(Though this does not factor in geriatric care) Capital cases apparently cost between one million and seven million to prosecute, confine, and execute. Non-capital cases cost about $500,000 -- including imprisonment. "In 1991 New Jersey spent $16 million to impose the death penalty. The next year the state laid off 500 police officers because they could not afford to pay them..." (NCADP) the argument suggests this money would be better spent on patrolling and preventing crime. Any suggestion that the appeals process be shortened is, of course, met with outrage regarding the possible conviction of innocent people.
These all seem like powerful arguments, however, there are some significant flaws that are easily pointed out. For example, the idea that the death penalty devalues human life is seen by many as absurd. Chuck Colson, who has worked for decades with prison outreach and who has many personal friends on Death Row, nonetheless claims that the death penalty is necessary precisely because to abolish it would be to devalue the human life of the victim. " it is because humans are created in the image of God that capital punishment for premeditated murder was to be a perpetual obligation." (Colson) Only if one discounts the value of the past victim's lives -- and the value of the future victim's lives -- can one suggest that capital punishment devalues life. Other proponents argue that it does...
"Between 1965 and 1980, [When capital punishment was being decreased] the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed... So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank...[however] From 1995 to 2000... executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000% increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from [between 1980 and 1999]... A 44% reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966." (Lowe) as for the cost, the simple answer is to cut back on appeals. Most people fingered for murder are not actually innocent, even if they did not commit the murder in question. Moreover, the likelihood of being accidentally convicted for murder is significantly less than the likelihood of being hit by a
bus, but
public transportation is still legal! "We, in fact, mindlessly use far more dangerous institutions that take the lives of innocents by the hundreds every day, like the three or four tons of lethal metal we call automobiles for example. After all, how can we accept the average 45,000 person a year death toll in this nation due to car wrecks for our personal conveniences when the very slim risk of wrongful executions is so unbearable?"(Lowe) I would also compare this to the likelihood of soldiers getting killed by friendly fire, yet
war is still a viable answer to this nation's problems.
In my own argument, I would very much agree with the above points: that capital punishment upholds the value of innocent, non-criminal life, and that it is a viable means of deterrence. I would expand on these points to suggest that the ultimate goal of capital punishment should be a final solution to deterrence, in that it should create a system in which criminals cannot be repeat offenders or pass their violent tendencies down to the next
generation. It is
