Untitled

[wulfyb-blog]

The Death Penalty

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the need for capital punishment is absolutely necessary but only as a deterrent. Now, I am not saying that one should use the death penalty or even have it on the books just because we need to answer fire with fire regarding some criminals. Instead, I am saying that the point of more extreme punishment is to discourage people from escalating a crime that is already out of hand. 

Felony murder was in the penal code for New York until it was (questionably) stricken down by the courts. The point of the law was to say that if a person commits a felony (say burglary), and they get caught, how do we discourage them from shooting the witness? Well, the answer is that we have to “offer” them something better than the attempt to not get caught by killing a person. So, they created the idea of felony murder. If you commit a crime and someone dies in the execution of your crime, then you might receive the death penalty. Instead of shooting the witness, it is now more advantageous to attempt to escape the law in other means. 

So, does this work? Despite the evidence for and against, it’s hard to say.  A person can receive the death penalty only if sought by the district attorney, but he is beholden to his constituents. The case is tried before a jury who must not only convict a person as guilty but also recommend the death penalty when it is sought. Further, the judge must find the prosecution met their burden of proof, and she can set aside a verdict if she finds the jury’s conclusion to be unfounded. 

Now, the problem I have for successful death penalty cases actually lies in the economics of it. As of now, we have an appeals system that triggers automatically and is used to exonerate a convicted felon (in this case, on death row), and they attempt to show new evidence to overturn the previous verdict. This and many other safeguards are important, but with the evolution of forensics and the general understanding of science by the common people, it seems completely unnecessary to burden the people of a commonwealth unduly with the added tax burden of these appeals processes. 

One of the main benefits to execution is the outlandish cost of supporting a prisoner for their life-long term. On the other hand, we must not abide maximum sentence of, let’s say, 25 years because some crimes are so heinous that to allow them to have a second-bite at the apple would be unconscionable in a civilized society. (For a future note, I strongly object to the Europe’s fascination with the supposed “right” to be forgotten. I will likely post on this issue at a later time.)

Instead, the appeals need to be swift and limited. Death Row inmates should never live longer than 5 years unless an appeal’s case merits further consideration, and the appeal can stop the clock. If successful, the person is able to leave the prison system earlier than those who appeal without the death penalty, but since the point is to save the state government money on the incarceration bill, the cost is offset and the other person’s appeal is still going to be done in approximately the same time span.

Still, I call for restraint when seeking the death penalty and in writing the penal code regarding it. There are some instances where seeking it should seem completely correct; killing a police officer. Perhaps felony murder, but within a narrow scope. Murder of a child. There are several horrible scenarios where the death penalty seems appropriate, and holding back even the threat seems to be a mistake.

Objection 1

State sponsored murder ....

Irrelevant. The state is merely the representation of the will of the people. And the people, the grand majority, wish for simple things. They want happy children, a safe neighborhood, and a comfortable home. They want food, their needs met, and some entertainment. However, some people cannot be rehabilitated. In the interest of justice, a deterrent that cannot be undone is necessary and its mere existence, even if used with extreme rarity and restraint, could prevent some crimes and by its use remove people beyond the help of any program that might better be suited to save others.

Objection 2

The innocent man 

Yes, but the safeguards exist for a reason. I would be delusional to suppose that  no innocent man will die by the state, but it is a necessary sacrifice. Innocent men suffer 5-10 years of incarceration. They are raped in prison, and as a result, contract HIV. They have a death sentence just as assured as the needle, and yet, people don’t talk about this as much. Mistakes will happen. The system makes mistakes. But after the number of appeals the system has, a person will be saved if they are truly innocent.

Object 3

Some other reason

You’re welcome to disagree. My initial point is that the option of the death penalty has value even if it were never used. Felony murder is a great example, but I cannot personally abide providing (crappy) living condition for a prisoner who raped a child and killed them. To me, this person should be executed. Immediately. I’d prefer the appeal to be a week after the trial, and the execution the week after that. But, I’m not in charge of the penal system, for better or worse. In the end, it’s just the rants of a canine using a keyboard.