Capital Punishment

Sullivan 1

Whitney Sullivan English 103 Wilkerson 6 November 2009 A Higher Standard: Abolishing Capital Punishment Capital punishment leads the pack among prominent issues that blotch the United States’ extensive national resume. Homicide, execution and death describe the coarse action that the American government takes to punish citizens who have committed capital crimes. The individual state’s choice to end the life of one of its citizens weighs the country down in its upward journey as the “model” country. The government is supposed to practice, as well as represent, the ideals, values, and laws the American people are responsible for carrying out. However, the government’s acceptance and practice of capital punishment negates this ideal, because it refuses to obey the law against murder. Nonetheless, certain states continue to blatantly commit the same crime against its own people. America is a beacon of light for many of its citizens; however, the country’s use of capital punishment tarnishes this bright light for a portion of Americans. Capital punishment is governmental murder that should be abolished because it is economically as well as ethically ignorant and negatively affects the country’s image. Increasing unemployment rates, the devaluation of the American dollar, job loss, the credit crisis and mortgage failures are all consequences of the current American recession. Despite these financially trying times for the American people, the government still grants certain states the right to financially abuse the economy through capital punishment. In the Economist journal article “Saving Lives and Money; The Death Penalty,” the author addresses

Sullivan 2

the fact that capital punishment is proven to be more costly than a life sentence in prison. The article offers numerous reasons which factor into the high monetary costs of sentencing a person to death. The time frame from arrest to execution is lengthy and prolonged due to the jury selection process, the trial itself and the numerous appeals that follow. While this meticulous process continues over an extended period of time, the state’s bill is simultaneously increasing. Due to the grave nature of the inmates’ crimes and the status on death row, these prisoners need to have separate cells and require continual supervision. The specialized training required for the correctional officers, the large quantity of officers needed to maintain order and the individualized accommodations all contribute to an exorbitant cost. Accordingly, the overall expense that the states which practice capital punishment suffer is astronomical. Between the years of 1978 through 1999, the state of Maryland has had to fork over 186 million dollars to pay for the costly expenses stemming from their state’s practice of capital punishment. The burden of capital punishment debts was also felt by the citizens of Texas. Since 1982, the death penalty has cost tax payers 250 million dollars. New Hampshire, New Mexico, Kansas and Colorado are all seeking to abolish capital punishment because of monetary concerns(“Saving Lives and Money; The Death Penalty” 1). These states have come to the conclusion that the benefit of the death penalty does not parallel the expensive cost. For example, Kansas is estimated to save 500,000 dollars for every case not seeking the death penalty. Government officials in Colorado have created a new budget for the money that they will save by extinguishing the death penalty. The state wants to dedicate the money to an investigation unit and spend the remaining money on state programs (“Saving Lives and Money; The Death Penalty” 1). The monetary benefits of extinguishing the death penalty definitely outweigh the benefits of capital punishment. Not only would the states save millions of dollars,

Sullivan 3

but they could also emulate Colorado’s plan and spend the money addressing other prominent issues that affect their state. Similar to the economic aspect of the death penalty, the moral angle ignores the obvious reasons against this form of punishment. Simply, morals and ethics are words that cannot be applied to the death penalty because it ignores the basic principles of human life. For one thing, capital punishment risks ending an innocent person’s life against his/her own will. Every time someone is sentenced to death row, the government is playing a game of chance with that person’s life. There are numerous events which prove that an innocent person could possibly serve time and die for a crime they did not commit. In the article “Injection Reflection; There’s Wide Support for a Death Penalty, but Those Who Carry It Out Are Increasingly Uncomfortable” Thomas Evans and other supporting authors explain this idea in their findings. They reported that advancements in DNA testing in this past decade overturned the verdicts of 200 inmates. Out of those 200, fifteen of them were sentenced to die. This proves that the cases that many people have against them are not always full proof. Another startling statistic was that 130 people have been exonerated from death row (“Saving Lives and Money; The Death Penalty” 1). These statistics show that the government took that life or death chance and was wrong at least 130 times. Another example of the government being dead wrong occurred in Illinois in 2000. A moratorium was placed on executions because thirteen people on death row were found innocent and exonerated. In these particular cases, innocent people could have been killed, which would have transformed the government’s attempt to punish a criminal into a massacre of innocent citizens. Conversely, advocates of the death penalty believe that punishing a capital crime convict by death is a necessary and fit punishment. The hole in their argument is that the United States

Sullivan 4

justice system is not perfect and, therefore, a possibility exists that an innocent person could be put to death. In her book, Wrongful Capital Convictions and the Legitimacy of the Death Penalty, Karen Miller analyzes the Legitimation Crisis and Relegitimizing surrounding the death penalty. Miller uses actual case summaries in which people were exonerated to support her claims. One particular case involved a man named Frank Lee Smith. On April 18, 1945 Smith was arrested for murdering 8-year-old Shandra Whitehead. He was accused of stabbing, beating and sexually assaulting her which led to her death. The basis for his arrest and conviction was an eyewitness testimony. From 1986 to 1990, Smith consistently applied for appeals and was constantly denied. He was sentenced to be executed in 1990, but he died of cancer in January 2000. In December of 2000, DNA tests exonerated him and pointed to another person. Frank Lee Smith is just one of the numerous innocent people punished for a crime they did not commit. Despite the possibility that a person could be wrongly convicted, certain states still choose to carry out this extreme and sometimes unjust punishment. Hard to believe, Smith’s depressing life story is one of the happier endings because he died of natural causes instead of by the deadly hands of capital punishment. If everyone convicted of a capital crime were wealthy then they would more than likely be represented by the best of the best. However, everyone convicted of a capital offense is not rich and the issue of being able to afford a proper defense is another major concern. When a person does not have the financial abilities to hire a good attorney the chances of being sentenced to death increases.

Sullivan 5

“Capital Punishment”: The image depicts a man on death row attempting to receive an appeal. “Capital Punishment” by Mike Luckovich comments on inadequate representation and how it decreases a person’s chance of being found innocent and acquitted. The cartoon convict looks helplessly upon the nonchalant judge in hopes that the judge will consider the fact that he did not receive a fair trial. The electric chair is a prominent image in the cartoon making the statement that inadequate representation is the death penalty within itself. Overall, the cartoon implies that being financially unable to afford proper representation and receiving an unfair trial is a recipe for the death penalty. In addition to inadequate representation, the issue of the eighth amendment also arises in the debate over capital punishment. The founding fathers created the Constitution as the framework and foundation for the basic principles of the United States. The government’s acceptance of capital punishment infringes upon the eighth amendment of “cruel and unusual punishment.” The United States has progressed in its method of terminating a prisoner’s life;

Sullivan 6

however, the current method can still not be categorized as humane. There is nothing merciful about sedating, paralyzing and then stopping the heart of a person (Thomas et al 1). There are also existing cases in which lethal injection has been the perfect example of “cruel and unusual” punishment. The London article “The American Way of Death: A Botched Execution in Ohio Should Quicken the End of Capital Punishment” reported on a failed execution of Romell Broom who was convicted of rape and murder. Broom’s execution in Ohio was prolonged for two hours in order for the technicians to find a sturdy vein. Michael Kronewetter’s book Capital Punishment also divulges the brutal experience that another death row prisoner underwent with lethal injection. In 1992, it took authorities in Arkansas a whole hour to insert the needle into Ricky Ray Rector’s vein. During their search for a usable vein, they went to the length of digging into his arm with a scalpel. After enduring this, it still took an entire nineteen minutes for him to die. The experience of these two men fits perfectly with the American Heritage Dictionary of English Language definition of lethal as extremely harmful; devastating. Regardless of the fact that the word carries numerous negative and dark connotations, advocates for the death penalty still believe that it is a humane form of killing a criminal. Other capital punishment supporters argue that even if the death penalty does violate the eighth amendment, it is still an acceptable form of punishment because the convict has committed a terrible crime. Their state of mind focuses on the fact that the convict made someone suffer, so the public should not be concerned with whether or not the convict suffers. The problem is that the nation is supposed to be above these convicts. By carrying out the death penalty, these states are succumbing to the same level of the criminals that they are putting to death. The government is openly contradicting the amendment with the practice of capital punishment by trying to get even. The life for a life ideal

Sullivan 7

that the death penalty promotes sends the wrong message to the American public and puts the states on the same playing field as the convicts. Capital punishment is also an attempt made in vain to reduce capital crimes because there is not sufficient evidence to even show this punishment deters crime (Kronewetter 18). Against Capital Punishment: The Anti-Death Penalty Movement in America 1972-1994 explains that the death penalty is less effective in preventing murders than life in prison with hard labor. For instance, Texas and Oklahoma are the biggest supporters of the capital punishment, but have the highest crime rates compared to states that just have life in prison (“Saving Lives and Money; The Death Penalty” 1). In particular, Texas is the biggest capital punishment hypocrite. They are responsible for executing more people since 1977 than any other state. However, Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth have murder rates among the top 25 cities in the country (Kronewetter 5). Due to this, it is evident that the death penalty is not necessary, especially when life in prison is a cost efficient and ethical alternative. Justifying the practice of the death penalty because it deters crime is a starved excuse. Life is considered one of the most precious gifts in the world and states have the audacity to continue to carry it out even though it still does not reduce the crime rate and does not bring back the person that was murdered. Some will continue to argue that this is the most fitting punishment for the crime, even if it does negate the deterrent theory. However, the death penalty could be the easy way out in a different perspective. It would allow the criminal’s punishment to be over in a short period of time and he/she would no longer have to face their crime. If a person is sentenced to life in prison they have to continually think about what they have done wrong and struggle through the hardships of a maximum security prison. Punishments are penalties that someone undergoes for committing unacceptable acts. For example, parents punish their children in order to teach them appropriate behavior and show

Sullivan 8

them what is wrong and right. A parent’s goal behind establishing numerous punishments is to stop their child from displaying bad behavior. If the punishments that the parents are creating for their children is not progressing their child from displaying bad behavior, then they search for a new more effective way to address the situation. The same basic logic can be displayed to capital punishment. The government uses the death penalty as a sanction against people who have committed a capital crime. The problem with this form of punishment is that it has proven to be ineffective. If the death penalty is not clearly fulfilling its goal of reducing crime and murder, then what is its purpose in the American society? The death penalty does not abate the number of heinous crimes committed and, therefore, is useless. A strong cultural value rooted in the hearts of many Americans is the Christian faith. Advocates continually use the Bible as a backbone to justify capital punishment. They often rely on the bible verses from Exodus, chapter 21, verses 23 to 25 which states, “And if mischief follow, then though shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, and wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Advocates interpret this and similar bible verses as religious support for capital punishment. Even though there are excerpts from the Bible that may support capital punishment, there are just as many Bible verses that uphold the opposing side of this argument. Verses 38 and 39 from Matthew, chapter five, specifically counter the previous verse that has become cliché upon the pro-death penalty community. The verse reads, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” This verse not only clearly states that reciprocating an action is not always the right path to take, but it also turns one of the advocates biblical justifications paper thin. There are also other numerous bible verses that provide concrete reasoning of why

Sullivan 9

the death penalty should be abolished. One of these verses, located in Exodus, chapter 20, verse 13, stems from the Ten Commandments. The sixth commandment distinctly states that “Thou shalt not kill.” This verse in the bible holds special precedence because it is not just simply a verse; it is the law of the Lord. The government’s persistence to carry out the death penalty is a public transgression and bold deviance against one of the Ten Commandments.

“Death Penalty-US”: The image created by Glenn Foden depicts a fictional satan’s view of capital punishment In addition, the cartoon “Death Penalty-US” by Glenn Foden makes a statement that the death penalty is morally wrong because it pleases the devil twice as much. The person who murders is committing a sin and then the state executes the murderer which is a sin as well. The government is supposed to lead by example and take the moral high road. This sends conflicting views to the American public because the states are committing the crime that the government forbids. The image shows that killing someone, regardless of the reason or how, is murder which is against the sixth commandment. For many religious Americans this point is extremely important because the government law does not compare to that of a higher power.

Sullivan 10

If one does not have a strong religious background the fact still remains that taking another life is unethical. The government simply does not have the right to choose whether someone should live or die. All that is being accomplished through capital punishment is the continuance of the circle of violence. Killing the criminal also does not give him/her the chance to right their wrong. The death penalty leaves no room for retribution, which in the end, would be more productive than merely killing them. From behind bars, these criminals would have the opportunity to give back to society in one way or another. It can be strongly suggested that America is an optimal country. If the world were a high school and the countries were the students, the United States would the most popular student in school. America is the nation that many countries aspire to be and opposing countries are jealous of. However, the reputation of this widely recognized and adored country is negatively affected by the country’s practice of the death penalty. In the world’s high school, capital punishment is a “fashion don’t” that America is labeled with. Capital punishment used to be incorporated among societies in every nation, but as time has progressed, countries have advanced past this inhumane form of punishment. In fact, America is one of the few big democracies that still carries out the death penalty (“The American Way of Death: A Botched Execution in Ohio Should Quicken the End of Capital Punsihment”1). This makes the country seem as if it is stuck in the dark ages when it comes to its particular choice of disciplinary action. As a member of the United Nations, it is also unfitting that America still carries out the death penalty because the U.N. seeks to eventually abolish capital punishment (Kronewetter 137). According to International Standards, article 3 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of person.” The death penalty obviously opposes this declaration because the “right to life” is stripped away from a person as soon as they are sentenced to death row. This

Sullivan 11

form of disciplinary action also violates points four and nine in the Resolution 1984/50 of the U.N. Economic and Social Council. The fourth criterion explains that people are only allowed to be sentenced to death row if they are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. The high number of exonerations and cases in which an innocent person has been sentenced to the death penalty outright breaks this rule. The ninth criterion for capital punishment is that it must be carried out with minimal suffering (Kronewetter 137-138). The amount of times that an execution has gone astray combined with the inhumane aspects of lethal injection blatantly disregard this. Capital punishment is a leech that sucks away America’s credibility for governing its country to other nations. George Bernard Shaw in his play Man and Superman stated, “Murder and capital punishment are not opposites that cancel one another out, but similar that breed their kind” (Kronewetter 53). The United States use of capital punishment is a lack of bad judgment on the states that practice it and on the government for continuing to allow it. The benefits that advocates for capital punishment present are watered down excuses in comparison to the negatives. The death penalty should be abolished because it is costly, ethically unjust and brings negative attention to the country. America should be held to a higher standard than just simply resorting to the same evils that sentenced the convicts with a dose of the “three drug cocktail.”