In America, the death penalty is often seen as a viable way to seek justice in cases where a person has killed another human being. From a certain standpoint, it is easy to see why one believes in the death penalty, as many people view it as the only recourse they have against a perpetrator who has heinously taken the life of a loved one. On the opposite end of the spectrum, however, are those who would seek to abolish the death penalty because they believe it to be economically costly, on top of the fact that many people have sat on death row for years, only to be proven innocent years later. For the integrity of society in general, we must consider if changes to the death penalty should be made.
Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977 1,136 prisoners have been put to death as of December 2008. While people clearly choose to enact the death penalty, some important questions are raised by others who oppose this particular approach to justice. The biggest concern is that technological advancements such as testing for DNA have proven many people to be innocent. Since 1973, 133 people – who were condemned to death – in 26 states, have been proven innocent. For those who know the statistics, this naturally begs the question of how many innocent people have possibly died as a direct result of the death penalty. How many more might die before one’s case is reexamined, if it ever even is reexamined? Killing innocent people is not acceptable (which is why murderers are convicted to death in the first place, keep in mind), thus many wish to abolish the death penalty.
When considering abolishing the death penalty, however, the families and loved ones of murder victims must not be forgotten. Often times, someone convicted of murder will spend an average of 8.5 years in jail before being put on parole and released to society once again. Many people – such as the family of a victim – do not, understandably, see this as justice or a proper punishment against whoever has committed murder. To prevent a killer from walking free families may seek the death penalty simply because they feel that otherwise, our justice system may completely fail them. 8.5 years in prison is no kind of punishment when compared to the fact that the victim has not life left at all. It is for that reason that those against the death penalty can not simply abolish it.To do so would be highly unfair for the families of victims, not to mention possibly dangerous for society overall. If murderers are not kept in prison, what use was sending them in the first place? However, any decent person (even the family of a victim) should not tolerate the fact that innocent people are being murdered on death row in the name of “justice”. To tolerate innocent people being killed in prison makes no sense, because that is exactly what the victim was – innocent. Clearly, the issue is a big one. But knowing the facts from the side of proponents and opponents both, helps to clarify what things can be done to improve the integrity of the entire system.
Currently, our justice system appears to be entirely too unbalanced. No matter what side of the fence you’re on, there is something wrong with how things are handled. Perhaps those in our justice system should stop being quite so lenient when sentencing those convicted of cold-blooded murder. I propose a “first strike, you’re out” law when dealing with these specific criminals. Do not condemn them to death, but do not allow these adults parole, for the simple reason that the life of the victim can never be gained back, so the murderer should not be allowed a chance to gain their life back. When considering minors who are responsible for murder, I believe that some kind of reformatory school should be considered, however, before condemning them to life in prison.
Another alternative to the death penalty may be considered, simply because of the economic burden placed on society every time a murderer is sentenced to death. For a federal death case, the average cost is approximately $620,932, which is eight times the amount of a federal murder case where the death penalty is not sought. Now take into consideration how many people are currently on death row, how many were already put to death and the fact that every single one of those people had federal death cases, required by law. The amount of money spent becomes absolutely astounding.
Ultimately, I propose a sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for adults convicted of murder. Substantial proof must be given for one to receive a life-sentence, such as DNA testing or something similar, to avoid incarcerating innocent people. The money saved by abolishing the death penalty could be spent on reformatory schools for troubled youth to ensure they do not end up in the same position as the convicted adults.
In addition, I propose that some of the more cooperative and guilt-ridden convicts share their stories with the youth at these reformatories to better scare the youth “straight”, as stories coming from “lifers” would have much more of an impact on youth than would stories coming from a state worker who has no direct experience with the matter. It may even be proposed that convicts be paid a typical hourly wage while sharing their stories in the reformatories – or simply from being put to work inside of prisons – whose “paychecks” are then sent to the immediate families of their victims.
Abolishing the death penalty would have many positive outcomes. It would help the economy overall, it would serve to better educate children and help those who already show warning signs. Not only would murderers be kept off of the streets for good, the money they earn would also directly contribute to the general society and economy. The outcomes would, I believe, satisfy both current proponents and opponents of the death penalty.
