Moratorium on Death Penalty Reveals Its Flaws (2/3/06)

by Dean Hartwell

 

The State of California recently executed two members of its death row.  Democratic Assemblyman Paul Koretz proposed a moratorium on the death penalty until a commission completed a review of it.  However, the Assembly’s Appropriation’s Committee has stalled the bill.

 

California should follow the lead of other states like New Jersey who have imposed a moratorium.  State leaders would have time to review whether the death penalty is a logical form of punishment for certain crimes.

 

Logic is founded upon the facts.  And the facts are clear: the death penalty does not deter crime, it costs more than its counterpart, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and religious-based arguments in favor of it have been misconstrued.  Add to this the possibility that an innocent person will be executed and it becomes obvious that we should abolish capital punishment throughout the United States.

 

First, the matter of deterrence.  Most, if not all, murderers do not expect to get caught.  If they did, they would not carry out their crimes.

 

So why would a murderer care whether his state executed people or not?  Even if it did matter to them, they likely know that a low percentage of murderers convicted of a capital crimes actually receive the death penalty.  According to Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, “Of all the people who commit murder, who are caught, who could get the death penalty, fewer than three percent get sentenced to death and fewer than one percent actually get executed.”[1]

 

Supporters of capital punishment point to this fact and say we need more executions to increase their deterrence.  But this argument fails for two reasons.

 

One, the state cannot increase executions merely because it wants to.  A defendant’s appeals must first be exhausted.  Courts have routinely upheld the rights of defendants to appeals as part of due process.  Cutting back on these appeals would deprive a defendant of their argument that a trial was unfair, which would increase the chances that an innocent person would be put to death.

 

For another, surveys have consistently shown little difference in the murder rates of states which differ on the death penalty, even if they are close to one another geographically.  In many cases, states without the death penalty have lower murder rates.  For example, in a recent year, the state of Illinois, which executes people, had a murder rate of 6.1 per 100,000 people.  Wisconsin, which does not execute people, had a murder rate of 2.8 per 100,000 people.  Also, in the last two decades, states with the death penalty have homicide rates 48-101% higher than states without it.[2]

 

Next, the death penalty costs more than locking murderers away for life.  Supporters of capital punishment may wonder how that could be, considering we no longer have to pay to house executed murderers.

 

The reason is that we should acknowledge the whole process rather than just part of it.  Death penalty cases cost more than non-death penalty cases because the capital defendant is entitled to extra attorneys, expert witnesses and tests, all at taxpayer expense.  After a conviction and the imposition of the death penalty, the convict has the right to the appeals mentioned earlier, which number more in capital cases and therefore costs more to the taxpayers as the convict is typically indigent.

 

Studies have been done on the costs of capital punishment.  According to the Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, the total costs of the death penalty are greater than the complete costs of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole by about 38%.[3]

 

Also, some supporters of the death penalty have used Biblical passages to convince the public of the need for capital punishment.  They cite Leviticus in the Old Testament, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”  But this argument for capital punishment overlooks its historical interpretation.  Rabbi Steven Jacobs of Kol Tikvah in Woodland Hills told me that the law simply forbid families of murder victims from killing more than one person in revenge.

 

Furthermore, followers of the Old Testament restricted the use of the death penalty to only a few cases.  The government would have to summon an eyewitness who actually saw the entire crime as part of its case.  Then the twenty-three member jury would have to vote unanimously to put the defendant to death.

 

If people want to use the Old Testament to discuss the death penalty, they should look to the first book, Genesis.  There, Cain committed the first murder when he killed his brother, Abel.  Did God execute Cain for this crime?  No.  He branded him with a mark to identify him as a murderer to other people.

 

The New Testament does not support the death penalty.  It depicts Jesus as an innocent man murdered.  Right before the murder, Jesus said, “Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do.”  If Jesus did not want revenge, why do so many Christians want it?

 

Lastly, some death penalty supporters state that no evidence has ever conclusively proven that an innocent person has ever been put to death.  One problem with this argument is that it is nearly impossible to prove a negative.  Crimes especially lack an element of absoluteness, as evidenced by the fact that two sides argue a case passionately before a court.  The real question is this: can supporters of the death penalty say with a straight face that everyone who has ever been executed was guilty as charged?

 

The government should set a better example for its people.  If it is wrong for Mr. Smith to murder someone, it is also wrong for the government to take a life.  No logic supports this barbaric practice.  Someday our leaders will get the message.

 

Archives