Essay #4 First Draft

Ben La Scola

Dr. Kerr

EN 101-23

November 23, 2011

The Death Penalty

Many actually consider capital punishment to be more humane than solitary confinement which can cause mental illnesses and severe psychiatric harm. The death penalty is a deterrent, provides a way of retribution, and overall can cost less than life imprisonment.

For years the death penalty has been used as a way to deter crime and to punish those who commit capital crimes. In 1969 there were only 15 executions but 9,250 murders. In 1969 there were no executions and a huge rise to 14,590 murders. In 1975 there were 20,510 murders which rose to 23,040 in 1980 ("The Death Penalty in the United States."). Since the death penalty was resumed in 1982, the number of Harris Count, Texas murders dropped from 701 to 241 a year (Lowe).

The other side would say, when one commits a crime either one premeditated on it, which means that they planned out the crime or gave extended thought to committing the crime beforehand, or one didn’t. When a crime isn’t premeditated it is a spur of the moment decision based on large amounts of stress, or being under the influence of drugs (Bedau). They would argue that there is no proof that the death penalty is deterrence to capital crimes and that life sentences are as much deterrence to capital crimes as the death penalty ("Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty.").

Although opponents against the death penalty claim that most murders are not premeditated and are instead instant decisions based on the situation an individual is currently in and therefore the consequences of murder are not taken into account; Luis Vera, a man who burglarized Rosa Velez’s apartment in Brooklyn and shot her stated “Yeah, I shot her, and I knew I wouldn’t go to the chair.” This man clearly states that he briefly considered the consequence of shooting Velez but knowing he would not be sentenced to death, chose to shoot her. This is also not a premeditated murder because Vera did not expect Velez to be home at the time (Lowe).

The use of the death penalty provides retribution for those who have been made victims by the actions of a criminal. Louis P. Pojman, author and professor of philosophy U.S. Military Academy states “When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer's life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind” ("Arguments"). Retribution is often confused with revenge. Revenge is to inflict hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong done to one’s self. Retribution is punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved. Retributivism is the theory that a criminal deserves to be punished in proportion to the magnitude of his or her crime, whether it is desired by the victim or not. When society does not punish criminals in a just way then the public might take the law into their own hands, such as somebody assaulting or lynching a criminal that got away with murder. In Gregg v Georgia, the Supreme Court wrote "The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man" (Gill).

There are two major arguments against the death penalty as retribution; the first, that retribution is just another excuse for revenge, and the second, that punishment equivalent to the crime isn’t morally correct. People argue that retribution is just another word for revenge and that revenge is not enough to justify the taking of one’s life ("Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty."). The death penalty as punishment in proportion to the crime committed is considered wrong by some because society doesn’t torture someone who committed torture, or rape a rapist, so it is wrong to murder someone who committed murder. In order for punishment to be equal to the crime, execution does not have to be the end result (Reppert).

Retribution by definition is punishment that is considered to be morally right and fully deserved. Revenge by definition is the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for a wrong suffered at their hands. The difference in definition is clear; retribution is morally right and fully deserved. However, vengeance is not inherently wrong, victims should be avenged, just in a morally and just way (Avery). Whether or not the victim or the victim’s family wants retribution it is the government’s duty to avenge victims of crime and to protect society. The death penalty is necessary for capital crimes because even if a criminal is sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) they can still receive clemency and be released. An instance of such was in 2009 when the governor of Michigan freed a 71 year old man who was sentenced to LWOP in 1967 for murdering a man (Sharp, "Life Without Parole.").

The potential cost of death penalty cases is much less than that of life without parole cases. A common argument against the death penalty is that it costs significantly more than life imprisonment. According to a study used in many arguments against the death penalty, an execution in Maryland costs up to $37 million and life imprisonment costs about $1 milling a year (Avery). The problem with these figures is that because somebody on death row only has a limited number of appeals so they are factored into the cost. However, someone with life imprisonment without parole can have as many appeals as they can find grounds for so the costs of their appeals are not factored in (Sharp, "Death Penalty Paper.").

Opponents of the death penalty advocate that the cost of the death penalty is much greater than life without parole. They believe that because the death penalty has so many appeals, reviews, and post-trial hearings that it ends up costing around 6 times the amount of life without parole ("Death Penalty Arguments & Resources."). Opponents of the death penalty argue that not only does it cost much more than incarceration but the difference in cost could better be used to increase the number of police which would lower violent crime rates better than the threat of being executed ("The Case Against the Death Penalty - Cons, Anti Death Penalty Arguments.").

Although the death penalty is widely perceived to overall cost more than life without parole; the death penalty costs more in the beginning, but over time the cost of life without parole cases can end up topping the costs of the death penalty by $1.2 to $3.6 million (DeFrancesco). If the death penalty was taken away completely, then abolitionists would try to take away life without parole next and it would hike up the costs of appeals because there would be no execution to end the process of a life without parole (Lowe). Also, a way to minimize the costs for the death penalty would be to only allow appeals that were relevant to proving one’s innocence (Lowe).

The death penalty is a very controversial and much debated topic mostly based off its deterrence to crime, the moral factor of retribution, and the cost. The death penalty has been proven through multiple studies and history as deterrence to capital crimes. Retribution is a basic instinct and need of every human being and it is the government’s duty to provide retribution for the victims of a crime. The cost of the death penalty at a quick look costs more than life imprisonment without parole, but overtime LWOP costs more than the death penalty.