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
