With the recent executions of Brandon Bernard and Alfred Bourgeois, the death penalty has come under reinvigorated examination. Due in part to Donald Trump’s revitalization of federal executions, a variety of questions surrounding the death penalty’s effectiveness, application, and morality have been raised across the media for weeks. Just how effective is the death penalty at accomplishing its goals and should it be implemented or outlawed going forward?
The first aspect of the death penalty that makes it so controversial, is how conclusive an execution is. Should there be new evidence or testimony, it may be too late to change the outcome of the decision. It is pretty unanimously agreed upon that the crimes must be especially heinous and absolutely irrefutable in order for something to warrant the death penalty.
I too agree with this idea; the crimes where the death penalty could be given would have to be few and there must be certainty when it comes to the guilt of the person. With that prerequisite, the death penalty has a few other aspects to analyze to see the full picture.
One major argument for the death penalty is the seemingly apparent economic benefit it provides to the taxpayers. On a narrowed scale, that argument makes sense: if the person in question has clearly done a heinous crime, there is no legitimate reason to spend a significant amount of taxpayer money maintaining their presence in prison. However, giving the death penalty often results in a variety of court appeals and legal expenses that cost the state more than a life-without-parole sentence. The State of Kansas found that death penalty cases cost around 70% more than life without parole sentences, with the median cost being 1.26 million dollars.
These costs includes the process of finding apt jurors and often paying compensation (as capital punishment cases require more unbiased jurors and usually take longer to decide). There are also special confinement costs and other minor charges that end up making capital punishment cases much more expensive than many presume.
This is one of the major reasons that states like Wyoming are considering distancing themselves from the practice of capital punishment, especially with the economic concerns that coronavirus has brought. Now of course, there are scenarios in which the death penalty would be more cost efficient, so if the case is likely to economically benefit the state, capital punishment should be a legitimate option.
An argument that, rightfully, isn’t respected as much in this day and age is the concept that the death penalty is a sort of crime deterrent. However, there is no statistical evidence of that case, and if a person is committing an inhumane act that could earn life-without-parole, I doubt they are taking much concern with their lives. While I do agree with the theory that capital punishment would have some deterring effect, the evidence to support that is so minimal it’s statistically invisible, and shouldn’t be used to decide an opinion on the matter.
Something that is a benefit of the death penalty is the closure aspect to the family and friends of the victim(s). However minimal the chances, there will always be an existing perception of a possible escape from prison.
Although this could be seen as a pretty negligible advantage of capital punishment, it is an advantage, and one that can factor into the situation. One could say that this differs from case to case and therefore shouldn’t be included, but one should not legislate around something that has a potential benefit for some and no harm to others with its implementation.
Finally, coupled with the discussion surrounding capital punishment comes the very questioning of prison in the first place; that being, is it a place primarily goaled towards punishment or rehabilitation? To that I would say that prison is aimed towards either, depending on the individual crimes, but in the case of capital punishment, it is more suited towards punishment rather than rehabilitation. This is pretty evident given the fact that the alternative would be life-without-parole in a place where one can hardly make substantial societal contributions.
This is also morally evident in the fact that, in the case of Brandon Bernard, the two innocent preachers who he robbed and murdered cannot come back should he become “rehabilitated.” Their fate is definite and irreversible, so determining that his sentencing should be aimed towards rehabilitation rather than punishment would be to assume a very minimal value upon the lives of the victims.
In my opinion, the death penalty should be legal, but it should be used very sparsely. Only in the most conclusive and heinous cases should it be available and only in cases where it is unlikely to be met with legal appeals should it be implemented.
Once somebody has crossed the line of getting either life-without-parole or death, the decision should be made almost wholly based on the economics of the situation, with reasonable consideration of (but not determination by) the victim’s family.
