I feel passionately on the subject and I try to convey that through my writing. If I seem a bit hostile towards the opposition that is because I am. :)
Non-fiction / Falsely Accused: A Defense of the Death Penalty
Gary Leon Ridgway may not be a household name, but the infamous Green River Killer is one of the most accomplished serial murderers in U.S. history. In 2003, Ridgway confessed 48 accounts of aggravated first degree murder (more confirmed murders than any other American serial killer) during a two-and-a-half-year period in the early 1980s near Seattle, although it is believed he slaughtered even more. The majority of his victims were runaway teenage girls and hookers whom he picked up on the interstate and strangled to death. But Ridgway was spared the death penalty as part of a plea bargain three years ago, in exchange for his assistance in leading investigators to his victim’s remains and revealing other information to help “bring closure” to the grieving families (“Green River Killer Avoids Death in Plea Deal”).
Despite overwhelming national approval of it, deliberation over the death penalty in America has been dominated by the devious voices of the petite but vocal death penalty opposition, and aided heavily by the leftist groups like the NAACP, ACLU, and Amnesty International. Their deceitful repertoire of lies and half-truths has been echoed for so long, that many of these fallacies have eventually been regarded as fact in the mainstream, and even among death penalty advocates. The institution has been falsely accused of inaccuracy, ineffectiveness, and racism. And as the only course of action capable of adequately displaying our outrage and disgust at the savage destruction of innocent life, the death penalty deserves a defense.
“Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that capital punishment is not ‘cruel and unusual,’ 618 prisoners have been executed across the nation and about 80 have been exonerated. Those disturbing odds beg the question: If the chances of executing an innocent person are so high, should we have capital punishment?” (ABCNews.com). We no longer live in a Nuremberg Trial-era where a man can be hanged in the town square by an angry mob when suspected of ogling the Sherriff’s daughter. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty, and the law requires the prosecution to bear the intricate burden of proof beyond all reasonable doubt for conviction – which does not, in and of itself, beget the death penalty. Only around one percent of convicted murderers are sentenced to death, and even fewer are actually executed (Death Penalty Information Center).
The majority of the above exonerations have eventuated on political grounds – such as a request by the Pope, (Bill Clinton’s) presidential pardons, and so on – not necessarily because evidence emerged of the inmate’s innocence. Nevertheless, no human process boasts perfection, including that of law enforcement in general; and the potential shortcomings of the death penalty are worthy of acknowledgement. So long as we engage flesh-and-blood judges and jurors, occasionally unsound conclusions may be drawn, inaccurate interpretations or presentations may be conveyed, and wrong decisions may be realized. But to eradicate the system entirely as the solution to this inherent risk is as absurd a proposal as eliminating prisons because the possibility exists of wrongly incarcerating someone. Regardless of to what extent any legal structure may evolve, periodically – although rarely – an innocent man will be convicted, while a guilty man will walk free. However, a society absent the insistent threat of capital punishment would suffer a much greater loss of innocent life than the system’s innate fortuities could ever elicit.
Evidence for capital punishment’s mistakes has proved anecdotal at best. The notorious
1985 study conducted by Hugo A. Bedau of Tufts University and Michael L. Radelet of the
University of Florida demonstrates this, which claimed that 23 innocent men had been executed during the twentieth century of the 350 convicted of capital or “potentially capital” crimes. The reckless liberal media, of course, had a field day with it – The Washington Post: “Innocents Executed, ACLU Claims; 25 Said to Have Died Since 1900 for Crimes They Did Not Commit”; The Los Angeles Times: “Study Says 25 Innocent People Were Executed in This Century”; The New York Times: “25 Wrongfully Executed in U.S., Study Finds,” to name a few. This prominent study is one of many factors which have contributed, over the years, to the ubiquitous misconception that innocents are habitually executed. But in 1988, two lawyers – Prof. Paul Cassell of the University of Utah Law School and Justice Steve Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court – set out to investigate the cases cited by the Bedau-Radelet study, and in so doing, exposed its deceit. The two men discovered that the study defined a “potentially capital” crime as any case in which the death penalty was not implemented, including cases in States that did not even practice capital punishment to begin with. Also, the study assigned “innocence” to the men that issued sustained appeals and not-guilty pleas – (what criminals don’t if they can?). For one of the study’s cases, Joseph Hillstrom, a novel in which the character who portrayed him was depicted to be innocent was cited. Bedau and Radelet designate certain men innocent based upon the confessions of another suspect, yet they reject another man’s confession, calling it “coerced.” Markman and Cassell concluded, unchallenged, that there simply no credible evidence existed to support the assertion of any innocent man’s execution in the past 50 years.
Now, in 2006, with recent progressions in forensic science, instead of eradicating the institution of capital punishment, we possess the ability to refine it to a degree that lies as close to perfect as humanly possible for the foreseeable future – until we spawn precognitive psychics that enable Tom Cruise to stop crime before it happens, as in Minority Report (2002). Governor Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) is among many in the United States today embracing this new attitude, noting that “just as science can be used to free the innocent, it can be used to identify the guilty. Obviously, in a theoretical sense, no human endeavor can be said to be perfect. At the same time, it’s quite fair and accurate to say that there is a higher level of certainty and a level of confidence that we can aspire to… We want a standard of proof that is incontrovertible” (ABCNews.com). While DNA evidence cannot unequivocally stand alone, the ongoing evolution of forensic science simply reinforces the policy of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. It can assist in condemning the guilty in cases that hold only meager circumstantial evidence, as well as protect the innocent in cases where the evidence might be susceptible to distortion or manipulation, thus bringing the practice of capital punishment to near – and eventually complete – perfection.
“African-Americans are disproportionately represented among people condemned to death in the USA. While they make up 12 percent of the national population, they account for more than 40 per cent of the country’s current death row inmates” (Amnesty International). Of all the anti-death penalty contentions, the accusation of racism is by far the most absurd, baseless, and categorically false allegation against it. And unfortunately, it has somehow become one of the leading illusions accept by Americans today, due largely in part to never-ceasing race-baiters on the Left. The race card’s application on this matter permits the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons to successfully divert the debate from what is, for some, the unpleasant reality of the status quo: blacks commit more crime, both violent and non-violent. As it has been said before, people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts – and facts can prove to be pesky little things sometimes. Blacks constitute 12.5 percent of the U.S. population (whites: 75 percent). In 2003, as previously stated, 40 percent of death row inmates were black. An overrepresentation? Yes. Unfair? Not at all. In that year, blacks committed 43 percent of violent crimes, and 55 percent of all murders (Bureau of Justice Statistics Corrections Statistics). One would hope, for the simple sake of justice, that they would be assimilated accordingly on death row. The statistics show that if any ethnic group is merited to objections of unfairness, it is whites. Highlighting these disparities even further, the designation of “white” actually encompasses both whites and non-white Hispanics, since the Department of Justice makes no distinction between the two in most statistics. Whites and Hispanics combined, arrested for murder or manslaughter, are more likely to receive a death sentence than blacks – 1.6 percent versus 1.2 percent, respectively. Moreover, according to the same Federal statistics, black death row prisoners are 10 percent more likely than their white/Hispanic counterparts to have previous felony convictions, and 20 percent more likely to have prior homicide convictions – yet they are still less likely to receive a death sentence. In addition, white/Hispanic death-row prisoners are also more likely to actually be executed. From 1976 to 1996, 7.2 percent of white/Hispanic prisoners were executed compared to 5.9 percent of blacks, and these figures have remained steady over the past decade. The only bias here, undeniably, is not against blacks; if anything, the precise opposite is true (Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Characteristics).
Maintaining that blacks are overrepresented on death row because they commit a grossly exorbitant amount of violent crime is in no way a racist contention, but an irrefutable fact that, for some reason, death-penalty opponents refuse to concede. In order to be a “disproportionate” representation, it must first be defined what “proportionate” is to resemble. If the said objective is truly equal justice, in the name of that object, should not the racial complexion of death row reflect that of the perpetrators? Or has the populace reached such a pinnacle of political correctness that it would sooner tolerate the unfair administration of justice than be falsely and senselessly accused of discrimination?
“The vast preponderance of the evidence shows that the death penalty is no more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder and that it may even be an incitement to criminal violence. Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death-penalty states.” (American Civil Liberties Union). In that case, why not just abolish prisons all together? If the country still boasts over two million inmates, then evidently, by this logic, the entire practice of law enforcement is futile. The above assertion by the ACLU of the higher homicide rates in states that exercise capital punishment is indeed true, but the numbers fail to provide an accurate portrayal. The national crime rate in 2004 stood at 5.5 per 100,000 citizens (Murder Rates 1995-2004), and 10 of the 12 non-death penalty states stand below this line: Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Vermont (Alaska and Michigan are above the national mean). However, only Massachusetts host a major metropolitan city; and only two others, Minnesota and Wisconsin, host anything even resembling one – which is where the overwhelming majority of murders occur (Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide Trends in the U.S.: Overview). Therefore, when examining states individually, it becomes clear that the reality of the situation is skewed when the states are grouped together.
But further investigation into these figures makes the disparities between the two groups even clearer. States such as Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee all host one or more metropolitan cities. All may indeed hold death penalty statutes, yet all have seldom – if ever – enforced them since 1976 (Map of Executions by State). Even the ACLU concedes that capital “punishment can be an effective deterrent … if it is consistently and promptly employed.” But instead of a justification for abolition, this variance only serves as a reason to hone the process and enhance its deterrent effect.
If considered at purely face value, without the previous considerations, the state-by-state statistics create an apparent paradox; but to conclude, as the ACLU, that a capital punishment statute somehow serves as an incitement to homicidal behavior is quantifiably absurd. The U.S. political structure’s populist disposition contributes heavily in determining the enterprise of lawmaking; and areas with higher levels of homicidal behavior typically exhibit stronger support for capital punishment (Baumer, Messner, Rosenfeld, 1). In other words, a perceived local threat of violence engenders a supportive sentiment for the death penalty among the citizens, which evinces legislative action. So the increased murder rates in states that employ capital punishment, hence, predicate the installation of a stern, counteractive public policy measure like the death penalty, rather than the other way around.
Opponents will frequently invoke life without parole as a sufficient alternative to capital punishment. As noted by the ever-insightful Thomas Sowell, this option yields three very real problems: The possibility of escaping and murdering again, the possibility of murdering while in prison, and the possibility of a liberal governor being elected and extending a pardon (Sowell, 236). The life without parole alternative to the death penalty is no more equally safe than it is equally deterrent, despite the opposition’s contentions. If such an option was even remotely equivalent in its dissuasive efficacy, why do so many murderers, such as the aforementioned Green River Killer, strike plea bargains in exchange for the prosecution’s promise to not pursue a death sentence? This phenomenon is, in and of itself, an utter denunciation of the contention that life imprisonment and execution pose the equitable discouragement of murder; and it falls in congruence with both logic and human nature: mankind, like all other life, is governed by his instinct of survival, and is naturally inclined to avoid circumstances of inescapable mortal danger. Even if the death penalty fails to deter crime, it prevents it: the number of dead murderers who have become repeat offenders has remained at zero for quite some time.
Admittedly, the overall statistics are so involved, that interpreting trends and deciphering patterns, enough to draw substantive conclusions, proves to be an arduous and time consuming task. Even the figures, charts and graphs provided by the Federal government often prove obscure unless meticulously dissected and analyzed. Due to the long, drawn-out appeals process in which it can take years – even decades – for a prisoner to be executed, drawing an immediate correlation between the implementation of capital punishment and the decline in homicides for a given year is impossible. Although one simple, long-term trend remains clear: While it has experienced peaks and valleys, the national murder rate has fallen significantly across the board since the reinstitution of capital punishment in 1976, from 9.7 to 5.5 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime & Justice Data Online). Undoubtedly, many outside factors exist that have and continue to assist in this trend; but when given common sense, a respect to logic and a consideration of human nature, it remains perfectly reasonable to assume the presence of a substantial inverse relationship between the publicized display of a certain crime’s fatal punishment, and the consistent decline in the frequency of that crime’s occurrence.
But if, for the sake of argument, the death penalty’s deterrent effect could not be convincingly demonstrated – a provocatively simple question would remain: So what? Only two possible courses of action exist: to exercise capital punishment, or to abolish it – and they pose strikingly different fates. The first: convicted killers are put to death, and their executions do not deter future murders; the resulting loss was that of convicted killers. The second: convicted killers are not put to death, but their executions would, in fact, have deterred future murders; the loss conceded was of innocent victims. The preferable choice is explicit.
Aside from that ultimatum, assuming that the deterrent effect is a fallacy, what is so terrible of a punishment befitting of the crime? “Most of us,” Justice Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals indicates, “continue to believe that those who show utter contempt for human life by committing remorseless, premeditated murder, justly forfeit the right to their own life.” And this punishment almost always proves merciful by comparison to the crime – all 60 executions in 2005 were performed via lethal injection. In 1994, when the death penalty issue returned the heights of the Supreme Court in Callins v. Collins with the familiar allegation of “cruel and unusual” punishment, the institution’s legitimacy was upheld once again in a 7-to-2 decision. Justice Antonin Scalia, composing the concurrence, concluded what any reasonable man would, that “[t]he death-by-injection which Justice Blackmun describes[,] [writing on behalf of the dissent,] looks pretty desirable next to [bleeding to death from bullet wounds]. It looks even better next to some of the other cases currently before us, which Justice Blackmun did not select as the vehicle for his announcement that the death penalty is always unconstitutional, for example, the case of the 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat . . . How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!” Indeed, the “cruel and unusual” epithet befits only the deplorable deed of murder.
The United States may indeed stand alone among industrialized nations in its support for capital punishment (with the exception of China), but America, in her exceptionalism, has often stood alone in defense of that which is good and decent and just. While the consistency of the implementation must be expanded to all murderers, rather than reserved, this presents an opportunity for reform and increased efficacy. The Declaration of Independence holds that the right to life is an unalienable among all men, and if this creed of life’s value is to be taken seriously, then those who assume it upon themselves to deny an innocent man of this right can hold no equal share in it. Today, serving 48 consecutive life sentences, the Green River Killer can still laugh and learn, read and write, forge friendships and fall in love, and engage in scores of other things permanently obscured from at least 48 innocent women. Is this justice?
You need to log in to urbis or create an urbis account to review this writing.
Reviews
Sort Reviews by Newest | Oldest | Highest Quality | Lowest Quality | Newest Comments |
Exacerangutan reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
This 396 word review has not been unlocked.
fourtwenz reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
Regardless of to what extent
so many things in life have turned to reverse racism it seems this topic is just another catagory
- add/view comments (1)
August 30, 2006
Deleted User
Review of Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
Hello,
First off I have to say that I believe firmly in the necessity of the death penalty therefor I read this piece very carefully. I find it interesting, very informative and well written. Of course as with everything in life there are ways to skew the facts no matter how honorable the intentions. Which is to say that there are those who will object to your reasoning skills when your piece makes the point If considered at purely face value, without the previous considerations, the state-by-state statistics create an apparent paradox; but to conclude, as the ACLU, that a capital punishment statute somehow serves as an incitement to homicidal behavior is quantifiably absurd. * As well as *Of all the anti-death penalty contentions, the accusation of racism is by far the most absurd, baseless, and categorically false allegation against it.
I on the other hand have also researched this issue and long ago arrived at these same conclusion.
Good solid write and not just because I agree with your stance.
~D. Marlar
FoxyChoklatRobot reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
I assume this is a research paper by the works cited and your age. ( I could be wrong)
This is a very well put together paper! and just so uyou know I’m very much agianst the death penelty and a member of both the NAACp and the ACLU. So I’m not just baised to your argument.
The one think I would be mindful is that most people don’t think the death penelty is racist becuase of the people that are put to death , but becuase of race of thier victims. Ignoring this makes your paper weaker becuase you are attacking the easiest aspect of the debate and not something that is harder to defend.
The closing paragraph seems a bit like fluff compared to the rest of your paper, all of your arguments were arguerd with fact ..but then you open your closing with hersay and opinion.. you can’t really say the US has “has often stood alone in defense of that which is good and decent and just.” there are waaay to many pictures of american planes flying over concentration camps to say that. I say stick to your facts and leave that senstance out.
stephis reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
This is a well written, thought provoking piece. However if you intend to change a reader’s position on an issue I suggest you avoid blatently biased, character attacking statements such as “Their deceitful repertoire of lies and half-truths has been echoed for so long, that many of these fallacies have eventually been regarded as fact in the mainstream, and even among death penalty advocates,” where it seems you have somewhat of a personal grudge against your opposition.
Anne_Cooper reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
This is a very well written case study. I’m impressed by the amount of research that went into this. I have to admit there are several comments you make which provoke the reader the think. I especially like this one: “Even if the death penalty fails to deter crime, it prevents it: the number of dead murderers who have become repeat offenders has remained at zero for quite some time.”
There were a few editing errors:
“However, only Massachusetts host a major metropolitan city…” – should be “hosts”.
“it has somehow become one of the leading illusions accept by Americans today…” – should be “accepted”.
These are just a couple of examples – there aren’t many, but you should re-read this and edit.
Good job!
Earl_Daniels reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
This is one of the most cleanly written pieces of journalism I have have read in a long time.
Your resesrch is well thoughtout and done, you have done an awesome job!
Obvoiusly there is a personal issue here with this piece… the Green River Killer is referred to on many occasions throughout this piece, it’s what gives this piece a true personal flair.
I would not change anything with the way you’ve written this, you did too good a job, but there was one place where I didn’t quite get what you were trying to say:
Also, the study assigned “innocence” to the men that issued sustained appeals and not-guilty pleas – (what criminals don’t if they can?). what you placed in parantheses is confusing… it’s like you were trying to say something but lost track.
Great job, keep writing.
August 23, 2006
Deleted User
Review of Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
Pretty good start. I actually enjoyed this piece quite a bit. Keep up the good work.
Reignman reviewed Version 1 -
Read 100%% of the Item
I’m seriously not sure if you’re trying to spark a debate with this piece, so I’m not going to comment about its content, at least not at a credit charge to you. I’ll simply say that you present your ideas with a degree of authority that suggests a good amount of research. From a journalistic standpoint, this is a very well-written feature piece.
Showing 1 - 9 of 9
Review item
Add to favesCreator
Relevant Links
Item Stats
GENERAL
9 Reviews 6 Comments
Version 1
Latest Activity: over 2 years ago
REVIEW QUEUE
Appeared in Queue: 0 Times
Skipped: 0 Times
Ratings & Rankings
