Death Penalty Essay, Research Paper

Mead Shumway of Nebraska, was convicted of the first degree murder of his employer’s

wife on circumstantial evidence and sentenced to death by jury. His last words before

his execution were: “I am an innocent man. May God forgive everyone who said

anything against me.” The next year, the victim’s husband confessed on his deathbed

that he [the husband] had murdered his [own] wife (Radelet, Bedau, Putnam 347).

There are an uncertain numerous amount of incidents similar to the one depicted

above, that have repeatedly occurred throughout the course of history. Two highly

distinguishable figures in the area of capital punishment in the United States, Hugo

Bedau and Michael Radelet, discovered in 1992, at least 140 cases, since 1990, in

which innocent persons were sentenced to death (Hook and Kahn 92). In Illinois alone,

12 death row inmates have been cleared and freed since 1987 (Execution

Reconsidered). The most conclusive evidence in support of this “comes from the

surprisingly large numbers of people whose convictions have been overturned and who

have been freed from death” (Bedau 345). One out of every seven people sentenced to

death row are innocent (Civiletti). That’s nearly 15%.

The numbers are disturbing. Innocent people are becoming victims of the United States

judicial system by its overlooked imperfections. A former president of the American Bar

Association (ABA), John J. Curtin Jr., said it best when he told a congressional

committee that “Whatever you think about the death penalty, a system that will take

life must first give justice. Execute justice, not people.” Though some of the innocent

death row inmates have managed to escape their execution, there are numerous others

who are unable to overturn their sentence through appeals. Many cases of innocence

go unheard and result in the unfortunate fatality of an innocent bystander. When the

death penalty in 1972 was ruled unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia, the Justices

expected that the “adoption of narrowly crafted sentencing procedures would protect

against innocent persons being sentenced to death”. But the chances that innocent

persons have been or will be executed remain astoundingly high (Bedua 344). The

United States justice system was formed on the premise that it should protect

society’s general well being from any harm. Processes and procedures have been

formed and created in order to ensure that everyone receives fair treatment, but the

system has flaws that has let criminals back out on the streets and put innocent

people in jail and on death row. How can the nation’s people put trust into an

institution which has reportedly failed them again and again? The system can and will,

and has in the past, falsely accused someone and wrongfully sentenced them to

terminal punishment. Once a convicted prisoner meets the executioner, the prisoner

has reached the point of no return. Death cannot be reversed once it has occurred.

No issue posed by capital punishment is more disturbing to the public than the prospect

that the government might execute innocent people. Proponents to the death penalty

are, of course, also against executing an innocent person (Hook and Kahn 91). Most

everyone would agree that killing someone is wrong. Proponents and opponents agree

that murder is a heinous act and should be punished. Despite their hatred for those

who kill, proponents support the killing of murderers as a just punishment for their

deviant behaviors. In this sense, execution can be termed, “legal murder” because

“executions shares enough of the characteristics of murder to be counted as part of

the general category: it includes a victim who does not want to die, and an agent that

nonetheless kills [the victim]” (Yanich 98]. Murder is synonymous with kill, as found in

the Britannica- Webster Dictionary. To kill is to deprive one of life or to put one to

death and murder implies motive and intent or premeditation. With respect to theses

definitions, execution is a premeditated event which deprives the accused of his/her

life. Therefore, execution is as unrighteous and unjustified as the act of murder itself.

Despite the detrimental errors of the U.S. justice system, the death penalty remains in

effect and is costing citizens hundreds of millions of dollars. California has undergone an

economic recession and many social programs have had to be cut, but the state

“continues to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the death penalty” (Bedau 408).

And between 1977 and 1995, 18 years, California has experienced two executions by

lethal injection (United States Department of Justice 16). How much longer will the

death penalty be enforced before the federal and state governments realize that it is

becoming “unmanageably expensive” to fund capital cases (Bedau 409)? Financial

resources in the U.S. are becoming more and more limited and sparse, yet state

governments continue to uphold death cases at the request of politicians’ ” get tough”

proposals. But politicians neglect to recognize the exorbitant amount of money that the

death penalty is costing tax payers (Bedau 405). With more death row inmates than

any other state, Texas is experiencing the financial burden of the death penalty, about

three times the cost of imprisoning someone at the highest security level in a single cell

for 40 years (Bedau 402). Though some authorities are recognizing that the money

used for the death penalty trials ” could be better used for additional penitentiary

space, rehabilitation efforts, education, and to devote time and attention to juveniles”

(Bedau 404). The death penalty is burdening the financial resources for many social

programs, including the funding for more police officers and a more functional criminal

justice and correctional system.

If most everyone can agree that killing others is wrong, then why is the United States

undergoing a national debate about the death penalty? The public cannot agree on the

effectiveness of the capital punishment laws in the United States. Supporters believe

that it is an effective form of punishment as well as a societal defense against

offenders and is also cost friendly to the national economy (Montague). On the other

hand, abolitionists fear for the lives of innocent victims that are being lost at the stake

of “justice”. Furthermore, proponents have discovered that the death penalty does not

deter crime, but is a more costly alternative to life imprisonment. Though both sides are

in favor for punishing criminal behavior, each side has differing beliefs about what is

best for the general welfare of the nation.

The U.S. justice system is central to the debate because many question the lawfulness

and legality of the death penalty. Numerous studies have found the death penalty to

be discriminatory and arbitrary. Discrimination and arbitrariness can easily be found in

the application of the death penalty. Defendants in capital cases are, for instance,

generally poor persons living on the margins of society, and they often receive poor

legal representation that is usually appointed by the courts. Court-appointed counsel

receive only a few thousands of dollars from the state to fight the “ultimate penalty”

(Stewart 52). On the other hand, a more financially secure defendant could afford the

expertise necessary for proper investigations and expert witnesses to provide him/her

self with a strong case. Indigent defendants therefore are at a disadvantage to the

courts with court-appointed counsel because they usually receive less the adequate

representation. A lot of the defendant’s counsel are overworked, underpaid and

inexperienced.

Despite the differences in representation, there is also discrimination and arbitrariness

in deciding who receives and does not receive the death penalty. The decision remains

arbitrary. Some are convicted before juries can decide whether or not to impose the

death penalty, while others accused are charged with capital murders from the

beginning (Barkan 526). Throughout the nation, it is clear, that “defendants accused of

similar murders are treated differently for no logical reasons. Some are charged with

capital murders, while others are not. Some receive sentences of the death penalty,

while others do not. Researchers in this area conclude that “the capital punishment

process is akin to a lottery system and that being sentenced to death is the result of a

process that may be no more rational than being struck by lightening (Barkan 527).

There are race, class, and gender disparities in the sentencing of capital cases. A

greater percentage of men than women are sentenced to death. At year end in 1995,

48 women and 2.986 men were under death sentences. There are at least 62 times

more men on death row than women. Of the men on death row in the United States, in

1995, 56 were executed, while all the females on death row remained on death row

(United States Department of Justice 1). With respect to race, blacks consists of

almost 41% of the total, while white make up only a little above 1% (Bedau 117). In

addition, death row consists of mostly indigent individuals. And those who are accused

of the murder of a white person are more likely to receive the punishment of death,

than someone who murders a non-white person (Bedau 119). It is not surprising that

almost 75% of blacks believe that a black individual is much more likely than a white

individual to receive the death penalty for similar crimes (Bedau 117). It is evident that

there are problems inherent in the implementation of the death penalty. These inherent

problems have prompted many individuals to oppose the United States capital

punishment laws because it is an unfair, biased, arbitrary and discriminative method

that cannot guarantee protection. Another problem that contributes to the errors in

convictions are improper police work, unlucky chances, and frame ups (Radin 18).

The flaws inherent in the death penalty policy must be eliminated. But how can an

institution as large as the United States justice system guarantee perfection? It can’t.

Since it cannot, a different alternative must be enacted in order to maintain social

order and to protect society without any fatal mistakes, such as wrongful executions.

The implementation of the death penalty is irreversible. Life cannot be granted back to

someone who is later found to have been innocent. The risk of losing an innocent life is,

at least, an urgent cry to society that the death penalty is a flaw itself. At least with a

different form of punishment that is reversible, innocent prisoners can be released back

into society. Because mistakes are bond to occur within the judicial branch of

government, as well as any other branch, an alternative to the death penalty

punishment should be devised to eliminate the chance of wrongful execution and to

save the nation thousands of millions of dollars.

In order to guarantee the elimination of miscarriages of justice, I propose a solution of

abolishing the death penalty and enforcing life imprisonment without parole. The

government needs to eliminate the death penalty to expunge the risk that it places

upon innocent people in capital cases. To eliminate wrongful executions that may occur

as a result of the imperfections of the United States justice system, it is only right that

the death penalty be abolished completely. By sentencing accused offenders to life in

prison without parole, their sentences can easily be overturned upon discovery of

innocence. Though we would regret that the person had to spend time in jail, we can

feel better that we were able to let him/her live life again (Stewart 99). An execution is

final. Someone cannot be brought back to life once he/she has been executed.

Life imprisonment not only eliminates the risk of executing innocent lives, but it is also a

more cost-effective method. Abolitionists contend that the death penalty is more

expensive because of the multiple appeals that inmates request from behind bars

(Barkan 525). And since most death row inmates are indigent individuals, the money

needed for the appeals cases are funded with government tax money. In California,

capital trials are six times more costly than other murder trials, simply because of the

complex pre-trial motions, lengthy jury selections, and expenses for expert witnesses.

And the pursuit by most death row prisoners to overturn their sentences through

appeals are also very costly (Bedau 402). Steven Barkan, a criminal sociologist, argues

that since the death sentences puts the prisoner’s life at stake, death penalty cases

are especially complicated from pretrial motions through sentencing and appeals, with

the state usually having to pay for all the costs. Barkan estimates that the cost of

each death penalty case is 2 to 3 million dollars (525). In California, one report

estimated that the state could save $90 million each year by abolishing capital

punishment. And in New York, the Department of Correctional Services estimated that

the death penalty would cost their state about $118 million annually. Sentencing

someone to life imprisonment without parole would cost the state about $25,000 per

year, or $1 million overall (Barkan 525). By using the funding that would otherwise be

used for the implementation of the death penalty, the government can more effectively

put it to use in other methods of fighting crime. A million dollars spent pursuing the

executions of one defendant could provide far more effective long term crime

reduction: many additional police officers, speedier trials, or drug rehabilitation

programs (Bedau 401).

Research studies have shown that the death penalty is an ineffective method and the

money that funds it could be better used to provide a better judicial system and to aid

the prevention of criminal behavior. Improvements can be made in many places

throughout the justice system – from arrest to prosecution to sentencing. First of all,

local governments will have more money to hire more police officers. More police

officers will result in more police coverage per area, thus possibly reducing the amount

of crime committed within neighborhoods. Many citizens complain that there aren’t

enough law enforcers on the streets. Abolishing the death penalty throughout the

entire United States will provide money for more police officers as well as possibly fund

many other social programs.

Court-appointed counsels should receive a fair sum of financial funding to ensure

legitimate representation for indigent defendants. By providing court-appointed

counsels with more financial resources, defendants will have stronger cases against the

prosecution. The court-appointed counsels with more financial resources, defendants

will have stronger cases against the prosecution. The court-appointed lawyer can

obtain expert witnesses or conduct competent investigations. Depleting the system of

the death penalty law gives defendants the chance to a fair trail.

To eliminate bias and discrimination during the process of sentencing in any trial, strict

guidelines should be made by which jurors and judges are guided to make a decisions.

Though this has already been implemented, it was not implemented correctly. The

guidelines must be strict and objective. It must also prevent the inconsistencies that

are prevalent in the sentencing process. It is not fair that two people who commit

similar crimes receive different sentences. To do this every criminal act must have

particular punishment. For example, lets examine a liquor store robbery. The following is

inaccurate and merely a hypothetical example. First of all, it was a robbery. Regardless

of what else happened during the crime in question a punishment must be assigned to

the robbery itself. Lets say hypothetically that a robbery results in a sentence of eight

to ten years. The consequence must not be broad, such as one to nine years. The

consequence must be narrowly defined so that jurors and judges have less room to

include their personal beliefs and biases. Take for instance that the robber injured a

hostage with a knife. Additional jail will incur with each criminal act. He/she might

receive two to three years for possession of a deadly weapon and four to five years for

causing bodily harm to the victim. When all behaviors are in violation of the laws are

assessed, it is easy to calculate their punishment without considering the race, class,

or gender of an individual. Race, class and gender should not be factors in deciding the

sentence for criminal behavior. The crime, not the person is on trial. Though mitigation

factors (e.g. list of priors) should also affect sentencing criteria or be used in

consideration of parole of there is a possibility of parole. Back to our hypothetical

individual, based upon what we have already noted that the defendant has done

he/she is expected to receive a sentence of about 15 and a half years in jail. I came to

this conclusion by simply adding the average value of each crime together. Though the

judge can use his discretion and sentence the defendant to the full term of each

criminal act, it is not very different from the sum of the averages, 15 and a half years.

A judge who would sentence the robber to the maximum sentence capacity would

sentence the defendant to 18 years in jail, only two and a half more years than the

sum of the averages.

Now that these offenders have been sentenced to jail time, the judicial system must

ensure that theses offenders serve the time that they have been sentenced to. Many

support the death penalty simply because it guarantees that criminals will be punished

by not allowing them early parole. Prisoners, on the whole, are only serving 20% of

their sentence because of overcrowding in correctional facilities (Bedau 119). The

inconsistencies in sentencing and the actual time spent in jail have made some people

skeptic about resorting to life imprisonment terms. But if the system eliminates the

death penalty, the government will have hundreds of millions dollars extra, some of

which could be spent on the corrections system. More facilities could be built and more

correctional officers could be hired. Though this would cost a substantial amount of

money, this would protect society as well as provide jobs for the many whom are

unemployed. With more space and more officers, the corrections system won’t have to

release prisoners early to make room for new prisoners. Everything about the judicial

system must be consistent and objective. Prisoners must serve the full term of their

sentences before being released. Parole should not be recognized in order to send a

message to the general public that the justice system stand by rigid, objective, and

consistent standards, which will treat everyone equally and fairly with no exceptions.

We have covered how the funding of the capital punishment could be better used for

the protection of society. No we will cover how the large amount of money spent on

the death penalty could be better spent on prevention of deviant behavior. Men commit

a large percentage of all crime. The reasoning for this fact contains the answer to

preventing crime. Men and women are socialized differently according to their gender

roles. Males and females receive differential treatment during childhood. Boys are

expected to be tough, strong and independent, whereas the girls are expected to be

soft and dependent. Because of this, boys are allowed to stay out until after dark,

while girls must go home before sundown. Parents have more confidence in their male

children that they can be on their own and that girls need more parental guidance. The

difference continues into adulthood. While acts of physical violence are relatively rare

among both sexes, they are very much common among men. Differential parenting

styles result in the great disparity among men and women. Although more women are

committing crimes, the nation must develop a way in which we can raise children

without gender differences (Glietman 559-561). The rise in women criminals is due to

the present transition in gender roles. “Many parents are trying to raise their children

with fewer preconceived notions about how males and females ‘ought’ to behave”

(Weiten 312). This new transition is what we need in order to create a safer nation.

The money used to implement the death penalty could be used to educate parents,

teachers, and other agents of socialization on how to socialize children irrespective of

gender roles. Social critics view this period of transition as a “healthy trend” (Weiten

312).

The laws pertaining to the death penalty need to be abolished throughout the entire

United States. Hopefully, the Justice Now (JN) organization realizes the potentially

deadly mistakes that the death penalty has for the country (Mac Farlane 14779). Many

people are affected by the death penalty, not just the prisoner on death row. Everyone

needs to remember that by executing the murderer we may relieve some of the grief

that is felt by the victim’s family, but by doing so we are giving the family of the

prisoner additional grief. Executions do not result in a win-win situation, especially if the

prisoner is an innocent victim. Anyone can be sucked into the judicial system just by

being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

By abolishing the death penalty entirely, throughout the United States, hundreds of

millions of dollars could be used to improve the judicial system. Life sentences without

parole will be used instead of the death penalty for a fraction of the cost. The excess

money can guarantee that all convicted criminals will serve the full term of their

sentence by providing additional correctional facilities and officers. By opening more

facilities, abolishing the death penalty creates more employment opportunities. The

eradication of the death penalty will mean more funding will be provided for social

programs which have the potential to create a better society. The extra funding can

also be used for the prevention of crime by reducing the differential treatment that is

evident in children rearing. The death penalty poses many problems for the nation. If

we can get the majority of the population to believe that life imprisonment without

parole is a better method for capital punishment, then the United States can join the

industrialized nations that have abolished executions and become a much safer

country. But because the United States has used the death penalty throughout the

course of history, many are having difficulty understanding the advantages that come

with the abolition of the death penalty. Everyone agrees that risking the lives of

innocent people is a damaging effect of the death penalty, but the majority cannot

come to terms on a better alternative. Life sentences without parole can guarantee

that no one will be wrongfully executed, while saving the nation hundreds of millions of

dollars to spend on other more beneficial social programs.

Works Cited

Barkan, Steven E. Criminology: A Sociological Understanding. New Jersey: Prentice Hall,

1997.

Bedau, Hugo A. ed. The Death Penalty in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Civiletti, Benjamin. “The Death Penalty is Still Seriously Flawed.” Christian Science Monitor.

Aug 1997. Ebsco host. Cerritos College Norwalk, CA. 3 Nov 1999 (http://www.epnet.com).

“Execution Reconsidered.” Economist. Jul 1999. Ebsco host. Cerritos College Norwalk, CA. 4

Nov 1999 (http://www.epnet.com).

Gleitman, Henry. Psychology. 4th ed. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1995.

Hook, Donald D. and Lothar Kahn. Death in the Balance: The Debate Over Capital

Punishment. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1989.

Mac Farlane, Theresa. International Organizations. Detroit: Gale Research, 1997.

Montague, Philip. Punishment as Societal Defense. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield

Publishers: 1995.

Radelet, Michael L., Hugo Adam Bedau and Constance E. Putnam. In spite of Innocence.

Pennsylvania: The Maple Press, 1992.

Radin, Edward D. The Innocents. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1974.

Stewart, David O. “Dealing With Death”. ABA Journal. Nov 1994: 50-53.

United States Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin: Capital Punishment.

1995. Washington: OJP, 1996.

Weiten, Wayne. Psychology: Themes and Variations. 2nd ed., brief version. Pacific Grove:

Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1994.

Yanich, Danilo. “Making Movies Real: The Death Penalty and Local TV News.” Crime Law

and Social Change. 26 (1997): 303-328.