Death Penalty the Argument Against

¶ … Death Penalty

The argument against the death penalty comes not from the morality of the reprehensible act of killing a human being, but from other elements directly associated with the death penalty. It might be argued, for example, that the cost associated with maintaining an individual on death row, and the numbers of appeals that the individual is entitled to much greater than those costs associated with all other kinds of extended incarceration, including life imprisonment. Although we kill criminals convicted of horrendous crimes, we don't take that responsibility lightly and we give them appeals to the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States. The appeals, in most cases, take as long seven years to perfect and move through the levels of the judicial system; because we take the death penalty seriously, and want to be sure the decision of the lower courts and jurors was done in perfect law. We take it so seriously that there is a process in place for a last minute reprieve by the governor of the state where the penalty is being carried out.

If we take the death penalty so seriously that we can not have complete confidence that killing the person is the right decision or a process of perfect law, then perhaps we should save the taxpayers money, time, and conscience by eliminating the ordeal and, instead, going with the lesser expense of incarcerating the individual for life.

Krista L. Patterson (2006) talks about the dynamics between the states regarding the death penalty, which is a state prerogative, in terms of cost to the state in pursuing a death penalty. Patterson cites Goodman and Jinks, who believe that "coercion" is a means by which the United States can be moved away from the death in the same way its European counterparts have moved away from the death penalty. The "coercion" about which they speak is defined this way:

Under Goodman and Jinks' definition of coercion, it is theoretically possible that Europe and other Western states could provide the United States with some sort of material benefit for abolishing the death penalty or with some sort of material cost for not abolishing the death penalty, which could cause the United States to find that the benefits of moving toward abolition outweigh the costs. (134) However, the United States does not seem to have based its action on a response to such a cost-benefit calculation (Patterson, 2006, 1217)."

So this is the way it is defined, but the way that it serves as a detriment against the death penalty, and as reason for abolishing the death penalty is:

Some of the only truly coercive measures that Europe and other states have utilized against the United States regarding the death penalty are threats not to invest in states that apply the death penalty (135) and refusal to extradite criminals to the United States because of its use of the death penalty. (136) Although European refusal to invest would cost the United States economically and refusal to extradite would cost the United States the ability to prosecute accused criminals within its jurisdiction, the United States' strong economic and political power lessens the potential impact of these costs. These measures seem unlikely to change the United States' behavior. And there is no evidence that they have done so (Patterson, 1217)."

Patterson effectively makes the argument that if we cannot afford to extradite to execute for a specific crime, then it makes the application of that penalty applied to a person stateside unevenly applied, which makes it illegal under our Constitution.

Putting Patterson's argument aside, from a more confined perspective, the cost to house, provide legal representation to the person on death row, to perfect the appeals process, and to actually execute prisoners. Adam Bedau and Paul G. Cassell (2004) reference the cost of the death penalty in the State of Texas, which is also a state with the highest numbers of executions under the death penalty. Bedau and Cassell cite information that says the initial trial of a death penalty case, that is a case where the death penalty is a penalty option, is approximately two million dollars per case more than those cases that do not involve the death penalty in Texas (101). These costs, though specific to Texas, are reasonably no less expensive for other states that try cases where there is an imposable death penalty.

If the difference for the states is about room, the total number of people on death row at a given time is insignificant as compared to the overall prison population. It would hardly seem that a prison with as many fourteen people on death row might be causing prison overcrowding if the death penalty were eliminated. Additionally, if we save two million dollars per death penalty case by not imposing the death penalty, then there is certainly enough money saved to build extra prison lifetime incarceration housing units.

Brian W. Kappler (2000) raised questions about individual states, electing to keep the death penalty, but to circumvent the length of time, and, therefore, the cost of maintaining death row prisoners, but reducing the number of appeals and reinventing the appeal process for death row inmates (467). This has created a number of cases to be heard by, or that have been heard by the Supreme Court for violations of Habeas Corpus (467). The processes for establishing a shortened route to the death penalty is no doubt as costly, perhaps more so than the death penalty inclusive of the initial trial through appeals and housing till execution. That the states would reinvent the argument for Habeas Corpus, which is important and an essential legal right to all people coming before the judicial system for any reason; is almost more frightening than the death penalty. You must, however, give states like Arizona credit for trying please its voters with the death penalty, and a low cost execution (467).