ARGUMENTS FAVORING THE DEATH PENALTY

It acts as a deterrent. The death penalty deters crime no matter what the findings of social science studies appear to reveal. The findings are inconclusive and contradicted by common sense and the observations of many people in the criminal justice system whose daily lives place them close enough to the problem to enable them to observe the effects of the penalty.

It is supported by public opinion. A majority of the American public supports the death penalty. This position is also reflected by a majority in Congress and the state legislatures. Thus, the penalty does not violate contemporary standards of decency, fair play, and respect for human beings.

It serves as retribution. It is not unworthy to exact retribution from persons guilty of horrible crimes.

It considers victims' rights and feelings. The family and friends of murder victims are victims themselves. They often call for and deserve to have the death penalty imposed on those who have wronged them and their loved ones.

The cost can be reduced. It is true that, given the numerous appeals allowed under the right to habeas corpus, the death penalty at present can result in a higher cost to the public than life imprisonment. However, by limiting the number of habeas corpus appeals a prisoner can make, the cost can be significantly reduced. The Supreme Court has already started to reduce the number of habeas corpus appeals.

Dangerous criminals are set free. The system presently operates in such a way that murderers serving long or life sentences can sometimes be paroled if they meet certain standards. This parole system makes mistakes. All too often dangerous persons are set free. Sometimes they seek revenge on those responsible for their conviction. People should not have to live in fear of a murderer's release. Also, the general public usually is endangered by the presence of murderers.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY

It doesn't deter crime. The main argument for the death penalty is that it deters crime. Neither social science studies nor opinions of the Supreme Court support this claim. Although social science studies may have shortcomings, the evidence they reveal is the only rational basis available for developing an informed position on this issue. All other bases for claiming that evidence supports deterrence are personal and not objective.

Areasonablepersonwouldbedeterredfromcrimebythethreatofimprisonmentorlossoflife. However, killing another person is not a reasonable act. Usually, murder is committed in a heightened emotional state when a person's reason is impaired or it is planned logically in a way to escape detection. In the first instance, punishment is not considered by the murderer. In the second instance, the murderer expects to escape punishment. In neither instance would the threat of death act as a deterrent.

Statistics show that states with death penalties do not have lower murder rates than states that do. In a 1986 study by the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, it was found that of the ten states with the highest murder rates, eight had the death penalty. In the ten states with the lowest murder rates, seven did not have the death penalty.

The death penalty violates equal protection of the laws. The way the death penalty is applied results in unfair discrimination against black people. It is used far more often when the killer is black and the victim is white. It is applied inconsistently to blacks and whites, and it is used far more often against poor people than rich people.

Innocent people have been executed. Although the numbers are not large, innocent people have been executed. In 1986 a study showed that of 16,505 persons arrested for murder, 139 were sentenced to death and later found innocent. Of this number, 23 were actually executed. A humane society cannot tolerate the execution of innocent people. Such accidents can be avoided by prohibiting the death penalty and providing for life imprisonment.

The cost of administering the death penalty is higher than keeping people in prison for life. A study conducted in Florida revealed that the cost of executing a prisoner, including the cost of trial and appeals, was

Unit 5: Electives - Continuing Education for Leaders 1

Chapter 5: Citizenship and Government Lesson 32: Protecting Rights Within the Judicial System

$3.2 million. The cost of keeping that same prisoner in prison for life would have been $516,000. Obviously, it would cost taxpayers less to prohibit the death penalty.

Other civilized nations have abolished the death penalty. The United States is one of the few industrialized democracies in the world that still retains the death penalty. The fact that other nations have abolished the penalty sets a standard that the United States should follow.

Contemporary moral standards should prevent the death penalty. The United States has advanced to the point where the imposition of the death penalty violates standards of morality and justice that should be upheld. It is a barbarous act more characteristic of less developed and repressive societies and should not be used by a civilized nation.

2

Unit 5: Electives - Continuing Education for Leaders

1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

6.

EVALUATING THE ARGUMENTS

What appear to be the strengths and weaknesses of each of the arguments presented by each side? What are the moral positions taken by each side? What values and interests are involved in each position?

Should the question of the death penalty be handled by the courts as a constitutional issue or by the state legislatures or Congress? Explain your position.

What position would you take on the constitutionality of the death penalty? Explain your position.

What position would you take on the desirability of the death penalty, regardless of its constitutionality? Upon what interests and values is your position based?

What steps could you take to influence decisions about the death penalty?