First Seminar
(First Year- 2nd Semester)
The Effects of The death penalty in the US
Should the death penalty be allowed? This is always a controversial question. Some hold the belief that the death penalty should be abolished and view it as unfair and immoral, a breach against human dignity and human rights. They doubt the death penalty is an effective deterrent to murder. Others think that there are grounds for the death penalty. For them, the death penalty is not only a punishment for those who committed serious crimes, but also a deterrent to prevent such crimes. Considering the complicated social and juridical conditions it involves, any hasty conclusions shouldn’t be drawn.
As far as I am concerned, the death penalty should be abolished in America. The death penalty is a thing of past and its effect as a deterrent to murder rate is not evident according to many surveys. The whole process of the death penalty is totally inhumane and cruel. As a form of punishment, it is an irrevocable act subject to inevitable errors and its cost is usually more expensive than that of putting a person in prison for his life.
Long since the 18th century, the death penalty is no longer a concern of criminology only, but a concern of all stratum, politicians, psychologists, judges, lawyers and voters. Besides, the abolition of the death penalty can be regarded as a symbol of huge development in human rights and democracy in society. It also involves a variety of research like religion, belief, juridical system and social injustice and some psychological puzzles. Thus it is of great necessity and value to do some research on the issue.
I have gathered a lot of information on the topic over the past month. Three articles related to the topic were read, with two against it and one for it. The statistics referred to were released by international organizations, such as the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) and Amnesty International. In the following text, I have been trying to analyze some opinions with focus on the effects of the death penalty. The literature Review can provide us an academic background which can be absorbed in the paper. In part one, I described the national trend of abolishing the death penalty and its immoral grounds. In the second part, I focused on the effects of the death penalty as a deterrent to future murder and concluded there are no evident effects. In the third part, the expensive cost of the death penalty was concerned. In the last part, I briefly introduced some other conditions that should be considered on the topic.
The following paper has covered different opinions and enough statistics to draw a relatively reliable conclusion. Amnesty International, a well-known international organization dedicating to promote human rights, released a report claiming the death penalty doesn’t deter murder rates evidently. A table in the report displayed that the murder rate in non-the death penalty states has remained consistently lower than those in states with it from 1990 to 2010. Several facts reinforced its opinion. According to its survey, over 88% of the criminologists believed that the death penalty was not effective in preventing serious crime. The National Research Council pointed out the assumption that the death penalty would affect murder rates was fundamentally flawed.
On the contrary, Ernest van den Haag, in his article The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense strongly argued the reasonableness of the death penalty. The article contained five questions raised by the death penalty abolitionists and gave us a persuasive perspective. He indicated that the moral considerations should not deny the justice of the death penalty as the ultimate punishment to end the murders’ life. In addition, there has been no statistical conclusion demonstrating that alternative punishments were better deterrents than the death penalty. He thought that the death penalty was not inhumane because once the murders committed those crimes, they had already dehumanized themselves. Thus the death penalty for them was no more a moral problem, but a juridical one.
At concrete aspect, Aliza B. Kaplan has done a research on Oregon’s the death penalty. The process of abolishing the death penalty in Oregon is to some extent typical example of the death penalty abolition movement in the US. In November 2011, Oregon announced abolishing the death penalty and became one of the latest states in the movement in the country. Like other states, the debate over the death penalty in Oregon was constant with both moral and legal arguments presented for and against it. The author tried to indicate that the death penalty is not worthwhile to maintain by setting some pragmatic reasons. He explored the history of Oregon’s the death penalty, the risk of wrongful convictions, and the costs associated with maintaining capital punishment. After all, the problems of the death penalty in Oregon are also concerns in other state, which makes the example typical.
Furthermore, problems of the death penalty mentioned in Oregon, can be supported by statistics on DPIC, a platform that provides a variety of information on the death penalty. DPIC reaches almost 3 million visitors per year through its website and millions more through its work with the media. It is the best single source of facts, figures, and other information about capital punishment in America. It involves all discussion and facts on the death penalty, including the widely-shared tables and charts on themes such as innocence, race, and arbitrariness.
First, the abolition of the death penalty will be the inevitable result of human civilization development. Through reviewing the history of the death penalty, it can be discovered that the death penalty is not a product of a highly developed civilization, but the vestige we inherited from ancient times. Since human civilization began, it appeared as a form to punish prisons of war and losers in the battle of power struggle. With the foundation of state, the death penalty was strengthen and legalized. In essence, the death penalty is a way of retribution and revenge for the families of the victim, which is considered legal by government as the executor. The thought that the prompt execution of murders can justify the losses of the victims’ and their families’ suffering is totally wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. Besides, the ground of the death penalty seems arbitrary and ambiguous, which is subject to errors. If the presumption that the action of the killing by government has grounds, then many murderers committed the crime out of certain reasons also have their grounds. It’s not reasonable for others to judge their actions and thus to make a decision of their lives. After all, one more step to civilization means one more step farther from barbarism. The movement away from the death penalty developed in the democratic countries around the world. Up to 2012, the national trend away from the death penalty has been continuing. The number of countries that have completely abolished the death penalty stood at 97. Within the US, 18 states have completely abolished the death penalty and 32 states retained the capital sentence, among which capital sentence was left on the shelf and treated as the alternative punishment for most serious crimes.
Second, one of the major functions of the death penalty is to deter future murder. The deep-rooted concept of human assumes that the death penalty would be a fear device and let those think twice before they committed serious murders. However, people who tend to commit such crime are unlikely to fear the death penalty; those who acted under the influence of drugs and alcoholics and mental disease cannot perceive the seriousness of their crime. The assumption is flawed, as is supported by different surveys. As the report of Amnesty International displayed, the murder rate in non-the death penalty states has remained consistently lower than those in states with it from 1990 to 2010. Chronologically, the murder rate in the death penalty and non- the death penalty were approximately the same in 1990. From 1990 to 1993, both of them fell gradually. From 1993 on, the rate in non-the death penalty fell more rapidly than the counterpart of the death penalty states. From 1999 to 2010, both of them fell slowly with the former lower than the latter. Concretely, among the death penalty states, the average of murder rates per 100,000 populations in 1999 was 5.8, whereas the average of murder rates among non-the death penalty states was only 4.5. When comparisons are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the majority of the death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-the death penalty states.
Besides, the death penalty costs more than a lifelong prison because the death penalty must be sentenced under the heightened process. For example, Kaplan found out in Oregon the cost of death execution is at least 50% more, and may be up to five times as much as the cost of a life without parole sentence in Oregon. (33)Spending money on the death penalty means reducing the resources available for crime prevention mental treatment, education, and rehabilitation, reducing meaningful victims’ services and the drug treatment programs. Taking California as an example, the cost of the death penalty in California has totaled over $4 billion since 1978: $1.94 billion–Pre-Trial and Trial Costs, $925 million–Automatic Appeals and State Habeas Corpus Petitions, $775 million–Federal Habeas Corpus Appeals, $1 billion–Costs of Incarceration. The authors found out, if the sentences of those remaining on death row were commuted to life without parole, it would save $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years.
Fourth, more complicated conditions should be taken into consideration, such as the fallibility of jury, mental disease and the influence of alcohol and drugs in murder. The death penalty is an irreversible act that is subject to errors. Since 1973, over 140 people have been exonerated and freed from death row. (DPIC) the fact indicates that the verdict of jury cannot be 100% right and once death execution is done, it is irreversible. Bedsides, a lot of murderers committed their crime under the condition they have mental disease and cannot control their actions. It’s the same with the murder out of alcohol and drugs.
In conclusion, the death penalty should be abolished in America. With the development of society, it is no more worthwhile to maintain the death penalty. In the moral point of view, the death penalty is not just and violates human rights and dignity. As a deterrent, it isn’t effective in preventing murder. It costs more than its alternative punishment, and there are various conditions we should take into consideration, such as the risk of wrong conviction, mental disease and the influence of alcohol and drugs.
The death penalty is the ultimate punishment of the most serious crimes. All this time, people tend to believe the death penalty can assure public safety and prevent murders. However, surveys and assessments clearly indicate that people need to rethink the question. More studies and researches can provide us the reality of the death penalty and show us the true reasons of murders. The topic is necessary and worth researching in that it embraces so many aspects of human society and can be a revelation of our social, moral, psychological, and religious conditions. On one hand, further research might concentrate on the moral aspects of the death penalty, about traditional and modern sense of justice, rehabilitation, and clemency. One the other hand, the attention should be paid to serial murders, their real mental conditions, and the measurement of penalty on them. These murders are notorious for their cruelty, inhumane apathy, and filthy cunning, a terrible threat to public security.
During the procession, I think actually it’s quite hard to decide to pro or against the death penalty because both sides seem to make sense. However, looking into the facts and surveys, one would find the death penalty is indeed a thing of past and will die gradually just like slavery and other unreasonable systems. Research should be rigorous and the attitude of the researcher should also be discreet, which requires reliable source, convincing facts and detailed analysis. DPIC and Bureau of Justice Statics (BJS) would meet the requirement. Also, objective research should include different opinions on the topic, which explains the necessity of Ernest van den Haag’s opinion, and personally I think his argument is persuasive. Now many states show a discreet and ambivalent attitude toward the death penalty including Oregon before it abolished the death penalty. Oregon can be a representative of American state and the turn and twist process has universality in America. At last, when I have done the research, I am basically satisfied with the product.
References
- Alarcon, Arthur & Mitchell, Paula. Assessment of Costs by Judge Arthur Alarcon and Prof Paula Mitchell. qtd.in.The death penalty Information Center. Financial Facts about the The death penalty. 2011, updated 2012. Retrieved 10 Apr.2013 from
<http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty>
- Amnesty International. (n.d) The Death Penalty and Deterrence. Apr 2012. Retrieved 13 April.2013from <http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence>
- The Death Penalty Information Center. (n.d)Deterrence: States Without The death penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates. Retrieved 10 Apr.2013 from
<http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates>
- The Death Penalty Information Center. (n.d) States With and Without the The death penalty. Retrieved 10 Apr.2013 from
<http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty>
- Haag, Ernest Van den. The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense. Retrieved10 Apr.2013 from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/haagarticle.html
- Kaplan, Aliza B. Oregon’s The death penalty: the Practical Reality. Lewis & Clark Law Review. (2013):pp67. Vol. 17:1. 2 Feb.2013
