PUTTING DEATH ON DEATH ROW The Death Penalty is a capital punishment which has been codified in human laws

ever since the days of King Hammurabi of Babylon (United). Even though it has been a part of human society dating back to the founding of some of the earliest civilizations, the role the death penalty will play in our modern culture is a topic of heated debate. In the United States, the death penalty is most often utilized in cases of murder and rape; however there are rare instances in which it is used for cases of violent felonies. The Constitutionality of the Death Penalty is an area of constant tumult, because in the 1972 Furman vs. Georgia case the Supreme Court found that the punishment was Cruel and Unusual Punishment and thus violated the eighth amendment (United). Yet later in 1976 this decision was partially reversed thanks to numerous state law suits petitioning for the death penalty (United). Despite the fact that the death penalty is a constitutional punishment, this does not correlate to it being a justifiable punishment. In fact the death penalty can quite possibly erroneously take the life of an innocent person, and thus destroy the life of a person who was not at fault for any wrongdoing. It is also an expensive punishment to deal out, costing millions of dollars every year, and for all of that money its been proven to have no effect on prevention of further brutalities. It also does not make logical sense to punish murderers with murder, because the point of punishment is to indicate that what a perpetrator did (murder) was wrong not legitimize their actions by endowing them with the might of the justice system. Moreover it is an unnecessary punishment which ought to be done away with for the sake of practicality and humanity.

Certain things in life are best left to nature, including Death. Due to the presence of the death penalty in the American Legal System, over 48 individuals since just 1975 have been mistakenly sentenced to death within the past two decades (United). Even Chairman Don Edwards of the House Judiciary Committee stated that No matter how careful courts are, the possibility of perjured testimony, mistaken honest testimony, and human error remain all too real. We have no way of judging how many innocent persons have been executed, but we can be certain that there were some (United). The fact that the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has serious doubts about the Legal Systems ability to guarantee the guilt of convicts on death row conveys the message that the Death Penalty is a flawed punishment. The irreversible and absolute nature of the Death Penalty requires that conclusive evidence be provided to prove a persons guilt. However, as such evidence cannot always be provided people may be sentenced to an unjustified death. Such accidental deaths not only cause irrevocable pain and suffering for the accused, but also for the family and friends of those put to death. As in the case of Walter McMillion, who claimed he was wrenched from [his] family, from [his] children, from [his] grandchildren, from [his] friends, from [his] work that [he] loved, and was placed in an isolation cell, the size of a shoe box, with no sunlight, no companionship, and no work for nearly six years. Every minute of every day, [he] knew [he] was innocent . . . ." (United). Instances of inhumanity like this one must be prevented at all costs, and the only way to do this is by putting the Death Penalty itself on death row.

[The Death Penalty is an excessively expensive punishment, and although many people argue that the death penalty is more fiscally conservative thanks to the fact that those who suffer it are not housed in a government operated prison for the remainder of their lives, this is

indeed a fallacy. Not only does the death penalty cause strife and hardship for those directly involved in its proceedings, but it also costs taxpayers far too much money to be a permissible punishment. In fact just death penalty cases alone cost California taxpayers $137 million a year, whereas if those same trials concerned lifetime incarceration they would have cost only $11.5 million (The Death). The main reason for these high court costs is the seemingly endless process required by the Constitution for the analysis and prosecution of capital cases, this leads to long trials lasting anywhere from months to years. This coupled with the inability of most death row inmates to provide their own attorneys means that public attorneys must be paid for by the taxpayer (The Death). Research shows that California, which is currently experiencing massive budget shortfalls, could save $1 billion over the next five years if it was to replace the death penalty with life without parole (California). Such modifications, if enacted across the nation, would not only free up massive amounts of public funding to be used for things like infrastructure improvements or education, but would also lead to more funding for crime prevention which would ideally lower the crime rate and make costly criminal trials less and less frequent.]

[Albeit it is commonly thought that the presence and threat of the death penalty is sufficient to deter people from committing capital crimes or engaging in violent misdemeanor, the opposite has been found to be true. A New York Times Study discovered that in the past twenty years the homicide rate in those states which impose the death penalty has risen by 48% to 101% more than in states which do not exercise capital punishment (Bonner). It is thought that this is occurring because those people committing less severe crimes do not resort to severe violence when approached by law enforcement because they do not see the

law itself as something which can take their lives. In fact, the ten states with the lowest homicide rates have only put to death 1% of all executed convicts nationwide (The Myth). These statistics back up the claim that the death penalty serves no practical purpose in society, for the reason that it is mistakenly thought to be a means by which dangerous criminals are removed from the community for good. However their permanent removal in all reality is proven to correlate strongly with an increase in the number of homicides committed. Thus society takes one step forward by taking the violent convicts off the street, but two steps backward by putting these convicts to death.]

The death penalty cannot be expected to teach a lesson to possible felons, while simultaneously serving as a twisted justification of their actions. Because if these convicts see that the government can take lives, then murder suddenly becomes a legitimate act, simply for the reason that it is employed by the government and sanctioned by the Supreme Court as Constitutional. As the Italian Philosopher, Cesare Beccaria states Executions devalue human life and demonstrate that it is correct and appropriate to kill those who have gravely offended us. Thus, the lesson taught by capital punishment may be the legitimacy of lethal vengeance, not of deterrence (Cesare). Proving that if society wishes to for all of its members to abstain from murder and capital acts its government must be the first to set an example, otherwise any semblance of legitimacy is lost. One could also argue as Dr. James S. Liebman does, that unlike eighteenth-century England's mandatory death penalty, which was carried out in properly deterrent - meaning brutal and terrorizing - fashion, in the town square on market day, preceded by fiery sermonizing on the object lesson intended thereby, the late twentieth-century American death penalty seems designed to minimize deterrence (Liebman).

Even though such grotesque proceedings would never be permitted in society, the point remains that punishment must deter crime, and if the Death Penalty is not doing that then it is not fulfilling its purpose. And for the massive price we pay to preserve the death penalty (both in terms of lives and money), the deterrent results it delivers are too paltry a compensation to be warrant the cost.

The death penalty may have been declared a legal punishment by the Supreme Court, but that does not render it a just punishment. It brings with it the possibility of destruction of innocent lives, costs which are passed on to the taxpayer, and a lack of any consolation that future crimes of rape or murder will not be committed. The death penalty is not a solution for violent crimes; it is in all reality a major component of the problem. It is foolish of society to yearn for a day when murders wont be committed as long as the government continues to kill dozens of possibly innocent people every year. In order for violence to be curtailed and justice to be augmented the death penalty must be done away with.