Death Penalty
dismantling the machinery of death: how america can-and will-abolish the death penalty
Nowadays, news headlines are constantly bringing to light stories of death row inmates dying under cruel and inhumane circumstances--inmates suffering for lengthy periods due to botched injections and procedures. Favor for the death penalty is falling as opponents to the fatal sentence advocate for its abolition. However, although it has suffered a significant drop in popularity, is it practical to believe that the death penalty will be abolished nationwide in a effectual and timely manner? New Hampshire failed to abolish the death penalty by one vote; one proponent believed that New Hampshire, a state that hasn't executed a prisoner since 1939, needed to uphold the practice. The outcome struck a personal chord with Michael Addison, an inmate on death row for killing a police officer, whose fate is now determined. Although the decision was a definitive blow to opponents of the death penalty, opponents believe that the setback in New Hampshire is just that--a bump in the road to a meaningful victory.
The fact that the United States, a highly-industrialized and wealthy country, still executes its prisoners may seem bizarre (in relation to all of its many progressive and unconventional aspects.) Capital punishment exists because politicians are highly cognizant to the requests of their constituents--the majority of whom favor the death penalty. Nonetheless, over the span of a nineteen-year period (1994-2013) the majority of proponents shrunk from 80% to 60%. Statistics and patterns show that younger Americans are less likely to support the death penalty than elderly Americans; non-white Americans, no longer the apparent minorities when it comes to voting, are unanimously opposed. Six states have abolished it since 2007, (New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, and Washington) , meaning 18 out of the 50 states prohibit the execution of their prisoners.
Needless to say, proponents of the death penalty are fighting to retain support for their cause by appealing to American's idea of justice and what is fair. Some people believe that death is the only suitable punishment for people who have committed crimes such as murder. In layman's terms, the death penalty "satisfies society's need for retribution." Some adopt a religious approach when viewing the death penalty, calling upon Exodus 21:24 for divine justification: "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot..." Overlooked are the biblical passages that cite the importance of not casting the first stone, many "conservative evangelicals' find themselves in a tricky predicament, in which they oppose ending the lives of unborn fetuses, yet support ending the lives of prisoners. In a secular democracy, lawmakers must search for a "compelling rational justification" to continue the death penalty. Eliminating religious reasons, advocates for the death penalty argue that it effectively "deters murderers, thereby saving lives."
This statement would be structurally sound, if not for the fact that the murder rate in the United States is far higher than it is in Europe...even though the European Union has no death penalty. Furthermore, the murder rate is greater in states that execute prisoners than in states that do not. The death penalty has its benefits--like setting an example for others who find themselves going down a dangerous path, or bringing peace of mind to a victim's family; however, lawmakers are now charged with the task of determining whether more deaths are the solution to the United State's growing murder dilemma.
To avoid an abuse of power, and justice, when sentencing a person to death, wards have been instituted within the legal and judicial systems. For example, cases regarding capital offenses are eligible for multiple appeals. Unintentionally, this strategy does more harm than good. Executing a murderer is in fact almost three times more expensive than giving him/her a life sentence. The money that is used for purchasing the "machinery of death" could be purposed for improving public safety--making sure that the focus in on the people currently committing crimes out in communities, instead of people already convicted of their wrongdoings.
Opponents of the death penalty are now adopting a new approach to garnering support for their cause--in an way, the approach is much more democratic. Instead of filing lawsuits that make it harder for states to obtain drugs needed for the lethal injections, opponents will not try to convince voters that capital punishment is "not just barbaric but also costly, ineffective, and prey to human error." If this new approach proves successful, abolitionists could soon see more voters change their moral and logical opinions of capital punishment, and more states follow the example of those states who have already rid their legal systems of the death penalty. In my opinion, I have always believed that combating murder with yet more death was not the answer. Of course, these inmates are not innocent and free of fault--they deserved to be punished for the crimes they committed against society. However, I believe that a life sentence with no possibility of parole or visitation--a seemingly endless, daily routine of living behind cold prison walls, with no freedom or contact with family or friends--is punishment enough.
The fact that the United States, a highly-industrialized and wealthy country, still executes its prisoners may seem bizarre (in relation to all of its many progressive and unconventional aspects.) Capital punishment exists because politicians are highly cognizant to the requests of their constituents--the majority of whom favor the death penalty. Nonetheless, over the span of a nineteen-year period (1994-2013) the majority of proponents shrunk from 80% to 60%. Statistics and patterns show that younger Americans are less likely to support the death penalty than elderly Americans; non-white Americans, no longer the apparent minorities when it comes to voting, are unanimously opposed. Six states have abolished it since 2007, (New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, and Washington) , meaning 18 out of the 50 states prohibit the execution of their prisoners.
Needless to say, proponents of the death penalty are fighting to retain support for their cause by appealing to American's idea of justice and what is fair. Some people believe that death is the only suitable punishment for people who have committed crimes such as murder. In layman's terms, the death penalty "satisfies society's need for retribution." Some adopt a religious approach when viewing the death penalty, calling upon Exodus 21:24 for divine justification: "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot..." Overlooked are the biblical passages that cite the importance of not casting the first stone, many "conservative evangelicals' find themselves in a tricky predicament, in which they oppose ending the lives of unborn fetuses, yet support ending the lives of prisoners. In a secular democracy, lawmakers must search for a "compelling rational justification" to continue the death penalty. Eliminating religious reasons, advocates for the death penalty argue that it effectively "deters murderers, thereby saving lives."
This statement would be structurally sound, if not for the fact that the murder rate in the United States is far higher than it is in Europe...even though the European Union has no death penalty. Furthermore, the murder rate is greater in states that execute prisoners than in states that do not. The death penalty has its benefits--like setting an example for others who find themselves going down a dangerous path, or bringing peace of mind to a victim's family; however, lawmakers are now charged with the task of determining whether more deaths are the solution to the United State's growing murder dilemma.
To avoid an abuse of power, and justice, when sentencing a person to death, wards have been instituted within the legal and judicial systems. For example, cases regarding capital offenses are eligible for multiple appeals. Unintentionally, this strategy does more harm than good. Executing a murderer is in fact almost three times more expensive than giving him/her a life sentence. The money that is used for purchasing the "machinery of death" could be purposed for improving public safety--making sure that the focus in on the people currently committing crimes out in communities, instead of people already convicted of their wrongdoings.
Opponents of the death penalty are now adopting a new approach to garnering support for their cause--in an way, the approach is much more democratic. Instead of filing lawsuits that make it harder for states to obtain drugs needed for the lethal injections, opponents will not try to convince voters that capital punishment is "not just barbaric but also costly, ineffective, and prey to human error." If this new approach proves successful, abolitionists could soon see more voters change their moral and logical opinions of capital punishment, and more states follow the example of those states who have already rid their legal systems of the death penalty. In my opinion, I have always believed that combating murder with yet more death was not the answer. Of course, these inmates are not innocent and free of fault--they deserved to be punished for the crimes they committed against society. However, I believe that a life sentence with no possibility of parole or visitation--a seemingly endless, daily routine of living behind cold prison walls, with no freedom or contact with family or friends--is punishment enough.