It is my goal to foster intellectual discussion and careful analysis of the value that we as a society place on human life, in an effort to show the detriments of utilizing execution as a method of punishment. This essay is my vehicle, and hopefully within its content you will find cause to reevaluate your position on the issue of capital punishment. After carefully studying the use of the death penalty, I have found that the system as it exists is biased and ineffective. Being such, I believe that until there can be total assurance of equity and effectiveness in the application of capital punishment, it would be in the best interest of society to abandon the use of it all together.
First of all, allow me to clarify my position on why I feel the current system is inequitable. While researching the statistics on the social-economic backgrounds of those who have been executed in the United States, a grave injustice became painfully obvious to me: the poor are far more likely to receive the death sentence than are those of better means. Hugo Adam Bedau, Austin Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University and noted author, points to the importance of competent council in his essay "The Case Against The Death Penalty." Although competent council is needed more than anything else in order to maintain fairness in capital cases, nearly 90 percent of the men and women on death row could not afford to hire a lawyer for their trial (Bedau 9). Bedau states that the "Common characteristics of death row defendants are poverty … and inadequate legal representation at trial or on appeal." He reaffirms the magnitude of the economic bias by quoting Justice William O. Douglas’ comment in Furman v. Georgia that "One searches our chronicles in vain for the execution of any member of the affluent strata in this society" (Bedau 9).
These same observations of inequity motivated Michael E. Endres, criminal justice professor at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio, to pen the essay "The Death Penalty Discriminates Against the Poor." While noting that racial and socioeconomic divisions are nowhere more evident than in the criminal justice system, Endres points out that the typical defendant is male, lower class, young, less educated than the general population, and black. These young men, who often have drug and/or alcohol problems, are almost always represented by a public defender. Of these financially poor people, Endres reiterates that "Death row inmates are among the poorest" (Endres 153). A cartoon reprinted with permission from The California Prisoner that was included with Endres’ essay adds emphasis to his words. The caption reads: "capital punishment means them without the capital get the punishment" (Endres 154).
The greatest concern here is that if we knowingly continue to practice a form of punishment proven to be discriminatory toward the lower class, we leave open the door to further abuses of these people. In a country where we maintain that all men were created equal, such biased practices not only set a hypocritical example but also send the mixed message to our young that although we are all equal, some are more equal than others. If we ever want to truly eradicate prejudice from our national vocabulary, we must lead by example. We must demonstrate to our children through example and practice in all facets of life that we truly hold all men to be created equal and deserving of equal treatment.
While the injustice of discriminatory practices in the administration of capital punishment should be enough to merit abolition by a just society, this is not the only problem one will find with the death sentence. Among its many other deficiencies, the one that stands out the most, in my opinion, is the death penalty’s ineffectiveness as a deterrent of criminal homicide.
Although the deterrent factor is the reason most often cited for retention of the death penalty, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever to support this claim. When researching the relationship between capital punishment and homicide rates in 1988, a survey of research findings conducted for the United Nations found that "[r]esearch has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment." That same study went on to state that "Such proof is unlikely to be forthcoming" (Death Penalty Facts & Figures 2).
It was this lack of evidence that former California governor Edmund (Pat) Brown was referring to when he addressed the state legislature on March 2, 1960. In an effort to convince the legislature to adopt a moratorium on the death penalty, Governor Brown acknowledged society’s right to protect itself and acquiesced that if "ordered death" accomplished that right, then even capital punishment was justified. "But" he went on, "the naked, simple fact is that the death penalty has been a gross failure. [I]t has neither protected the innocent nor deterred the wicked" (Brown 43).
When faced with the lack of scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of capital punishment as a deterrent, many people will be quick to argue that the death penalty deters the executed from killing again. However, while this is certainly true, is it also true that given the chance these criminals would have killed again? During the 37-year period from 1945 to 1982, of the 2,527 convicted murderers that were paroled in California during that time only 1.08% of them were convicted of killing again (Brown 156). Each time the state executes a person it runs the risk of killing someone who is innocent. When an innocent person is killed intentionally, that person has been murdered. To those people who maintain the deterrent value of the death penalty, I ask this: Is it worth taking the chance of murdering an innocent victim in order to maintain a standard that is effective only 1.08% of the time?
In an effort not to burden you with volumes of statistics, I have taken an intuitive rather than a statistical approach to show why I feel the death penalty should be abolished. If I have not changed your mind on how you should approach the issue of capital punishment, then I hope that I have at least given you some points for debate. In the words of Joseph Joubert (1754-1824): "It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." When weighing decisions pertinent to the death penalty in the future, please bear in mind the injustice of discriminatory sentencing and the inefficacy of capital punishment as a uniquely effective deterrent.
Works Cited
Bedau, Hugo Adam. "The Case Against The Death Penalty." case_against_death.html> (2 February 1998). Brown, Edmund (Pat). Public Justice, Private Mercy: A Governor’s Education On Death Row. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1989. "Death Penalty Facts & Figures." <http://chem.leeds.ac.uk/Amnesty/deathp.html> (8 February 1998). Endres, Michael E. "The Death Penalty Discriminates Against the Poor." The Death Penalty: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. David L. Bender. Greenhaven: Greenhaven Press, 1991. 152-155
