"If you have a million monkeys on typewriters, they will eventually write the complete works of William Shakespeare." The same is true with our judicial system and the execution of innocent individuals. If we continue to execute individuals, we will execute innocent individuals, in fact there are those who believe this has already happened. One example commonly given is the case of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping. Though convicted and executed, there has been evidence that would have cleared his name and proved his innocence. However, we cannot go back and rectify the wrong. Once executed, there is no pardon. Had he been given life in prison, he could have been released.
According to the United States Accounting Office, about half the people on death row are minorities who represent only twenty percent of the population. They go on to remark that forty present of those executed since 1976 have been African-American. There is no plausible reason for only twelve percent of the population to commit forty percent of the death penalty offense in the country. In fact, I find it hard to believe that forty percent of these crimes are committed by African-Americans. They merely constitute forty percent of those convicted and sentenced to death. The sad truth of the American justice system is that money can prevent punishment. Take a wealthy white man, and an African-American who must resort to a public defender, try them both for the same crime. More likely than not, the white defendant will not be convicted, regardless of whether he committed the crime or not. Even if he is convicted, his high priced lawyer is likely to prevent the death penalty, and get his client life in prison. Due to the still-lingering social prejudices, most African-Americans are not in any position to afford an attorney in the price range to provide an adequate defense. Also, these same prejudices can tip the scales against the defendant in the jury room.
As illustrated by the explosive riots following the Rodney King verdict, violence can result from a perceived prejudice on the part of law enforcement. Since the current system appears to value white lives more than minority lives, American society is a powder keg waiting to explode from racial tensions.
As stated by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen in 1864,
"…The threat of instant death is the one to which resort has always been made when there was an absolute necessity for producing some result…No one goes to certain inevitable death except by compulsion,"
I don't disagree with this statement. There are those that use this argument for the deterrent effect of the death penalty, however. This I disagree with. "Instant, certain death" is indeed a very effective deterrent, however this is not how the death penalty works. The death penalty is neither instant nor certain.
Let us say that a murder occurred yesterday. First, law enforcement must gather evidence, an average of three days. Next, they must interview suspects, two days. Now, finally, they may be ready to arrest someone for the crime. Let's assume, for a minute, that the police have arrested a suspect for this murder. Next up, is the trial, the main event. Let's give it five months, a very conservative estimate. After conviction, the convict will sit on death row from anywhere from eight to fifteen years. That makes an estimate of the total time from murder to execution to be approximately nine to sixteen years. This is hardly instant.
Given the nature of murder, there is an extreme difficulty finding evidence, since one of the prime witnesses to the crime is dead, and not much use to an investigator. Given the state of American law enforcement, not every murder, or any crime for that matter, will be solved. This gives the murderer a fighting chance that he will never even see the inside of a courtroom. Jeffery Dahmer had been visited by the police four times prior to his arrest because neighbors were complaining of the stench. Had Dahmer not slipped up and let the officers in, he would still be answering the door to the face of police officers with neighbor's complaints.
Let's assume that the police to find you, and arrest you. Now, you have the trial to try to get yourself off the hook. Even if you are convicted, there are still years of appeals to weasel out of the death penalty. By the end of all this, the result is far less from certain.
According to the sources referred to by Richard C. Dieter in his essay, "The Practical Burdens of Capital Punishment":
"…the state was paying at least $2 million more per execution than if no death penalty had been sought…Two million dollars spent to achieve one execution could add forty more police employed in a community policing program, or it could tighten up and improve parole and probation systems so that the wrong people are not released, or it could be used for any number of educational or community-based programs designed to reduce crime…"
Two million dollars is a lot of money per execution. This expenditure is due to several factors. Because of the possibility of an innocent man being executed, the trial of a death penalty case is much longer. The appeals process is also lengthy, and besides the cost of these appeals, there are expenses for the time the criminal spends on death row. There are expenditures to purchase execution equipment, and extra pay for executioners. With the lack of a viable deterrent effect, society should not be forced to carry this burden.
There are those who argue that continuing the process represents the "best bet." The argument goes that we are either gambling with the lives of murderers or innocent victims. By continuing the use of the death penalty, even if there is no deterrent effect, we are only losing the lives of convicted murderers. Worst case scenario is that they are needlessly killed because there is no deterrent effect. However, if we abolish the death penalty, we run the risk of innocent victims being killed during a time when the murder would be dead by the death penalty, as well as the possible deterrent effect. According to the argument it is more desirable to gamble with the lives of convicted murderers. When we recall that not all executionees are in fact guilty(due to the inevitability of an innocent man being executed for a crime he did not commit), the argument becomes less clear. It becomes even more so when we recognize that we are essential created two classes of human life in this argument, a very iffy proposition. By valuing a group of human life more than another presents a danger for other groups receiving the same treatment.
These reasons represent compelling evidence for the abolition of the death penalty in America. It comes with prohibitive costs. It exacerbates the existing racial tensions because of its prejudice toward minorities and social classes. It has no determined deterrent effect. Possibly most compelling is the fact that innocent men can and will be executed for crimes they did not commit. Unlike life imprisonment, we cannot just release someone from death if we are wrong. The death penalty limits the amount of time for individuals to prove their innocence, and if they run out of time, there is no coming back.