|
You never hear of prison terms being called racist
because there are mandatory sentences for many crimes. If the death penalty were
the same way, race would not be an issue and the courts would be forced to
concentrate only on the crime committed. For capital punishment to be applied
equally to every criminal, rich or poor, black or white, it must be mandatory
for all capital cases. There are claims that it is more expensive for the state
to execute a criminal than to incarcerate him for life. Many opponents
presented, as facts, claim that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive
(at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole at a
cost of $1 million for 50 years. But JFA (Justice for All) also estimated that
life without parole cases would cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than
equivalent death penalty cases. Life without parole prisoner's face, on average,
30 or 40 years in prison while the annual cost of incarceration is $40,000 to
$50,000 a year for each prisoner or more.
There is no question that the up front
cost of the death penalty is significantly higher than that of the life without
parole cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, the
equivalent life without parole cases are much more expensive - from $1.2 to $3.6
million - than death penalty cases. Opponents claim that the death penalty costs
3 - 10 times more than life without parole. TIME Magazine (2/7/94) found that
nationwide the average cell costs is $24,000 a year and the maximum-security
cell cost is $75,000 a year. Therefore, any cost calculations should be based
specifically of cell cost for criminals who have committed the exact same
category of offense - in other words, cost comparisons are valid only if you
compare the cost of death penalty cases to the equivalent life without parole
cases. But the cost for justice does not have to be so high for the execution of
murderers.
If we only allowed appeals that are relevant in proving one's
innocence and eliminated the many more that are used merely as delaying tactics,
it would save millions in taxpayers dollars. Abolitionists claim that the death
penalty is unconstitutional by quoting the eighth amendment, which forbids cruel
and unusual punishment. But cruel and unusual was never defined by our founding
fathers. So where does the Supreme Court stand on the cruel and unusual claim of
the abolitionists? In several cases the Justices of the Supreme Court have held
that the death penalty is not cruel and/or unusual, and is in fact, a
Constitutionally acceptable remedy for a criminal act. The Supreme Court has
constantly held that the death penalty in itself, as a sentence for a crime, is
neither cruel nor unusual. The court said: The punishment of death is not cruel,
within the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution. It implies there is
something more inhuman and barbarous, than the mere extinguishment of life.
There are those who insist that the Constitution does not support the death
penalty. This is simply not true. The fifth amendment states: No person shall be
held for a answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land
or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or
public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall property be taken for public use, without
just compensation. Note: ...a capital, or otherwise infamous crime... ...be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb... ...nor be deprived of life...without
due process of law... So the constitution does allow capital punishment through
indirect reference.
I would imagine that the Founding Fathers could not have
conceived of a world or nation without capital punishment. Indeed, in those
days, there was absolutely no question of the value of public safety and
personal responsibility. Had they foreseen the rise in violent crime we have had
in the 70s, 80s, and into the 90s, they might have declared the death penalty in
the Preamble. As for the penal system accidentally executing an innocent person,
I must point out that in this imperfect world, citizens are required to take
certain risks in exchange for relative safety. After all, convicted murderers
have taken far more innocent lives than the supposedly 23 innocent lives
mistakenly executed in this century. For instance, over 600 repeat offenses
occur within prison walls each year in this country. Not only that, but over
13,000 Americans citizens are murdered each year by released and paroled
criminals. These are the serious flaws in life sentences that abolitionists
prefer to trivialize to nonexistence. One United States Senate report stated
this position this way:
All that can be expected of...[human authorities] is
that they take every reasonable precaution against the danger of error...If
errors are...made, this is the necessary price that must be paid within a
society which is made up of human beings. Also, the death penalty isn't the only
institution that requires that we accept risks in exchange for social benefits.
We, in fact, mindlessly use far more dangerous institutions that take the lives
of innocents by the hundreds every day, cars 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 we can't accept the few risks of
wrongful executions for the sake of defending public safety? To enjoy the
privilege of using cars, airplanes, or any other device that improve the quality
of our lives, we accept the risks and deaths that are caused by them in order to
reap their full benefits.
|
