The High Cost of the Death Penalty

The only justification for the death penalty is for the state to act as a conduit for the vengeance of the individual against the perpetrator. Any other justification for keeping the practice intact has been consistently refuted by the facts. Let's examine them one at a time.

1. The death penalty reduces the prison population, thus lowering the burden to taxpayers.
Most proponents of the death penalty concede that it costs much more to keep an inmate in prison for life than the cost of the legal process and maintenance of a separate prison - "death row" - for those sentenced to death. In a 2009 Los Angeles Times article, John Van de Kamp - former California Attorney General - cites a study that put the cost of maintaining the death penalty at $125 million a year more than sentencing prisoners to life in prison. In a state that is struggling to make ends meet, it's difficult to justify the practice merely from a financial standpoint.

2. The death penalty is a deterrent.
Opinion differs more on this point but it's hard to argue with the following simple statistic: states that do not have the death penalty have lower murder rates than states that do and, similarly, countries that have outlawed the practice have lower rates than the U.S. To say that it is a deterrent is to assume that murderers, often in the grip of rage or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, is fully conscious of the consequences of their actions. Most think they'll never be caught.

3. No innocent prisoner has been ever been executed.
Proponents of the death penalty have argued that no innocent man has ever been executed. Other studies have suggested that of the 200 prisoners later cleared by DNA evidence, 14 were on death row. It's hard to argue that if even one prisoner is wrongly executed, that the practice should be continued.

Is vengeance a viable excuse for a society to maintain a practice that many other countries have relegated to a barbaric past of slavery, debtors' prisons, and corporal punishment? Our Constitution not only protects against "cruel and unusual punishment" but is in place to protect the individual against the tyranny of the many. Our court system is engineered not to mete out revenge for the victims but to protect society from future harm.

Rejecting the death penalty will not excuse the atrocities of those sentenced to death but it will show that, as a society, we've moved one step closer to a utopia where the state will never abridge the right to live of any of its citizens.