The Downfalls of Capital Punishment

In certain cases, crimes are so heinous that no prison sentence seems long enough. When faced with these situations, not only jurors but also America as a whole has to find a reasonable solution, in hopes of deterring crimes like these in the future. Capital punishment reinforces the “eye for an eye” mentality, in which the ultimate crime is given the ultimate punishment. In theory, this is a logical and fair solution to the issue. If criminals take the lives of innocent people, it is only fair that they should give their own. But what people fail to realize is that this “solution” is not as plain and simple as it appears to be. Is reprimanding murder with more murder truly beneficial? Or even justified? In practice, there are considerable flaws within the policy of capital punishment. The implementation of the death penalty is inhumane, ineffective, and it perpetuates racial biases already existing within the criminal justice system. 

One of the most contentious issues regarding capital punishment is the way in which the execution is carried out. Since the death penalty was introduced, there have been several forms of execution techniques including electrocution, lethal gas, hanging, and firing squads. Throughout the years however, the majority of states have deemed these methods as being “cruel and unusual punishment,” resulting in their banishment. While a handful of states continue to use these cruel practices, it is still not their primary choice of execution (Death Penalty Information Center, 2018). In recent years, death by lethal injection has become the most popular form of execution as it is considered to be the most humane way of killing a criminal. However, recent studies have shown that lethal injection can be just as torturous as previous methods. The lethal injection is a concoction of three separate drugs: sodium piothental, which is used as an anesthetic, pancuronium bromide, which causes paralysis, and finally potassium chloride, which induces a heart attack (English et. al., 2006). The issue with the mixture itself is that the anesthesia is not strong enough to diminish the effects of the other two drugs. Not only this, but there were no clinical trials to determine the amount of anesthesia needed, the people who administer the drug are not qualified anaesthesiologists, and criminals are often drug abusers who have high tolerances against sedatives (English et. al., 2006). All of these factors lead to the statistic that “21 of the 49 executed prisoners had postmortem levels of anesthetic consistent with consciousness” (English et. al., 2006). To further explain, because of the absence of sufficient anesthesia, many prisoners had to endure the crippling pain of paralysis and cardiac arrest. Those who witnessed these botched injections recall prisoners “thrashing, moaning, and crying as the drugs coursed through their veins” (Tamburin, 2018). Clearly, lethal injection without an adequate sedative dosage is resulting in unnecessary pain and torture. Given the number of botched injections, it is safe to conclude that this method of execution should also be considered cruel and unusual punishment. 

Many citizens believe that the death penalty is saving innocent lives and preventing future crime. But how are these executions actually affecting society? According to the Death Penalty Information Center, “88% of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide” (Death Penalty Information Center, 2018). This may come as a shock to many people, who assume that showing future criminals the severe consequences of murder will make society a safer place. This belief is the core reason why people still support capital punishment so heavily. In reality, the effects are not as drastic as they might hope. According to an article written in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, “death penalty does, and can do, little to reduce rates of criminal violence” (Radelet & Akers, 1996). Some sources believe that death by execution actually increases the murder rate, though it is still possible that it may decrease it as well (Donohue & Wolfers, 2006). The truth of the matter is we really do not know. The data surrounding crime rates and murders is merely a variable associated with capital punishment, meaning the two are not directly related but perhaps strongly influenced (Donohue & Wolfers, 2006). Additionally, since the executions occur so rarely, criminals may not be too worried about the probability of them being put on death row. Compared to the amount of homicides in a given year, the amount of death row cases are extremely low, with actual executions being even lower (Donohue & Wolfers, 2006). This results in the likelihood of crime deterrence due to capital punishment being slim to none. 

If crime deterrence is the main concern, there are other methods in which criminal activity can be mitigated. According to a study conducted about capital punishment, “76% of people supported the death penalty, but that support would drop to 53% if life imprisonment without parole were available as an alternative” (Radelet & Akers, 1996). When a prison sentence for life is used as an alternative, the victims’ family and friends can still have the comfort of knowing that the criminal will never have the chance to escape and spend the rest of their life behind bars. By sentencing life in prison without parole, the judicial system is ensuring that the criminal is getting the punishment they deserve, without inflicting unnecessary pain on the prisoner. Further, according to recent economic studies conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union, “sentencing people to death by execution is three times more expensive than sentencing them to die in prison” (ACLU, 2018). People are essentially wasting their money on a system that is ineffective and cruel. From both a taxpayer and a humane perspective, life in prison without parole is clearly the superior method of punishment. 

The implementation of death by execution is an irreversible act. Even though the judicial process is long and tedious, there are still several occurrences of convicting innocent people. For example, a man named Max Soffar was put on death row for a crime that had too little evidence to prove he committed it. His conviction was based off of a sketch and a $15,000 reward that would have enticed a lot of people to turn Soffar in (Flynn, 2016). Given the fact that Soffar had been troubled his whole life, heavily used drugs, and was involved in criminal activity, it was easy for police and jurors to pin this crime on him. Although his confession was changed four separate times and the court was never certain he was the perpetrator, he was still sentenced to be executed. Other instances of questionable court decisions regard people who were mentally incompetent during the scene of the crime.  According to the Atkins v. Virginia court decision, executing criminals who are mentally ill is unconstitutional (Oyez, 2018). By law, jurors have to take into account mental illness, but they often overlook mental incompetence for the time the crime was committed. The justification for Atkins v. Virginia is that the criminal may not have known what they were doing or had control over themselves during the crime. While chronic mental illness and temporary incompetence are two very separate entities, those who might have been intoxicated did not have much control over their actions either. In these situations, a longer prison sentence might be more justifiable because it allows the prisoner to regain full consciousness and feel remorse for their actions without having to die. 

Finally, a major flaw within the criminal justice system is the perpetuation of racial biases and discrimination. In the case of Maxwell v. Bishop, an African American male was convicted for the rape of a white woman. He was prosecuted and sentenced to death row after a single proceeding, not to mention the fact that several jurors had to be removed from the case due to conflicting religious beliefs and biases (FindLaw, 2018). In another case, Spinkellink v. Wainwright, a white male murdered his white counterpart (Leagle 2018). Spinkellink was sentenced to death row with little to no hesitation. This court decision reinforces the notion that those who murder white victims are much more likely to be sentenced to the death penalty than those who murder black victims. According to a journal article from the University of Chicago Law School, “94% of [inmates on death row] had killed only white victims, 2% had killed white and Black victims, and 4% had killed only Black people' ' (Ziesel, 1981). Government officials have since admitted that both of these cases were influenced by racial discrimination, but they continue to tell people that biases do not get in the way of current court proceedings. While this may be true, there have been far too many cases in which an irreversible decision was made based on the socially constructed “inferiority” of Black people.

In conclusion, capital punishment serves no real purpose to society and is more detrimental than it is beneficial. It is a system that practices cruel execution methods, convicts the innocent, disregards the mentally incompetent, and maintains racial discrimination. Not only this, but the practice of capital punishment does not necessarily prevent future crime. Instead, it is wasting time and money on prisoners that are unlikely to actually be executed. All in all, punishing killing with more killing is bringing society farther from a solution.There are other, more effective steps we should be taking in order to make the U.S. a safer place.

Works Cited

Atkins v. Virginia. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2018, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2001/00-8452

Capital Punishment. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2018, from https://www.aclu.org/issues/capital-punishment

Donohue, J., & Wolfers, J. J. (2006). The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence. The Economists Voice, 3(5). doi:10.2202/1553-3832.1170

English, V., Hamm, D., Harrison, C., Sheather, J., & Sommerville, A. (2002). Ethics briefings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28(4), 275-276. doi:10.1136/jme.28.4.275

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2018, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/398/262.html

Flynn, M. (2017, February 22). Did an Innocent Man Just Die on Texas's Death Row? Retrieved November 29, 2018, from https://www.houstonpress.com/news/did-an-innocent-man-just-die-on-texass-death-row-8352540

Methods of Execution. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2018, from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/methods-execution?scid=8&did=245

Radelet, M. L., & Akers, R. L. (1996). Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The Views of the Experts. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 87(1), 1. doi:10.2307/1143970

Tamburin, A. (2018, July 24). Lethal injection trial ends: Inmates say drug causes 'torture,' state says that's 'nonsense'. Retrieved November 29, 2018, from https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/07/24/tennessee-death-penalty-lethal-injection-trial-inmates-say-drug-torture/822274002/

United States Court of Appeals. (1978, August 21). SPINKELLINK v. WAINWRIGHT | 578 F.2d 582 (1978) | f2d58211034. Retrieved November 29, 2018, from https://www.leagle.com/decision/19781160578f2d58211034

Zeisel, H. (1981). Race Bias in the Administration of the Death Penalty: The Florida Experience. Harvard Law Review, 95(2), 456. doi:10.2307/1340711