Note: I was looking through some old documents when I came across this one, originally written in Spring 2009 as a college writing assignment. I think I’m a better writer in 2022 than I was in 2009, but I still think that 2009 Zachary made some compelling points. What do you think?
It’s five in the morning. The sun has yet to rise on the state prison complex. In one room sits a convicted murderer, in the other a handful of vengeful witnesses, all anxious for the orders of the day. The doctor takes his place, inserting the IV and starting the drip. It isn’t long before the barbiturate knocks the convict unconscious. Yet he lays there, chest rising and falling with each breath, heart beating on the monitor, still very much alive. Then comes the pancuronium bromide, causing cessation of breath, and with that, the man now lies motionless With the aura of death around him, the doctor starts the potassium chloride, abruptly causing his heart to stop.1 The monitor sounds its long tone, signifying the end of life. The rooms are still.
“Time of death, 5:11 am,” the doctor proclaims, closing the door on this case for good.
This example accurately demonstrates how most executions take place in the United States today. Some states still use other methods, but they all have one thing in common: they involve the death of a human being. While at first glance the death penalty seems like an appropriate and effective punishment, further evaluation reveals that capital punishment, in fact, is neither appropriate nor effective, for a number of reasons. Despite the many arguments supporting capital punishment, none can justify the act of killing another human being.
The act of execution is a counterproductive and ineffective. There is nothing that proves that the possibility of death deters potential murderers. In fact, surveys have concluded that murder rates are actually lower in states without the death penalty.2() This brings up an interesting question; why does the threat of death not lower the number of murders committed? One reason not only explains this phenomenon but also touches on one of the fundamental problems with the death penalty—hypocrisy. In our society, and most others, killing another person, except in self defense, is simply not acceptable. People that do not abide by this are feared and duly punished. The problem arises in that in the process of punishing, the state commits the same crime that the executed person did. In effect, the state does not follow its own law, enforcing a double standard in which it is not held accountable for the lives it takes.
When the state disrespects its own laws, so does its people. Since the state claims it is okay to execute a murderer under certain circumstances, the potential murderer rationalizes that under his special circumstance it is okay to kill as well.
Aside from murder, no other crimes are punishable in a way that is similar to the crime committed. The state does not rob from a burglar, nor does it call for the rape of a rapist, nor the assaulter to be assaulted. Instead, the criminal justice system aims to not only punish the convicted, but to rehabilitate them so that they may be reintegrated into society. That is why they are officially titled “corrections facilities” instead of “prisons.” The death penalty negates this principle.
Without considering the ethics of the death penalty, the practical side of the debate is enough to change some people’s minds. New Mexico recently became one of the first states to repeal its death penalty laws since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976,3,4 and one critic says that costs could have tipped the scales this year. “The cost issue has always been there, but of course it’s been exacerbated this year, because of the fact that that state was, you know, down $453 million,” says the Executive Director of the New Mexico Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty. With the cash crunch pervading much of the country, many legislators are much more sensitive to considering the costs of lethal injection compared to life imprisonment. Seven other states are now reconsidering the death penalty, citing court costs and death row expenses as the straw that broke the camel’s back.5 One study done in Maryland shows that $186 million of taxpayer dollars were spent on death penalty cases, while predicting that the state could have saved $120 million by not pursuing the death penalty.5
Proponents of the death penalty say that these costs are justified, since the convicts are getting the punishment they deserve. They feel that if the debate is on the morality of the issue, then it is not relevant to bring money into the argument, with money being less important than morality in the scope of things. The fact is, however, that it is very relevant, because whether it is determined right or wrong, it still costs the taxpayers money, and any time there is a money issue alternative methods are available. Considering the death penalty as a deterrent, it is possible to say that it is effective; however, the pros and cons of other punishments must be considered as well.
Since capital punishment is found to cost almost three times as much as life imprisonment, in order for it to be justified through the purely practical sense, it needs to be close to three times as effective as a deterrent. There is little evidence to support the idea that the death penalty is an effective deterrent at all. One report states, “…some of the states that most avidly execute prisoners, such as Texas and Oklahoma, have higher crime rates than states that offer only life in prison without parole.”5 The report goes on to describe the death penalty as “an expensive program with few benefits.” This is, in fact, the case. When combined with other flaws in the system, the advantages of capital punishment just can’t overcome the disadvantages.
One of the most commonly cited ideas by those in favor of the death penalty is the eye for an eye principle. Dating back to biblical times, the eye for an eye policy of punishment has been referred to throughout the ages, pervading much of the laws of ancient civilization. It gains credence from mention in the bible as well as its surface justifiability. In essence, the eye for an eye principle states that the punishment should equal the crime, and this same line of thinking is what death penalty supporters say is the justification of killing a murderer.2(127)
Assuming it is accepted that the punishment should equal the crime, that argument clearly supports the death penalty. However, the eye for an eye principle is shaky at best, with little justification under closer scrutiny. The phrase itself originated in the Old Testament in the bible, and was meant to limit the extent of retaliation. However, the New Testament specifically warns against abuse of this principle in Matthew 6:38, when it says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” In other words, the bible specifically states that the eye for an eye principle is not an irrefutable idea that should be adhered to every time.
Most people would agree that a murderer who kills a whole family should not have his whole family executed as a punishment. Likewise, it is not an absolute relationship that because someone kills another person, that they too should be murdered. If the eye for an eye principle is found to be flawed, something so serious as the death penalty cannot be justified by it.
The death penalty is undoubtedly considered a punishment, but when considering the logic behind that, it becomes clear that there is no logic. The purpose of punishment is simple; to reprimand and to teach. All punishments accomplish the first goal with ease, as they always impose something unpleasant upon an individual. However, the second goal often gets ignored, leaving a very important aspect of our justice system defunct, thus causing the high rates of recidivism seen in our society.6
So, in order for a punishment to be just and effective, it must serve both as a reprimand, and as a strong teaching mechanism. This is precisely why the prison system is called the “department of corrections”—one of the main functions is to correct societal deviancies, so that they may become functional members of society. However, misguided programs like capital punishment completely contradict this function of the justice system. Suppose there was a murderer who sat on death row for ten years. In his time there the system worked, and he was a changed man without violent thoughts or tendencies—or at least the ability to control said urges. This man was ready to become a normal, law abiding, productive citizen once again. And then, potassium chloride stops his heart. What’s wrong with this picture?
The state spent all that money and time rehabilitating the criminal, only to put him to death. All of those resources, not to mention a newly revitalized human life, were wasted. One time the system succeeds, yet no one benefits. That’s the biggest problem with the death penalty—no one benefits. Killing a killer does not bring back the dead, it only adds to them. Death can only have negative effects on society, and the death penalty is based on death. There is no way that society can benefit from the death penalty.
Sometimes a person must fight the carnal urges of revenge and retaliation, and realize that stepping on someone’s foot just because they stepped on yours isn’t going to make your foot stop hurting. The death penalty is a costly, inefficient, ineffective, and unjust method of punishment, and with the potential drop in crime rates considered, the United States would be wise to follow suit of New Mexico and stop killing people.
