The Capital Punishment Debate

The Capital Punishment Debate

Immanuel Kant justifies his support for the death penalty by stating in his work Metaphysics of Morals that "if he has committed murder, he must die (Kant 1996). In Kant's opinion, the death penalty is justified only when regarding murder and no other crime, unless it causes substantial damage to society. In Kant's time, the eighteenth century, people seemed to believe in an eye for an eye. Do people still have the same mentality about the death penalty in modern times? According to statistics from the Bureau of Justice, there are approximately 3,260 death row inmates in the United States today. In today's society, the death penalty law is in place to punish the alleged criminals who commit the most heinous crimes. Even though the law is in place, not everyone agrees with it. Supporters of the death penalty law see it as a form of justice for the victims and the victim's families. Those who oppose the death penalty feel that the law is morally wrong. There are many arguments for both sides of the death penalty debate. Who is right? In this paper, I plan to prove why the death penalty is not a justifiable form of punishment. I plan to prove this by showing the high cost of the death penalty, it does not help with the deterrence of crime, and sentencing of the death penalty is racially biased.

The first point I would like to make is the death penalty is far more expensive than the alternative sentence of life without parole. For example, in Texas, a death penalty case can cost on average $2.3 million (Dieter 1992). This is about three times the cost of a prisoner serving time in a maximum security prison for forty years. In many cases, the death penalty is not

sentenced; and the defendant ends up spending life in prison. In those instances, the state incurs

the cost of a capital trial plus the cost of housing an inmate for life. This does not include the cost when the verdict is appealed. At this point, another hearing is scheduled; and the state incurs more costs.

Many people would argue that it is far more expensive to house a prisoner for life as opposed to sentencing a prisoner to death. They could argue the fact that once a prisoner is executed and buried, the state no longer maintains the cost of the prisoner. This could indeed be a valid argument if the prisoner were executed immediately after being sentenced. In most cases, this does not happen, and the inmate ends up waiting on death row to be executed. Most prisoners spend an average of 14 years on death row.

Next, I would like to state that the use of the death penalty does not in any way lower crime rates. According to studies at the Death Penalty Information Center, crimes have been on the rise since the 1990s. Not only are crime rates rising in most states, but the crimes that are being committed are becoming more violent. There are currently thirty four states in the United States with the death penalty. Studies from the Death Penalty information Center show that states without the death penalty consistently had lower crime rates over the past 20 years. The Bureau of Justice studies show that on average, there were about 20,000 murders in the year of 2010. Out of these 20,000 murders, only about 15,000 arrests were made; and 115 death penalty sentences handed down. These are shockingly high statistics for a system that has a capital punishment law in place. These studies tell me that the death penalty is not preventing would- be criminals from committing murder or any other type of crime.

On the other hand, supporters of the death penalty law would stand behind their claim

that the death penalty does deter crime. Some