Today’s system of capital punishment tolerates many inequalities and injustices.
The common arguments for the death penalty are filled with holes. Imposing the death penalty is expensive and time-consuming. Each year billions of dollars are spent to sentence criminals to death. Perhaps the most frequently raised argument against capital punishment is that of its cost. Other thoughts on the death penalty are to turn criminals away from committing violent acts.
A just argument against the death penalty would be that sentencing an individual to death prevents future crimes by other individuals. However, criminals are not afraid of the death penalty. The chance of a criminal being sentenced to death is very slim. The number of inmates actually put to death is far less than it was decades ago.
This decrease in number shows that the death penalty is faulty. With that being true, many criminals feel that they can get away with a crime and go unpunished. Also, the less that the death sentence is invoked, the more conflicting it becomes when it is actually used. Alternative can be found to substitute for the death penalty.
A huge misconception of the death penalty is that it saves society the costs of keeping inmates imprisoned for long periods of time. Ironically, the cost of the death penalty is far greater than the cost of housing a criminal for life. Appeals on the death penalty become a long, drawn-out and very expensive process. There are those who cry that we, the taxpayers, shouldn’t have to “support” condemned people for an entire lifetime in prison-that we should simply “eliminate” them and save ourselves time and money.
The truth is that the cost of state killing is up to three times the cost of lifetime imprisonment (Long 80). The process of sentencing one to death is not as simple as it sounds. Once an individual is sentenced to death, he begins to appeal the court decision, which can take many years. In many cases there are many years in between the sentence and the actual execution. Trial courts cost and prison costs are amassed while awaiting execution, total up to large sums of money.
Additionally, there are costs for prosecution and defense. Comparing the cost of the death penalty to a life sentence makes the sentence of life imprisonment sound like a good arrangement. Is it really worth the hassle and money to kill a criminal when we can put them away for life for less money with a great deal more ease? The death penalty needs to be revised and altered so that it is more cost and time efficient. Supporters of the death penalty claim, is that it is just retribution for someone who commits the heinous crime of murder. The death penalty assures that the convicted murderer is being paid back for his or her wrongdoing, and revenge has been accomplished.
If the state is interested in executing convicted killers in order to teach them the high value that society holds for human life, doing so doesn’t accomplish this. Killing a person to show him killing another is wrong is an injustice in itself (Zimring 76). The archaic view of “an eye for an eye” is expressed often by supporters of the death penalty,yet this view is not associated with any other crimes. A court would find it difficult to sentence a rapist to suffer a sentence of rape, as they would have trouble burning down the house of someone who was convicted of arson. These punishments would undoubtedly be considered as cruel and unusual, and would never be permitted in today society. The same views should be held regarding the death penalty.
In addition, the executing of a killer to enact revenge will never bring back the life of a victim. At some point, the violence must be stopped. The most common rationale for support of the death penalty is that of deterrence. Logically, a person who knows that they might be executed if they are convicted of a capital crime will think twice before committing the offense. The fact of this matter is that the majority of the people who do commit these crimes are not very logical at the time of the offense. There are a great number of murder cases, in which the killer was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, psychologically distressed, in emotional turmoil, or in some way or another unable to control their
