I recently read the anti-death penalty article in The Voyager and felt that I must write a reply to give the opposing view. First, the writer of the article attacks the death penalty on the grounds that an innocent person may be executed.
I would like to point out that there is a greater chance of dying in a car accident than an innocent person being executed. Does that mean that automobiles ought to be outlawed?
Now can our criminal justice system be reformed to avoid wrongful executions? Absolutely. New techniques in investigating crime help reduce the margin of error. Also, even though I dislike Mitt Romney, he did have an interesting idea: raise the burden of proof in capital cases from beyond reasonable doubt to beyond any doubt, meaning that the death penalty would only be applied in instances where guilt is completely certain.
This is actually consistent with a biblical command. Even though the Bible commands the death penalty for crimes such as murder and kidnapping, but there were very few executions because the Bible also required at least two eyewitnesses to condemn someone to death, and under Jewish law these witnesses were vigorously examined to ensure that their testimony was truthful.
Next, Mr. Smith made the claim that the death penalty does not deter crime, but I would like to evaluate his claims. First, he claimed that states without the death penalty have lower murder rates than the 36 states that do. It would seem that abolishing the death penalty reduces crime, but Mr. Smith forgets that different states have different cultural attitudes, values, and other societal factors.
How does he know that the 36 states with the death penalty do not feel compelled to have it because of their high murder rates?
He also pointed out that 88 percent of criminologists say that the death penalty does not deter crime, but at the same time 88 percent of people can be wrong.
As a Christian I believe Jesus to be the Son of God, but 2/3 of the Earth’s population would disagree with me. Does that make me wrong?
Also, since the death penalty is so seldom used and individuals wait decades for execution, the deterrent effect is watered down.
Capital punishment is only used on people convicted of premeditated murder, meaning that one thought about his/her crime beforehand, and common sense would say that the individual probably thought about the chance of being caught and the consequences, meaning that at least a few lives would be saved.
A report from the Bureau of Criminal Justice also shows that the more executions there are per year, the fewer murders there are.
Mr. Smith also attacked the costs of the death penalty, pointing out correctly that it costs more to execute someone than to sentence him or her to life without parole.
I would like to say that one cannot put a price on justice. If the penalty fits the crime it ought to be carried out regardless of the cost. Second, I would like to point out that these costs could be greatly reduced by eliminating unnecessary appeals. If I could write the justice system, those convicted of capital crimes would get only one appeal unless there was something really extraordinary about their case.
Eliminating excessive appeals and reducing the time it takes to execute someone would greatly reduce the costs of capital punishment.
Contrary to Mr. Smith’s claims, the death penalty is not murder. Saying capital punishment is state-sponsored murder is like saying incarceration is state kidnapping and restitution is state theft. The death penalty is the only punishment that suits murderers; to abolish it is to murder justice.
— Sean Gravel
UWF history/pre-law student
