somewhere around $2.3 million! Compared to $750,000 for cases not involving the death penalty. Equally hard to argue with was his statement that life imprisonment is a way to punish murderers without taking the life of another human being. Also, his point that the extra money could be used to beef up police forces and in turn more efficiently deter murders is a well founded one.
All in all, I found Mr. Mowry's article to be clear, persuasive and well thought out and I enjoyed reading about his position.