A website called Experience Project apparently has a feature called "Asker" that submits questions by members for community feedback. One question asks if members support or oppose capital punishment - the death penalty. I condensed my answer as compactly as I could for the forum that I presume prefers short, snappy responses. But this question, a very good one, is so complex both in moral and fiscal, i.e., monetary, considerations that it warrants an expanded discussion - hopefully intelligent.
Among the reader responses to the question was one that suggested the United States implement the practice of execution in China: shoot the offender in the head and bill the dead convict's family for the cost of the bullet (which, indeed, is how the Chinese do it). Out of respect of people who have opinions with which I don't agree, I seldom comment but felt driven to ask the question, in that suggestion, if the United States really wants to be identified among countries that are notorious for human rights abuses (as determined by the United Nations, not individual or public opinion). That said, if we in the United States accept that one of the criminal justice system's ideologies in punishing criminals is to deter crime, in the case of murder, absolutely no empirical data from properly ascribed research methods exists to support the argument that the death penalty deters murder. Reasons cited are that executing a convicted killer in the United States can take up to 20 years and more, and someone who kills probably is not thinking about consequences to him two decades down the road.
More compelling in arguments to at least rethink capital punishment if not to ban it entirely - which the U.S. Supreme Court did in a four-year moratorium ('1972-'76) - is current evidence that suggests the state of Texas, in very recent history, "probably" executed two convicted murderers who may have been factually innocent. This evokes the moral issue if we as a society can condone the execution of innocent people for the sake to "getting them all."
Thirdly, insulting or as offensive as it may be, there are cost considerations. It costs money to house, feed, treat and maintain convicted criminals; federal and state constitutions require it. And the cost of maintaining prison inmates is borne by states, not the federal government. In death penalty cases, the sentence is automatically reviewed by state supreme courts and they, historically, rubber stamp the trial court's sentence; seldom, if ever, has a death sentence, on first review, been remanded back to a trial court for retrial or re-sentencing. Beyond state supreme courts, death penalty appeals then go to courts of higher jurisdiction such as federal appeals courts. But, after the initial appeal to a state's highest court, it costs money for the inmate's appeal to proceed. And the cost, once again, is carried by the state, not the federal government. Additionally, unlike criminal trials where the prosecution is required to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt," the exact opposite is applied in the appellate process: federal and state laws require appellate courts to review cases "in a light most favorable to the (prosecution)," probably because the prosecution has already met its burden - at the state level where conviction was procured.
The final cost of an appeal of a death sentence depends on the individual state although a fairly recent study found the national average to be between $2 million and $3 million dollars (if the appeal goes through the entire process allowed by law). That cost does not include the national average of $50,000 to each state each year simply to house and feed prison inmates. But in the country's largest state, California - which, also, with 725 inmates currently on Death Row - a $15.5 billion budget deficit exists this year alone. The fiscal crisis is linked partly to the cost of housing the state's prison population and paying for appeals by some of its 725 condemned inmates.The fiscal dilemma also may have inspired state legislators to "cave in" and reinforce a long-standing quip about politics in the Golden State: if an issue is unpopular, put it on the ballot and let voters decide. There, in California, in its general election in November, voters will see a referendum asking if state lawmakers should or should not ban capital punishment in the state. California, incidentally, although having the country's highest Death Row population, hasn't carried out an execution since 2006.
Among the reader responses to the question was one that suggested the United States implement the practice of execution in China: shoot the offender in the head and bill the dead convict's family for the cost of the bullet (which, indeed, is how the Chinese do it). Out of respect of people who have opinions with which I don't agree, I seldom comment but felt driven to ask the question, in that suggestion, if the United States really wants to be identified among countries that are notorious for human rights abuses (as determined by the United Nations, not individual or public opinion). That said, if we in the United States accept that one of the criminal justice system's ideologies in punishing criminals is to deter crime, in the case of murder, absolutely no empirical data from properly ascribed research methods exists to support the argument that the death penalty deters murder. Reasons cited are that executing a convicted killer in the United States can take up to 20 years and more, and someone who kills probably is not thinking about consequences to him two decades down the road.
More compelling in arguments to at least rethink capital punishment if not to ban it entirely - which the U.S. Supreme Court did in a four-year moratorium ('1972-'76) - is current evidence that suggests the state of Texas, in very recent history, "probably" executed two convicted murderers who may have been factually innocent. This evokes the moral issue if we as a society can condone the execution of innocent people for the sake to "getting them all."
Thirdly, insulting or as offensive as it may be, there are cost considerations. It costs money to house, feed, treat and maintain convicted criminals; federal and state constitutions require it. And the cost of maintaining prison inmates is borne by states, not the federal government. In death penalty cases, the sentence is automatically reviewed by state supreme courts and they, historically, rubber stamp the trial court's sentence; seldom, if ever, has a death sentence, on first review, been remanded back to a trial court for retrial or re-sentencing. Beyond state supreme courts, death penalty appeals then go to courts of higher jurisdiction such as federal appeals courts. But, after the initial appeal to a state's highest court, it costs money for the inmate's appeal to proceed. And the cost, once again, is carried by the state, not the federal government. Additionally, unlike criminal trials where the prosecution is required to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt," the exact opposite is applied in the appellate process: federal and state laws require appellate courts to review cases "in a light most favorable to the (prosecution)," probably because the prosecution has already met its burden - at the state level where conviction was procured.
The final cost of an appeal of a death sentence depends on the individual state although a fairly recent study found the national average to be between $2 million and $3 million dollars (if the appeal goes through the entire process allowed by law). That cost does not include the national average of $50,000 to each state each year simply to house and feed prison inmates. But in the country's largest state, California - which, also, with 725 inmates currently on Death Row - a $15.5 billion budget deficit exists this year alone. The fiscal crisis is linked partly to the cost of housing the state's prison population and paying for appeals by some of its 725 condemned inmates.The fiscal dilemma also may have inspired state legislators to "cave in" and reinforce a long-standing quip about politics in the Golden State: if an issue is unpopular, put it on the ballot and let voters decide. There, in California, in its general election in November, voters will see a referendum asking if state lawmakers should or should not ban capital punishment in the state. California, incidentally, although having the country's highest Death Row population, hasn't carried out an execution since 2006.
These are factual, perhaps cold, statistical facts, however, that do not speak to the raw emotions of issues such as justice for the victim of a convicted murderer or the victim's loved ones that are left behind. Those arguments - "an eye for an eye" or "justice" for the victim and their families - are less cold and based in opinion and never come up with a "winning" conclusion. But, in the end, for the victim and his or her loved ones, the death of the victim's killer will not undo the murder, and it is perhaps best left between a state prosecutor and the murder victim's family to agree on the sentence to be sought as long as the state has the option of the death penalty.
The question of support of capital punishment would be so much easier to argue and defend if all it entailed were issues of how long it takes to carry out the sentence and its cost. But human factors such as the death of the victim and the devastation to his or her loved ones cannot - should not - be ignored. In the end, any intelligent discussion and resolution to the question must consider the myriad of dynamics involved - and its resolution should be enacted in accordance with the voice of the common people.
The question of support of capital punishment would be so much easier to argue and defend if all it entailed were issues of how long it takes to carry out the sentence and its cost. But human factors such as the death of the victim and the devastation to his or her loved ones cannot - should not - be ignored. In the end, any intelligent discussion and resolution to the question must consider the myriad of dynamics involved - and its resolution should be enacted in accordance with the voice of the common people.
No comments:
Post a Comment