Should Death Penalty Be Abolished In All America States

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Should the Death Penalty be abolished in all American States?
Punishment for a criminal act by death is one of the most controversial aspects of the United States (U.S.) criminal justice system. This is mostly because of the moral element, or lack of it, associated with the death penalty and the value of life that seems to raise more controversies rather than provide a strong stand in the arguments. Currently, 20 out of the 50 states in the U.S. have illegalized the death penalty but the 30 other states and the federal government support and occasionally enforce the death penalty (Death Penalty Information Center “Facts” (DPIC)). However, over the years, there has been a registered decline in the support and use of the death penalty. A recent report released by the Pew Research Center revealed that the annual number death penalty execution in the U.S. has declined over the years, from 98 execution in 1999 to 23 execution in 2017. The report also revealed that in 1999, the 98 executions were collectively from 20 states but in 2017, they were from 8 states. This also reveals that fewer states are enforcing the death penalty, which can be attributed to the decline in support of the death penalty by the public. The death penalty should be abolished in all states not only due to the declining public support, but also due to the high costs associated with it, its insignificant deterrence of homicide, its irreversibility, and its association with retribution as a form of vengeance.
Preventing crime in the U.S. is a costly affair given the many agencies involved in the process, from the police, courts to the correctional centers. However, this cost must be justifiable and derived from a number of alternative methods in which justice can be achieved at a minimum cost. Using the cost-benefit analysis, the death penalty is not the most appropriate and cost friendly punishment to criminals, contrary to what many people might believe. McFarland (59) reveals that in most cases involving the death penalty, “approximately $1 million is added…” to cater for the whole process. In addition, the annual costs incurred for the death row inmates at the federal level is $36,871 as of 2015, while that of the general population inmates is $28, 078 (McFarland 60). This is quite high and there are a number of factors that contribute to these additional costs. The first one is in relation to the legal costs incurred in a death penalty case. For instance, the DPIC “Costs” reveals that in Oklahoma, state prosecutors spend approximately three times in a death penalty case of what they spend in a non-death penalty case. In addition, it was revealed that in the same state, those defending the accused spend approximately ten times more when defending a death penalty defendant. In Nebraska, the death penalty costs are as high because the DPIC “Costs” reveal that $1.5 million of taxpayers goes into maintaining the death penalty system, an amount that would otherwise be allocated to other services if the death penalty was abolished. Other states that have imposed a death penalty policy, such as Florida, Texas and Kansas also have to deal with high costs associated with a death penalty case. The second factor is the cost of imprisonment. McFarland (59) posits that inmates who are on death row require higher security than life imprisonment inmates, which comes with extra costs. The specialized facilities in which they are confined are high maintenance hence the high costs. The third factor is in relation to appeals. Death row inmates are allowed to have several appeals given the gravity of their sentencing, and these appeals come with extra costs, which are imposed on the taxpayer. Proponents of the death penalty posit that there should be no cost placed on justice and as such, the cost of the death penalty is insignificant compared to the justice gained as a result. However, if this were the case, there would be no need for cost-cutting in the justice system, especially in prisons, yet this is always the case. In addition, the death penalty is more like an eye for eye kind of justice and as such, the costs incurred should be considered in deciding whether this is the best cost of action in giving victims the justice their deserve. The abolishment of the death penalty is therefore justified on the basis of cost.
The main reason why a justice system has been put in place is to ensure that criminals are kept out of the streets so that law-abiding citizens can live in peace. In addition, the punishment issued through the justice system is also meant to discourage people from committing crimes. However, the death penalty does not seem to be discouraging people from committing murder, as revealed by the rate of crimes in different states. As revealed by Tonry (16), research conducted by the NAS Panel on Deterrence and the Death Penalty did not find significant evidence that the death penalty is effective in preventing homicide. Thus, imposing a death penalty does not yield the results it is expected to yield, namely, keeping people away from criminal activities, more so homicide. Instead, the death penalty only exposes criminals to severe punishment, yet other methods, such as life sentence without parole, can be used to issue justice to victims, preserve life, and keep the society safe. According to the DPIC “Deterrence”, states without the death penalty have had lower homicide rates than the states with a death penalty policy. For instance, murder rate, as of 2016, for states with a death penalty policy was 5.63 per 100, 000 population while that of states without a death penalty policy was 4.49, as revealed by the DPIC. The obvious deduction from this data is that the death penalty does not discourage people from committing murder because if it did, the states with a death penalty policy would record a lower homicide rate. If anything, the death penalty can be said to instigate more murders in those ...