I used to support the death penalty. However, I was often struck with an uncomfortable feeling when saying so, especially when comparing it to my other views regarding social issues (I'm Democratic and socially liberal). I had believed that someone committing crimes worthy of the death penalty deserved a similar punishment: death at the hands of the state. It seemed fair, and it seemed logical. Considering the past tense of that statement, I believe it is obvious that I have changed my views in that regard. I no longer support the death penalty.
My change in view did not come from some sort of moral change of heart; I am not opposed necessarily to the idea of a death penalty, or its inclusion in the penal code. However, I do not believe it can be conducted effectively in our criminal justice system nor can it ever really be "fair." To elaborate, our criminal justice system, as we all know, is incredibly overworked. The trial process is a long and convoluted one, including several phases and motions prior to trial, the actual trial, the possibility of retrials, post-trial motions, appeals, and post-appeals. This process is so long as this nation truly emphasizes "innocent until proven guilty;" we want to provide as many opportunities and stages as possible to catch any mistakes and ensure an innocent person is not being punished for something they did not commit.
Considering that, I believe the death penalty opposes that notion and inherently conflicts with that ideal. After someone is put to death, there is no undoing that punishment. We have most definitely executed innocent people, and have exonerated several people on death row (over 330). That in and of itself to me is reason enough to do away with the death penalty. While no amount of reparations can make up for the lost time an innocent person spends battling the criminal justice system or in prison, we can at least try to rectify the mistake by removing him from the prison environment and easing his transition back to his family and his community. That is impossible with the death penalty.
Likewise, the multiple steps that are so very important to maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system, the several layers of appeals, have particularly negative effects with regards to the death penalty. Appeals are time-consuming and incredibly costly. Individuals languish on death row for years while their appeals are processed. It is not only cruel to subject an individual to the years of mental anguish regarding one's fate, but it is expensive. Death penalty cases cost several thousands of dollars more than non-death penalty cases, due to the lengthy appeals process and their otherwise complicated nature. Compounding this is the increased cost in keeping a prisoner on death row as opposed to the general prison population.
I have other grievances against the death penalty, including racial factors such as the over-representation of minorities in literally every negative facet of the criminal justice system and how that interacts with the ruling in Furman v. Georgia (1972), which deemed the death penalty unconstitutional as it inconsistently applied the death penalty and often included racial bias. However, my main arguments against it are the possibility for error and its increased cost.
I would recommend looking through innocenceproject.org. The Innocence Project is committed to applying DNA evidence to exonerate death row inmates, and has been involved with several. Look through the case profiles of some of these individuals, and how unfortunate their stories are. It really isn't that difficult to be falsely convicted, especially with the over-reliance of frequently unreliable witness testimony and primarily circumstantial evidence.
My change in view did not come from some sort of moral change of heart; I am not opposed necessarily to the idea of a death penalty, or its inclusion in the penal code. However, I do not believe it can be conducted effectively in our criminal justice system nor can it ever really be "fair." To elaborate, our criminal justice system, as we all know, is incredibly overworked. The trial process is a long and convoluted one, including several phases and motions prior to trial, the actual trial, the possibility of retrials, post-trial motions, appeals, and post-appeals. This process is so long as this nation truly emphasizes "innocent until proven guilty;" we want to provide as many opportunities and stages as possible to catch any mistakes and ensure an innocent person is not being punished for something they did not commit.
Considering that, I believe the death penalty opposes that notion and inherently conflicts with that ideal. After someone is put to death, there is no undoing that punishment. We have most definitely executed innocent people, and have exonerated several people on death row (over 330). That in and of itself to me is reason enough to do away with the death penalty. While no amount of reparations can make up for the lost time an innocent person spends battling the criminal justice system or in prison, we can at least try to rectify the mistake by removing him from the prison environment and easing his transition back to his family and his community. That is impossible with the death penalty.
Likewise, the multiple steps that are so very important to maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system, the several layers of appeals, have particularly negative effects with regards to the death penalty. Appeals are time-consuming and incredibly costly. Individuals languish on death row for years while their appeals are processed. It is not only cruel to subject an individual to the years of mental anguish regarding one's fate, but it is expensive. Death penalty cases cost several thousands of dollars more than non-death penalty cases, due to the lengthy appeals process and their otherwise complicated nature. Compounding this is the increased cost in keeping a prisoner on death row as opposed to the general prison population.
I have other grievances against the death penalty, including racial factors such as the over-representation of minorities in literally every negative facet of the criminal justice system and how that interacts with the ruling in Furman v. Georgia (1972), which deemed the death penalty unconstitutional as it inconsistently applied the death penalty and often included racial bias. However, my main arguments against it are the possibility for error and its increased cost.
I would recommend looking through innocenceproject.org. The Innocence Project is committed to applying DNA evidence to exonerate death row inmates, and has been involved with several. Look through the case profiles of some of these individuals, and how unfortunate their stories are. It really isn't that difficult to be falsely convicted, especially with the over-reliance of frequently unreliable witness testimony and primarily circumstantial evidence.