Abolish the Death Penalty

With the current publicity of the supreme court trial Madison v. Alabama, the citizens of the United States should once again ask themselves if the death penalty is necessary. There are several reasons why the death penalty should be abolished. It does not deter criminals from committing homicide, it is more expensive than a life sentence without parole, it publically desensitizes the morality of killing a human, it needlessly punishes the families of criminals, and it is irreversible if the suspect is later found to be innocent.

One of the most common misconceptions among proponents of the death penalty is that it is more economically sound than imprisonment; however, this is incorrect. Amongst prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges, it is common knowledge that the costs of a capital case begin long before the execution and consequently consume several years of time and enormous amounts of money. Even after the initial trial of the murderer, a second trial for capital punishment must then ensue which requires experienced prosecutors, state-funded defense attorneys, a long period of investigation, pre-trial hearings, jury selection, the prosecution itself, and initial appeals. All of the studies conducted on this matter have concluded that the death penalty system is far more expensive than a maximum life sentence in prison. In 2000, a fiscal impact summary from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services stated that the Oregon Judicial Department alone would save $2.3 million annually if the death penalty were eliminated. It is estimated that total prosecution and defense costs to the state of Oregon equal $9 million per year.

Perhaps the primary argument for maintaining the death penalty is that it acts as a deterrent against criminals; however, there is not the slightest credible statistical evidence that capital punishment reduces the rate of homicide. There have been 1,184 executions in the southern United States in the past forty years compared to a mere four executions in the northeastern states. If capital punishment were an effective deterrent, one would expect the homicide rates to correspond, yet homicide counts in 2015 were nearly 70 percent higher in the South. Additionally, it’s reasonable that the likelihood of a sociopathic criminal to be deterred due to the remote chance of execution many years later is incredibly small, especially when considering that life imprisonment is a similarly devastating punishment.

Another principle to consider is the irreversible nature of the death penalty. Between 2012 and 2015, nearly 150 people were removed from death row because while waiting to be executed, they were found to be innocent. For example, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three daughters. Following his execution, further evidence revealed that Willingham did not set the fire that caused their deaths, but it was already too late. The death penalty is irreversible and rash judgments lead to innocent people paying for crimes that they did not commit.

On a fundamental level, if our criminal justice system is to improve, it should be designed not just to punish, but also to prevent crime and rehabilitate certain criminals. Nietzsche wrote that “When fighting monsters you must take care not to become one yourself,” As citizens of America, we are the state and when the state kills, we, the citizens, are participants. We do not need to kill people to teach that killing is wrong.