Should some exceptionally heinous acts be punished by the death penalty? My initial view was taxpayers should not pay to keep most first degree murderers alive for the rest of their natural lives. As I thought about and researched the topic, my view changed somewhat.
Of course, many believe human life is precious and a civilized society must preserve even the lives of convicted mass slaughterers. I’m not of that view. With a growing world population of 7.6 billion, just how precious is one life guilty of deplorable acts? The punishment should fit the crime. Some acts are so destructive to the lives of others, so appalling, so perverted, so deplorable and so damaging to society that only the death of the perpetrator would satisfy my sense of justice. It offends me that someone who intentionally took another’s life, without any justification whatsoever, is allowed to live out his or her life with taxpayer-funded room and board, medical services, in-prison recreation and educational opportunities and possibly parole (even when the life sentence is “without parole”).
Logically, shortening a convicted murderer’s life should cost less than supporting the criminal for life. Thus society would benefit by eliminating the cost of incarceration. To my surprise, the economics of executing prisoners isn’t so logical. With the US legal system’s many protections, the death penalty trial costs are much higher and numerous appeals, often on grounds unrelated to the actual crime, can go on for decades. The cost of housing a death row inmate is apparently higher than for the normal prison population. I found estimates of $30,000 to $76,000 per year per usual inmate, increasing to as much as $135,000 per year for a death row inmate. (NYC reported an unbelievable average $168,000 cost per ordinary inmate in 2013.)
Regardless of added cost, I believe the death penalty should be retained for monstrous acts. Experts disagree on whether the death penalty deters crime. Deterrence is irrelevant for purposes of this article. I’m only considering whether some acts are so heinous that society should impose the death penalty because justice requires it.
I am deeply troubled by the possibility of a truly innocent person receiving the death penalty. Estimates suggest around 4% of inmates sentenced to death are probably innocent. 1.6% were actually exonerated and released from prison. I absolutely agree the possibility of an innocent person being sentenced to death is a major concern.
Nevertheless, I still believe some crimes mandate the imposition of the death penalty. As only one recent example, Sayfullo Saipov, on October 1, 2017, intentionally drove a rented trunk into a bike path in New York City and then into a school bus, killing eight people and seriously injuring twelve. He was photographed and caught at the scene. Upon arrest, he bragged about his act and his support for ISIS, which claimed responsibility. There’s no doubt he was performing a premediated act of terror. Mr. Saipov should receive the death penalty and he should be promptly executed. Suppose a terrorist group manages to explode a nuclear bomb in NYC, killing 150,000. The terrorists are caught and their guilt is without doubt. Does your common sense suggest their lives should be spared? Would you spare the lives of the Nazis responsible for exterminating millions of Jews in WWII? Should a criminal who shoots and kills a pursuing police officer be allowed to live while leaving the dead officer’s family devastated?
How do I reconcile my view with the conflicting concern that an innocent person might be sentenced to death? Firstly, I believe only the most heinous crimes should be subject to the death penalty. These “death penalty crimes” should be clearly defined and publicized. Secondly, I believe the death sentence should be imposed only when there is no doubt of guilt, a standard higher than “beyond any reasonable doubt.” Finally, I suggest a special independent court review should automatically follow every death penalty sentence. This new court, consisting of several experienced judges, would examine anew all the facts of the original trial and give the defendant the benefit of every doubt. If this court unanimously concludes the defendant is guilty of the act and the imposition of the sentence is appropriate, the court would affirm the death sentence with immediate execution to follow and with no right to further appeal. Constitutional due process is maintained and society is rid of a piece of human garbage. End of story.
Some worthwhile articles: https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31614 https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-is-the-average-cost-to-house-inmates-in-prison/ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/nyregion/citys-annual-cost-per-inmate-is-nearly-168000-study-says.html?mtrref=www.google.com&gwh=EAE2DBA6B42AA3D7CCF8221D05AF078A&gwt=pay http://www.mountain-news.com/news/crime_log/article_4f1e45f8-5630-11e0-93da-001cc4c002e0.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/28/innocent-death-penalty-study_n_5228854.html