Death Penalty

I am not a supporter of the death penalty and never have been. But I would admit that if one of my loved ones was brutally murdered, I'm sure that I would initially love to send whoever ever committed this heinous crime to whatever eternal resting place our Creator has for him - the worse the better. I can only imagine the feelings people have when they have lost someone they love to that kind of violent brutality. That being said, in our country and in our legal system we don't allow our emotions to rule the day. In the regards to the death penalty, it truly needs to be looked at in a more objective sense.

I am going to make the case that, while I object to the death penalty on moral grounds, I don't feel that this is probably the best way to argue for getting rid of it. What we should focus on is the impractical and inefficient manner that executions are administered in this country. If you allow common sense and good judgment to prevail, I think most individuals would realize that keeping the death penalty alive (pardon the pun) is not in the best interests of our society. Here are some reason why:

HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO SPAY A CAT

1. Cost to the taxpayer

* A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost .26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost 0,000). (December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)
* In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment. (2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)
* In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or million for a single case. (Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, March 2008)
* In California the current system costs 7 million per year; it would cost .5 million for a system without the death penalty. (California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice, July 2008)

People are also under the misconception that most of these costs are post-trial expenses - costs associated with legal proceedings after someone has been convicted and sentenced to death. In reality, the majority of the excess expenditures occur before and during the trial. Even if you could eliminate all the post trial costs, seeking the death penalty would still be considerably more expensive than other alternative sentences. Given the fact that federal, state, and local budgets are already a financial nightmare, this is one area where states could cut a considerable amount of expense out of their budgets.

2. Death penalty does not deter the crime

This one is quite simple. There is no statistical evidence, anywhere that I am aware of, that shows that the death penalty deters crime. Most of what I have seen shows there is no correlation whatsoever. In fact, some states that are executing people have higher rates of murder than states that don't. In all honesty, I think there are other factors that explain this phenomenon, but the point is, the institution of the death penalty has no effect on the rates of homicide.

3. The death penalty is arbitrarily applied

According to Amnesty International:

* Ninety-five percent of death row inmates cannot afford their own attorney. Court-appointed attorneys often lack the experience necessary for capital trials and are overworked and underpaid. In the most extreme cases, some have slept through parts of trials or have arrived under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.
* Prosecutors seek the death penalty far more frequently when the victim of a homicide is white than when the victim is African-American or of another ethnic/racial origin.
* Co-defendants charged with committing the same crime often receive different punishments, where one defendant may receive a death sentence while another receives prison time.
* Approximately two percent of those convicted of crimes that make them eligible actually receive a death sentence.
* Each prosecutor decides whether or not to seek the death penalty. Local politics, the location of the crime, plea bargaining, and pure chance affect the process and make it a lottery of who lives and who dies.
* GEOGRAPHIC ARBITRARINESS: Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 80% of all executions have taken place in the South. The Northeast accounts for less than 2% of executions.

The moral and heart felt arguments both for and against the death penalty will always be there. I don't think that there is much that will change the minds of people who have strong feelings one way or the other. I think the better argument for ending the lies, more simply, in the data driven analysis that accurately shows that it isn't effective. It doesn't stop murders, it's horribly expensive, and it is not fairly administered. It is time that we start pouring this huge amount of wasted time, energy, and money into other areas of law enforcement, where the money would be of much better use and achieve some measurable results.

Death Penalty

Dean is a freelance writer who focuses on current issues. To read more of his work, please visit [http://www.onepost2thenext.com]

HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO SPAY A CAT