Regardless of one's emotions either way, there are good reasons to eliminate the death penalty, and it should be remembered that a criminal does not go free simply because he isn't killed. Imprisonment for life, being regimented to the last detail as the decades drone on, is hardly a picnic. Is that not really worse than death?
The question whether the death penalty acts as a net deterrence to crime will probably always be debated but one factor which is not always considered throws doubt on it. As an execution can be delayed almost indefinitely with appeals, writs and whatnot, it does not appear imminent until near the end of the line. John Wayne Gacy said on the way to his execution that he did not believe it would happen. He had had so many delays and reprieves that final doom had become unreal. Probably no one commits a crime with the expectation of being caught and executed.
The greatest price we pay for the death penalty is the execution of innocent men, and sometimes women. (There is serious doubt to this day about the guilt of Barbara Graham, about whom the movie "I Want to Live" was made). This is true not simply in some rare instance, but with horrifying frequency. Not long ago in Illinois alone 13 men were released from death row on the strength of DNA evidence showing their innocence. Since then that number has increased by seven. Nationwide, since 1973, about 150 prisoners under the death sentence have been exonerated and released by virtue of DNA proof of innocence. There are probably many more who would be exonerated if the right steps to do so were to be taken.
But DNA exoneration is not the whole of the matter. How many other innocent men are executed for crimes wherein DNA could neither prove nor disprove guilt? For example, what would DNA have had to do with the terrible assassination of President Kennedy, when murder was committed with a rifle fired from a substantial distance from the victim? There are almost certainly many innocent men on death row who were convicted of crimes with no relevance to DNA. And the guilty ones remain loose, free to work their murderous horors on new victims. Just recently a mad man shot and severely wounded a member of Congress in Arizona and at this time she is in a hospital in critical condition, yet DNA would appear to be able to prove nothing in the matter one way or the other.
The death penalty certainly does deter the dead convict, but does it deter others who do not expect to be caught and therefore do not consider what might happen to them if they are? Some statistics appear to show that the death penalty has little or no effect on the crime rate.
One effect of the death penalty is the refusal by countries around the world to extradite persons to the United States if they might face the death penalty. They should not be criticized for that. Just as we have our social and legal policies, they have theirs. But here, too, as in the cases of wrongful convictions, the guilty go free.
Execution is brutal and cannot be made into anything less. It puts life into the hands of sometimes corrupt and excessively ambitious prosecutors and, yes, sometimes even the police themselves, who have been known to withhold or even falsify evidence. Add to that the defective work of some defense counsel. When all the pros and cons are sifted out the death penalty should be eliminated
No comments:
Post a Comment