I wrote the following to post on a debate forum, then learned I couldn't start a new thread. So, I'm posting it here. I used to be a supporter of the death penalty but switched camps after having studied Criminal Justice in college. Here are the basic argumentive points:
1. The Criminal Justice system is not about retribution (revenge). It's not about "an eye for an eye". It's about trying to correct the behavior of offenders to prevent recidivism, by giving out progressively longer sentences for progressively more serious crimes.
2. If we think there is no chance the offender can be corrected or if we don't want to risk the chance of recidivism, we throw away the key. Greater society is not harmed by keeping murderers isolated from society, like duh.
3. Death is an irreversible consequence and innocent people have been put to death. Life in prison without the possibility of parole accomplishes the same societal protection as a death sentence except with the capacity to correct errors.
4. Since death is irreversible, there must be super due process. For all other criminals, including run of the mill murderers, you only get one appeal, but death penalty cases can appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, twice. Consequently, the litigation of death penalty cases cost about two-three times more money than the actual expenses of life in prison. It costs $2-3 million, even if the actual execution costs $2.00. Furthermore, the death penalty doesn't really free up space in prisons, as only a small handful are on death row and the legal process takes about ten or twenty years. Due to the possibility of executing innocent people, which does happen, you cannot justifiably argue the legal process should be shortened.
5. The death penalty increases homicide rates and homicide rates increase by four percent during and for several months after high-profile death penalty cases. This counter-deterrence is called the brutalization effect. Whenever the death penalty has been repealed, homicide rates decrease.
6. The chances of escaping from a maximum security prison are almost zero. It happens on occasion but it's extremely rare. Furthermore, fugitives usually don't last very long in manhunts. Even still, it would be wrong to write societal policy (killing people) guarding against something which essentially doesn't happen (escapes). In the 1970's, when 40 death row inmates were released from California's prisons after having served about 20 years in prison, only one returned to death row. Being in prison for decades often profoundly changes people, so it would be erroneous to assume most death row inmates, if released, would murder again.
I have contemplated this subject for years and I can think of no possible argument to support the death penalty except retribution. But the fact remains the death penalty only costs society more (financially and homicidally) and in all aspects is simply ineffective. Sentence death row candidates to life in prison without the possibility of parole and forget about them.
1. The Criminal Justice system is not about retribution (revenge). It's not about "an eye for an eye". It's about trying to correct the behavior of offenders to prevent recidivism, by giving out progressively longer sentences for progressively more serious crimes.
2. If we think there is no chance the offender can be corrected or if we don't want to risk the chance of recidivism, we throw away the key. Greater society is not harmed by keeping murderers isolated from society, like duh.
3. Death is an irreversible consequence and innocent people have been put to death. Life in prison without the possibility of parole accomplishes the same societal protection as a death sentence except with the capacity to correct errors.
4. Since death is irreversible, there must be super due process. For all other criminals, including run of the mill murderers, you only get one appeal, but death penalty cases can appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, twice. Consequently, the litigation of death penalty cases cost about two-three times more money than the actual expenses of life in prison. It costs $2-3 million, even if the actual execution costs $2.00. Furthermore, the death penalty doesn't really free up space in prisons, as only a small handful are on death row and the legal process takes about ten or twenty years. Due to the possibility of executing innocent people, which does happen, you cannot justifiably argue the legal process should be shortened.
5. The death penalty increases homicide rates and homicide rates increase by four percent during and for several months after high-profile death penalty cases. This counter-deterrence is called the brutalization effect. Whenever the death penalty has been repealed, homicide rates decrease.
6. The chances of escaping from a maximum security prison are almost zero. It happens on occasion but it's extremely rare. Furthermore, fugitives usually don't last very long in manhunts. Even still, it would be wrong to write societal policy (killing people) guarding against something which essentially doesn't happen (escapes). In the 1970's, when 40 death row inmates were released from California's prisons after having served about 20 years in prison, only one returned to death row. Being in prison for decades often profoundly changes people, so it would be erroneous to assume most death row inmates, if released, would murder again.
I have contemplated this subject for years and I can think of no possible argument to support the death penalty except retribution. But the fact remains the death penalty only costs society more (financially and homicidally) and in all aspects is simply ineffective. Sentence death row candidates to life in prison without the possibility of parole and forget about them.
