New Hair!
mood: 
happy
happy
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
cruithear_lorr's journalLog in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more
| You are viewing cruithear_lorr's journal Log in Create a LiveJournal Account Learn more | Explore LJ: Life Entertainment Music Culture News & Politics Technology |
excited
complacentHas anyone ever unfriended you without explanation? Did you ask why? Have you ever deleted someone from your friend list without saying why? Submitted By |
geeky
accomplished pleased hopeful amused
annoyed ecstatic
determined amused
worried busy accomplishedINTRODUCTION
Most Americans believe that the death penalty is applied fairly in this country and do not think it is imposed enough ("Crime"). Yet 64 percent doubt that executions have much effect at deterring murder and 95 percent think that innocent people are sometimes convicted of murder ("Crime"). Why would anyone support the death penalty if they doubt its accuracy or effectiveness? Many people do so because they consider the death penalty a fair, cost-effective crime deterrent. This essay investigates the fairness, cost efficiency, and effectiveness of the death penalty. I do not measure its propriety on the basis of morality because morals vary depending on the individual, culture, and/or society. Facts provide objective, empirical proof.
Regardless of one’s moral views, studies show that:
The death penalty does not deter crime.
Verdicts often depend on arbitrary factors instead of evidence.
The death penalty costs more than the alternatives.
Many death row inmates are found innocent.
The death penalty makes wrongful convictions irreversible.
These results show that the current death penalty is unjust, inefficient, and ineffective. In fact, the use of the death penalty in this nation poses a deadly risk to any person who risks being wrongfully arrested.
1. The death penalty does not deter crime.
Studies show that deterring a criminal does not deter the crime. States with the death penalty have consistently higher murder rates than states without the death penalty, and the gap has increased tenfold since 1990 ("Deterrence...").
Between 1980 and 2000, states with the death penalty experienced homicide rates 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty ("The Death Penalty and Deterrence."). An effective punishment must be both swift and consistent. The death penalty lacks both a swift execution and the certainty of the death penalty ("Why Capital Punishment…"). If policymakers added these two factors to death penalty policies, the death penalty would most likely deter more crime.
2. Verdicts often depend on arbitrary factors instead of evidence
Death penalty convictions often depend not on evidence but on arbitrary factors such as the level of representation, location, race, and the court.
Representation influences verdicts. When it comes to capital punishment, many claim that "those without the capital get the punishment" ("Living..."). Defendants who can afford better attorneys often receive lesser sentences, while those who cannot afford their own attorney are often sentenced to death. In addition, death row inmates have a one-in-three chance of being executed if they have 1) no claims of innocence or unfairness presented, and 2) an incompetent attorney investigating their case ("Lethal Indifference..."). These aspects of representation have nothing to do with innocence or evidence. This is also the unjust disposing of the poor.
Along with representation, location also influences a verdict. If the death penalty worked, one would expect areas with higher murder rates to have more executions. However, many areas have murder rates that do not justify the degree of executions. For example, Maryland's Baltimore County had nine times the number of people on death row as did Baltimore City in 2002, despite only having a tenth as many murders ("Arbitrariness"). Counties in Ohio, Indiana, and New York experience similar inconsistencies that reduce the effectiveness of the death penalty.
In general, an overwhelming majority of executions occur in the South: Eighty-three percent of all executions since 1976 occurred in the South, as well as 95 percent of all executions in 2008 alone ("Arbitrariness"). Even if a majority of violent crimes occur in the South, these percentages reveal an uneven distribution beyond reason.
Racism also impact verdicts: Murderers of white victims receive the death penalty more often than those of black victims. A study in Philadelphia found that blacks received the death penalty 38 percent more often than all other comparable defendants ("Race..."). Also, the chances of the death sentence in cases including a black defendant and a white victim increase when five or more white males serve on the jury ("Race..."). This evidence shows that race often plays a larger part in the death penalty than evidence, which further undermines the efficiency of the death penalty.
Another undermining factor is the court: Interviews with jurors found that half decide on the penalty before they hear penalty phase evidence, and jury selection methods often result in disproportionately "guilt-prone and death-prone" juries ("Arbitrariness"). In addition, the sooner jurors believe a defendant will return to society if not given the death penalty, the more likely they will vote for it ("Arbitrariness"). Both judges and juries often base their decisions on factors other than evidence.
3. The death penalty costs more than the alternatives.
Many people assume that the death penalty costs less than a life sentence because it eliminates the cost of life-long care. The opposite is true: Every step of the death penalty, from sentencing to security to execution, is longer and more costly than those of the alternatives. In at least ten states with the death penalty, it costs several times as much to sentence and confine an inmate to death row as it does to life without possibility of parole ("Costs of the Death Penalty"):
North Carolina spends $2.16 million more per execution than a sentence of life imprisonment
Florida spends $51 million more each year for first-degree murderers
Texas death penalty cases cost three times as much as non-capital cases
Indiana’s total death penalty cost is 38 percent higher than that of life without parole
Why is the death penalty more expensive?
Legal costs: Almost everyone facing the possibility of the death sentence cannot afford their own attorney, so the state must pay for the costs of two public defenders and the prosecution ("Costs of the Death Penalty").
Pre-trial costs: Since capital cases are far more complicated than non-capital cases, experts are often needed for “forensic evidence, mental health, and the social history of the defendant” ("Costs of the Death Penalty").
Trial length: Death penalty trials can last over four times longer than non-capital trials, requiring juror and attorney compensation as well as court personnel and other related costs ("Costs of the Death Penalty").
Incarceration: Most death row inmates require more security and other accommodations because they live in solitary confinement in a special facility ("Costs of the Death Penalty").
4. Many death row inmates are found innocent.
The inefficiency of the death penalty leads to the execution of innocent people. Since 1973, 135 death row inmates have been released with evidence of their innocence. The average rose from 3.1 exonerations per year between 1973 and 1999 to five exonerations per year between 2000 to 2007 ("Innocence and the Death Penalty"). According to strong evidence, seven innocent men have already been executed of whom we know ("American Civil...").
Wrongful convictions often occur because forensic science can be flawed, omitted, or misrepresented. Four states currently “provide no mechanism” for prisoners to prove their innocence via DNA testing ("American Civil..."). In addition, the National Academy of Sciences found “severe flaws” in forensic science systems including fingerprinting, firearms identification, and the analysis of bite marks, blood spatter, hair and handwriting ("American Civil..."). If our accuracy is so flawed, giving a sentence as permanent as death is unwise and cruel.
5. The death penalty makes wrongful convictions irreversible.
Sentencing an innocent person to death and carrying out the execution, especially when evidence shows that the current death penalty is unreliable, is a foolish and irreversible mistake.
CONCLUSION
The Fifth Amendment states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The process by which the death sentence is given is not due process. It suffers numerous flaws including ineffectiveness, inconsistency, prejudice, and flat-out errors. We cannot risk applying it to the justice system and the lives of defendants. Executing an innocent person represents the height of injustice.
The death penalty is intended to protect society. It not only fails to accomplish that, it jeopardizes our citizens. Perhaps if we could perfect its accuracy and efficiency, the death penalty would meet society’s expectations of being a fair, cost-effective crime deterrence. But until then, the death penalty simply does not work.
WORKS CITED
1. "American Civil Liberties Union: Death Penalty: Innocence." ACLU. 13 September 2009. <http://www.aclu.org/capital/innocence/in
2. "Arbitrariness." 2009. Death Penalty Information Center. 1 Aug 2009. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arbitrar
3. "Costs of the Death Penalty." 2009. Death Penalty Information Center. 1 Aug 2009. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-de
4. "Crime." 2009. Polling Report, Inc. 13 September 2009. <http://www.pollingreport.com/crime.htm>
5. "The Death Penalty and Deterrence." 2009. Amnesty International USA. 20 Aug 2009. <http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/d
6. Chart. "Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates." 2009. Death Penalty Information Center. 3 Aug 2009. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterren
7. Figure 1. "Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates." 2009. Death Penalty Information Center. 27 October 2009. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterren
8. Figure 2. "Arbitrariness." 2009. Death Penalty Information Center. 1 Aug 2009. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arbitrar
9. Figure 3. "Abolish The Death Penalty." 2009. Sisters of St. Francis of the Holy Cross. 27 October 2009. <http://www.gbfranciscansisters.org/peace
10. "Innocence and the Death Penalty." 2009. Death Penalty Information Center. 5 Aug 2009. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocenc
11. "Lethal Indifference: An Executive Summary." 2002. Texas Defender Service. 8 Aug 2009. <http://texasdefender.org/execsum.pdf>
12. Midwestgirl. "Why Capital Punishment Doesn't Deter Crime." 2006. Associated Content, Inc. 13 September 2009. <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/4
13. "Race and the Death Penalty." 2009. Death Penalty Information Center. 8 Aug 2009. <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-and-d
14. Stahl, Samuel M. "Living in the Death Penalty Capital." 7 May 1999. Temple Beth-El. 7 Aug 2009. <http://www.beth-elsa.org/be_s0507.htm>
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 |
nostalgic