Capital Punishment: The Death Penalty in America

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." -John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence[1]

At the center of the debate over the death penalty is the question of whether it is right or wrong to kill a human being for having inflicted injury and/or death upon another human being. Many Americans believe that there is never an excuse for sentencing a person to death, even if the crime that person is convicted of, is murder. This view, however, is strongly centered in Christian ideals and morals. After all, the Bible states: "Thou shalt not kill" and, for many, this simple statement is enough to convince them that the death penalty should be abolished. Religion, however, does not belong in our courts or our jails. The subject of the death penalty is a legal matter and should be viewed and accepted or rejected based on what is more beneficial to society as a whole rather than the individual morality of the issue.

If we look at the death penalty in terms of its costs and benefits to society we can get a clearer, less morally motivated, idea of whether or not the death penalty is something that should remain a practice in the United States. First, what does the death penalty cost society? According to opponents of the death penalty, it is fiscally more costly to seek a death penalty conviction than it is to provide for lifetime imprisonment.[2] They also claim that the danger of convicting innocent individuals and too great and that the death penalty is too often disproportionately applied to defendants who are non-white.[3]

Let us take a closer look at each of these arguments. It may well be true that it costs less to keep a prisoner in jail for a lifetime than it does to pursue a death penalty conviction, however, the monetary comparison probably doesn't take into account the usage of certain resources such as physical space in our country's jails. Monetarily, it may be less costly to keep a man in jail for life, but what about the space he takes up in our already overcrowded prison system? What about the costs associated with the building of new prisons to alleviate the overcrowding or the cost of the riots that ensue before the new prisons are built? These issues have not been given adequate attention, and I believe that a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis were to be conducted including these issues, that we would see that lifetime imprisonment really is more costly than the death penalty. As for the danger of putting an innocent person to death, our judicial system already has safeguards in place designed specifically to prevent such incidents. I am not so naïve as to believe that the courts rule with 100% accuracy, however, if the issue is that there is sufficient time to bring all evidence to light, I believe that the judicial system already has it covered. The last argument, however, can be refuted statistically. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, at the end of 2004, there were 3314 prisoners under sentence of death in the federal prison system. Of those prisoners, 1850 were white, 1390 were black, 28 were Native American, 32 were Asian, and 14 were of unknown race. In 2005, 60 prisoners were executed. Of those 60, 41 were white prisoners. The other 19 were black.[4] In both cases, the percentage of whites compared to non-whites is quite high, suggesting that if the death penalty is being applied disproportionately it is actually whites who are being discriminated against rather than people of non-white races.

Now, having reviewed the costs of the death penalty to society, what are the benefits? One benefit that is suggested by the rebuttal of one of the cost arguments is the alleviation of overcrowding in prisons, though this is a minor benefit considering the fact that many inmates remain on death row for quite a while before actually being executed. Other benefits of the death penalty include the deterrence of crimes that are punishable by death and the prevention of future crimes that might have been committed by executed criminals. It is debatable just how much a deterrent the death penalty really is. My argument, however, is that the main reason the death penalty is not a better deterrent is because it is so conservatively applied and because those who are sentenced to death are kept on death row for such an extended period of time. While, perhaps, applying the death penalty more liberally is not the way to make it a more effective deterrent, I do think that prisoners should not be allowed to languish on death row for a lifetime before the sentence is carried out. It demeans the entire purpose of having sentenced that person to death if you then let them live out a nearly full life before they are executed. After all, a life in prison is still a life and that is exactly what the death penalty is intended to deny the prisoner.

The most important benefit of the death penalty is, in my opinion, the prevention of future crimes that might be perpetrated by convicted criminals, were they to be released back into society. As the poet Hyman Barshay said, "The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing its beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down."[5] We may not ever be able to prove exactly how many lives were saved by the execution of just one criminal, but it is still, in my opinion, the most effective means of preventing repeat offenses of the crimes punishable by death. An inmate who is sentenced to death does not get parole, nor can they complete their sentence, having convinced a room full of experts that they are rehabilitated, and be released back into society. Beyond all this, an executed prisoner uses no resources. He does not need a cell in a prison, he does not need food to eat, and he does not need counseling or health care. In short, he is no longer a drain on society.

Having weighed the costs against the benefits, I think it's easy to see that society gains quite a bit more benefit from the death penalty than it stands to lose through the use of it. It may cost a little more to get a death penalty conviction but, in the end, aren't the lives that can be potentially saved worth it?

[1] Charlene Hall, "Pro Death Penalty.com", 2006, (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com)

[2] "Policy Debate: Is the death penalty an efficient crime deterrent?", South-Western College Publishing, 2003, (http://www.swlearning.com/economics/policy_debates/death_penalty.html)

[3] "Policy Debate: Is the death penalty an efficient crime deterrent?", South-Western College Publishing, 2003, (http://www.swlearning.com/economics/policy_debates/death_penalty.html)

[4] Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Capital Punishment Statistics", 2006, (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm)

[5] Charlene Hall, "Pro Death Penalty.com", 2006, (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Resources.htm)