The death penalty has been a controversial topic since ancient times. People have long debated whether it was moral, right, or even effective. Even though increasing amounts of evidence have pointed out its obvious downfalls, many states in the U.S., the land of the free, have continued to enforce it. The state of California should not use the death penalty because it does not reduce crime, requires high costs to operate, and has cases of inconsistent or wrongful convictions.
One reason why capital punishment should not be used is that it may not bring down crime rates. According to a study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Chicago, 88% of criminologists believe that there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. Furthermore, the average murder rate in states with the death penalty is higher than states without the death penalty. In 2005 the murder rate in death penalty states was 5.87% compared to 4.03% in non-capital punishment states. The belief that people’s innate fear of death would deter them from committing crimes is a popular but false argument for the death penalty. People want to believe that enforcing capital punishment will stop more major crimes such as murder, even though they may not fully understand the reasons behind it. It’s understandable but simply isn’t true.
Another downfall of capital punishment is its cost. The death penalty is even more expensive than life imprisonment because of its more costly living conditions due to heightened security, chemical payments, and numerous other factors. An inmate may stay on death row for years, or even decades, awaiting execution due to the long legal process. One recent Californian study calculated that “if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years” (DeathPenaltyInfo). This is an enormous sum of money that will be saved if the prisoners are released from death row. If California did not practice capital punishment, more money could be going toward improving education, donating to charity, fixing roads and bridges, funding parks, and overall increasing the welfare of its people. Thus, this would add to society instead of taking away from it.
Although many believe that the death penalty for serious crimes is justified, executions are inconsistent and sometimes even wrongful. The New York Times states that “According to one study, at least 4 percent of all death-row inmates in the United States have been wrongfully convicted” (NYTimes). Four percent of approximately 1500 people executed since 1976 shows that fifty or more of those people could have been innocent, which is not acceptable. In addition, a 1986 Supreme Court case, Ford vs. Wainwright held that it is unconstitutional to execute the insane and intellectually disabled, but not the mentally ill. A mentally insane prisoner is one that is not aware of why he or she committed the crime, Justice Powell concluded. As a result, people who have bipolar disorder, severe depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, autism, and even obsessive-compulsive disorder may be sentenced to death despite their illnesses. Those who have been found guilty also may have experienced drug abuse and past trauma, which could have impaired their decision making at that time. It doesn’t justify their actions, but their impairments should be considered before sentencing. Capital punishment is morally wrong, especially when innocent lives and those who have been afflicted with mental illnesses are put to death. It is not right for innocent citizens to be killed because of misleading forensic evidence or false accusations.
All in all, if the death penalty continues to be enforced, crime rates may not decrease, money will continue to be wasted on an ineffective strategy, and innocent lives will be lost. The death penalty should be replaced with non-violent alternatives such as imprisonment or rehabilitation. In order to have a just society, the punishment needs to fit the crime.
Works Cited:
DPIC Staff, David Cooper, Joshua Kamin. “Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates” Death Penalty Information Center, 1990, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates. Accessed 22 April 2019.
DPIC Staff, Judge Arthur Alarcon, Professor Paula Mitchell. “Costs of the Death Penalty: California” Death Penalty Information Center, 1990, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty. Accessed 23 April 2019.
“FORD v. WAINWRIGHT” Findlaw, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/477/399.html. Accessed 21 April 2019.
Journal of Law and Criminology Editors, Professor Michael Radelet, Traci Lacock of the University of Chicago. “Study: 88% of criminologists believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent” Death Penalty Information Center, 1990, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/study-88-criminologists-do-not-believe-death-penalty-effective-deterrent. Accessed 22 April 2019.
McFarland, Torin. “The Death Penalty vs. Life Incarceration: A Financial Analysis” Scholarly Commons Susquehanna University, https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=supr. Accessed 23 April 2019.
The Editorial Board. “152 Innocents, Marked for Death” The New York Times, 22 January 1996, https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/152-innocents-marked-for-death.html. Accessed 21 April 2019.