An Ineffective Mechanism

Since the dawn of history, civilizations have implemented the use of execution as a means to punish the worst offenders of the laws and moral codes in society; in addition to serve as a general deterrent for would be villains from wrongdoing. Many nations have come and gone, and while the world has evolved culturally and technologically; the age old problem of crime and retribution has remained largely unchanged. In essence, modern society has not awakened to the reality that sentencing people to death for serious offenses against the law is a futile mechanism; not only in its use as a general deterrent, but also in its intended benefit to consummate justice, for which the laws of this nation is promised to uphold, and affirm the dignity of life.

From a moral standpoint, the death penalty is an inhumane form of punishment. Additionally, years of statistical evidence shows that the death penalty is being applied arbitrarily and inconsistently, thereby challenging its fairness and legality. Moreover, life imprisonment without parole has been shown to be more effective, both in an economic standpoint and as just retribution for a punishment than the death penalty. Thus, legally, factually, and morally, capital punishment has proven to be a dysfunctional form of justice. With the ever evolving standards in human decency, capital punishment is fundamentally inappropriate for modern day society. Instead, the focus for the people on the issue of heinous crimes of killing must be redirected toward the root causes of the crisis: psychological instability, drug abuse, and destitution. A viable rehabilitation structure which responds to the primary causes of criminal transgressions will ultimately be the remedy to replace capital punishment.

In modern times, executions have been legitimized for its implication of closure. But this is misleading. Gary Wills, of the New York Review, expresses in his critical essay that “[s]eeing the murderer die … [does not] help the families ‘close a chapter of their lives’” (Wills 634). In fact, each reminder of the crime during court hearings, including the results of the trial, causes additional pain to family members. Author of the internationally renowned book Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the United States, Sister Helen Prejean, observed that for surviving loved ones, “the trial and its aftermath … are less like healing than like tearing scabs open again and again” (Wills 634). Instead of receiving closure or solace after the execution of a murderer, many “families [are] torn apart over the death penalty” (Wills 634) process. More often than not, the process of execution amplifies the grief and suffering family members experience and hence, in no way achieves the purpose of finality it is often advertised to bring.

As a prominent figure challenging the moral aspect of capital punishment, Sister Helen Prejean argues that “[a]llowing our government to kill citizens compromises the deepest moral values upon which this country was conceived: the inviolable dignity of human persons” (Prejean 652). As this country and its people matured over the past centuries, the standards of civility and human decency have evolved. Contemporary society no longer considers capital punishment as a suitable sentence for its criminals. An alternative, life imprisonment without parole, is a viable and just retribution which does not compromise “the deepest moral values upon which this country was conceived: the inviolable dignity of human persons” (Prejean 652). As one of the leading democracies on Earth, the citizens of this great nation can set a noble example for other countries in this world by finally recognizing that “an eye for an eye … [will make] the whole world blind” (Prejean 652).

In the lawful sense, the death penalty is an excessively severe and degrading form of punishment, thus in direct contradiction with the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. As such, the death penalty is an unjust punishment which dehumanizes and degrades the human dignity of the executed. In the landmark case between Furman versus Georgia in 1972, the Supreme Court of the United States concluded “that the imposition of the death penalty … constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution [because of] the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed” (“Oyez”). Systemically, the mechanism of capital punishment has been fraught with failure, inconsistent in its application and dysfunctional in its purpose.

Nevertheless, there continues to be proponents to the application of the death penalty as a justified punishment for the worst of the worst villains in society. Edward I. Koch, former mayor of New York, believes that “[i]t is exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life” (Koch 604). Koch suggests that the quintessential, an eye for an eye philosophy, is the way to affirm the value of life. Further, Koch continues by asserting that if society “shrink[s] back from justly punishing the murderer, the victim dies twice” (Koch 605). Although the victim is deceased, Koch believes that it is the responsibility of society to exact just retribution on the criminal who took the victim’s life.

David Bruck, Harvard graduate and former South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense lawyer, challenges Koch’s views by disputing the logic used in Koch’s own essay. Bruck queries Koch’s eye for an eye philosophy by arguing that “we also trivialize rape unless we sodomize rapists” (Bruck 610). This insight demonstrates the senselessness in which specific deterrence or “symbolic retribution” (Bruck 609), can be justified on a literal level. Moreover, Bruck shows that although Koch’s “‘moral’ defense of death as a punishment … [as] doing justice in response to the worst of crimes” (Bruck 607) is an admirable ideal; the reality reveals that capital punishment induces the worst type of responses from society. In anticipation of the execution for Joseph Carl Shaw, murderer of two teenagers in South Carolina, “one demonstrator [in front of the prison] started yelling, ‘Where’s the beef’” (Bruck 607)? Not only does this action debase the institution of just retribution through execution, but it also exposes the circus mentality of the public, confirming the ineffectiveness of capital punishment to achieve an affirmation on the dignity of life.

Potter Stewart, a former Supreme Court Justice (“Potter”), expressed in the case of Gregg versus Georgia in 1976 “that the penalty of death not [to] be imposed in an arbitrary or capricious manner can be met by a carefully drafted statute that ensures that the sentencing authority is given adequate information and guidance” (Stewart 642). Stewart believes that with well-drafted laws and meticulous enforcement, the use of capital punishment as a suitable sentencing is an effective and reliable means to punish those who have committed the worst offenses in society. In addition, Stewart stipulates that the “sentence of death for the crime of murder is [not in] per se violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution” (Stewart 639). In fact, Stewart considers capital punishment in-line with the “due process of law” (Stewart 639) and believes there is a “social utility” (Stewart 641) and justified rationale to use death as the decisive punishment for heinous murders and other atrocious crimes.

On the other hand, George Ryan, ex-Governor of Illinois, exposes that the death penalty is constantly being unfairly and inconsistently applied to felons depending on the geographic locale in which their trials are set. Ryan testifies that a person is “five times more likely to get a death sentence for first-degree murder in the rural area of Illinois than [the larger cities]” (Ryan 614). This is a clear and obvious contradiction to the Fourteenth Amendment which safeguards due process and equal protection under the law. Moreover, the incompetence of appellate judges, “terrible cases of shabby defense lawyers” (Ryan 618), and “the confusing and obscure sentencing instructions” (Ryan 620) for juries, guarantees the “freakish and arbitrar[iness]” (Ryan 619) of death penalty verdicts. This unpredictability in the practice of the law effectively demonstrates the complete breakdown in the system of capital punishment.

Advocates for capital punishment feel that there is no retribution for “certain crimes [that] are … so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death” (Stewart 641). Such supporters believe that no other alternative exists in which the punishment can fit the crime committed. In addition, promoters of capital punishment maintain that “[a]lthough some of the studies suggest that the death penalty may not function as a significantly greater deterrent than lesser penalties, there is no convincing empirical evidence either supporting or refuting this view” (Stewart 641). These individuals contend that there is no conclusive proof or factual evidence which exist that can alter their viewpoint on the validity of the death penalty.

However, there is evidence which confirms and reinforces the model that life imprisonment without parole serves a better punishment than death. In a recent Californian study on the cost of a death row inmates versus “those sentences to life without possibility of parole” (“California”), the death penalty inmate system currently costs $137 million per year whereas a system which uses only “lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year” (“California”), a twelve-fold cost difference. Likewise, new techniques to acquire evidence “based on DNA and new scientific technology” (Ryan 622) has led to a “number of recent exonerations” (Ryan 622). This provides factual proof that just retribution making use of the death penalty has certainly caused injustice in the form of innocent men and women being executed. Today, “The Innocence Project is a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice” (Innocence). With an abundant of factual support, capital punishment pundits must eventually let go of the inept and inefficient death penalty system.

Therefore, morally, factually, and legally, the capital punishment system has failed to accomplish what it was intended to achieve. In all three standpoints, the practice has proven to be a grand catastrophe. Nowhere in our present-day democratic and developed society is death a valid method of punishing public criminals. As an alternative, the concentration of the government’s and communities’ energies must be readdressed to the source of the crimes. A practical treatment hub which responds to and counteracts the primary causes of the delinquent and wrongful behavior is fundamentally the solution to supplant the death penalty system.