Like the Electoral College, the Second Amendment and daylight savings time, capital punishment has long outlived whatever usefulness it once may have had. But unlike those other hoary institutions, there’s no evidence that in fact the death penalty ever served a constructive purpose at all. It’s just something that societies have always practiced by default, have tried to justify by dogma, and have merely assumed is a just and righteous and productive policy. But all such assumptions are based on faulty premises. Here are the main reasons why the death penalty is a horrific failure.
1. It doesn’t punish the criminal.
Of the several possible functions of a criminal justice system, the one you probably hear the most about is punishment. There is certainly room for all kinds of debate about the proper nature and purpose of punishment, and indeed about whether it’s even possible to punish someone at all. But one thing surely everyone can agree on is that it’s utterly impossible to punish someone who’s no longer around to be punished.
The supposed justice of capital punishment is sometimes reduced to the Bronze Age dictum of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. Such a credo is nonsensical and insulting — do you really think the eye of a drug pusher has an equivalent moral value to the eye of a jeweler, or that the life of a cold-blooded killer compensates for the life of an innocent child?
2. It punishes innocent loved ones
No matter how atrocious the offenses a criminal has committed, and no matter how irredeemable a criminal may be, he or she nearly always has family members who are decent human beings, and who are horrified and shamed by the criminal’s actions. The protracted process of executing a member of their family, however disgraced, simply places an additional burden of trauma upon these relatives on top of the horror of the crime(s) committed by that family member.
3. It also kills the innocent
Many innocent people have been wrongfully convicted of terrible crimes — and sometimes sent to their deaths. Some people may tell you that this all a thing of the past, thanks to the magic of DNA testing. Not so; DNA evaluation is not even available for the vast majority of crimes. According to one study, 4 percent of death row inmates are innocent of the offenses for which they were convicted. How many have been executed? Who knows. But how many innocent deaths would you consider an acceptable level of sacrifice to satisfy a society’s blood lust?
4. It destroys evidence
Assuming the death row inmate really is guilty, chances are they have information about other crimes — information that they might reveal sooner or later, deliberately or inadvertently. But they probably won’t be able to reveal anything after they’ve been killed.
5. It eliminates the prospect of rehabilitation
Sometimes people do change. Sometimes they even change for the better. Yes, even hardened convicts. This, indeed, is one of the other possible objectives of a criminal justice system. And it’s not a great exaggeration to say that sometimes the person who is executed is an altogether different person from the one who committed the crime.
6. It eliminates the prospect of restitution
Another function of criminal justice is to provide the offenders with opportunities to make restitution (not necessarily monetary) to victims, their families, and society in general. Dead people do not make restitution.
7. It’s expensive
A death sentence is far more costly to taxpayers than a lifetime prison sentence. In California, it costs 18 (yes, eighteen) times as much.
8. It’s racist and elitist
Black Americans are far more likely to be executed than white Americans. Defenders of the death penalty may respond to this with “Well, blacks commit more crimes than whites”. But that’s hardly a satisfactory explanation. Regardless of how many other people commit crimes, the average black defendant in a capital crime is four times more likely to be sentenced to death than the average white defendant. Furthermore, while the vast majority of black criminals, like the vast majority of white criminals, commit their crimes against victims of their own ethnic group, a black defendant is far more likely to be sentenced to death if the victim is white.
One factor in the disparity between black and white justice is simply a matter of green paper: African-American defendants tend to be more economically disadvantaged; and defendants who can afford good enough lawyers are less likely to be dealt the death penalty. In that respect, the United States is only one step removed from those cultures in which individuals about to be executed can buy their way out of it — provided they have sufficient funds, of course.
9. It doesn’t deter crime
Another function of a system of justice is to deter crime. But the death penalty fails to measure up to this one as well, even after millennia of practice. Its defenders will say, “Of course it deters crime — once you execute a killer, he’ll never kill again.” But that’s confusing deterrence with prevention. Yes, killing someone will prevent them from victimizing civilians in the future. But incarceration does too — and with considerably fewer drawbacks. So there is certainly no advantage for capital punishment on this score.
Deterrence, however, means discouraging other people from committing crimes. And there is still zero evidence that capital punishment does this. On the contrary, the states where the death penalty is in effect have had consistently higher homicide rates than states without the death penalty.
10. It sends the wrong message
In order for capital punishment to deter crime, two conditions would have to be in effect: (a) it would have to send a prompt, efficient and clear message that the execution is the direct consequence of the offense, and (b) potential criminals would have to be duly impressed by that message. But the contemporary American public has a sorely limited attention span, and its mentality connects capital crime and capital punishment in only the most tenuous and disinterested fashion.
Moreover, many of the most dangerous criminals have difficulty processing such a connection. They are heavily damaged sociopaths who have no concern for anyone’s life — including their own. Furthermore, they tend to be of lower than average intelligence. Yet supporters of capital punishment expect dysfunctional and low functioning individuals to correlate the state-sponsored deaths of strangers with the consequences of their own future conduct.
Capital punishment governments expect to teach that killing people is wrong — by killing people. It’s like a parent walloping a child and saying, “don’t hit”. (Many killers grow up in homes like this — or even homes where they get just the hitting without the admonition. ) But as any good parent or teacher can tell you, what children (or adults) really learn is what they are shown rather than what they are told. And the state-sponsored taking of human life teaches people that killing is acceptable and human beings are dispensable.
Globally, there is also a less-than-optimum message. The nations with the most executions per year include countries with a history of totalitarian regimes like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Libya. Is this really the kind of company you want to keep?
Most of the world’s nations have either abolished the death penalty or are in the process of doing so. Isn’t it about time for the United States, and the rest of the planet, to catch up?
[…] punishment. So… The Propaganda Professor offers 10, count them 10, objective reasons the death penalty must be abolished. The most powerful, and the truest, reason is omitted. It is a subjective reason, a matter of […]
This latest post of yours POP, discusses a very important issue–not just because guilty people need to be punished, but also because, (just as a society treats its animals reflects on the health of that society as a whole), so is the way that society treats its fellow human beings. However, I must disagree with you if you are saying that the death penalty is never appropriate. Sometimes an individual can be so ugly and corrupt that giving that person a chance to be freed again later, is unconscionable. And in those cases I believe people like Charles Manson, for instance, should have been executed long ago rather than allowed to feed his corrupt ego while watching himself on national television and providing him with a twisted sense of fame—especially when his infamy has been made into Hollywood movies and immortalized by numerous documentaries about his crimes. What good is keeping a man like that alive, especially when there is no proof that he did anything but the violent and delusional acts that he was accused of?
Where I agree with you, however, is that many of the people we convict have later been freed after new DNA evidence has proved them innocent. Did you say that up to 4% of those on death row have been released or exonerated?–(I’m unsure of the actual number you used), but whatever the exact percentage, we must also realize that the ideal principle at work when the accused is tried by a jury of his or her peers, is that (in a civilized society), justice also means protecting the innocent—not just punishing the guilty—especially when prosecuting someone rapidly and without all the evidence being examined, leaves a jury free to render an unjust verdict or eventually let a guilty man go free.
I am sure that most of your readers, have seen the movie (Twelve Angry Men) which is about a trial in which only one member of a jury decides to hold out until further evidence is made available, and as a result, he is attacked verbally by his fellow jurists who are all convinced that the accused is, in fact, utterly guilty. Well, while the single jurists holds out, more evidence is gathered, and he eventually convinces the other 11 that they do not have enough evidence to convict. So I think that when the accused was eventually found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, (although I may not be right about this), he was acquitted?
However, in the real world one can understand why a group of jurors who have been deadlocked for days, may feel the need to get back to work again, and might become angry and refuse to cooperate with a lone dissenter—which is one big reason why we should not execute most people who are convicted of heinous crimes— because the fact is, that a certain number of them may be found innocent after receiving another trial by their peers in the future.
If TV cop shows like Law and Order and Chicago PD are to be believed, sometimes people are unfairly sent to prison even if they are innocence, and at least if the accused is not executed by the State he or she may be granted an appeal based on that negligence in the future. So in many ways eliminating the death penalty is an act of compassion granted by members of a civil and healthy society. And it never ceases to amaze me how so many innocent people are interrogated for many hours without food or water, and then are finally convinced that they must admit to being guilty in order to secure a lesser sentence. This is what happened to those poor black kids in central park who were wrongly accused of murder and spent many years in Prison.
It is pretty certain that some family members will feel emotional pain after watching a friend or relative of theirs being executed. But isn’t it also pretty certain that the parents of children who, for instance, are brutally raped and tortured, will feel a sense of relief as they watch the monster who took away their child’s life in such a brutal way, executed while they watch? In other words, even though we should treat all our fellow men with compassion, or at least fairness, there are some people who are so twisted (for lack of a better word) that they are just plain evil, and that it is immoral for any society to let such a people live out the rest of their lives on Death Row,]–simply because if they are executed instead, they will never get out on appeal and will never be able to harm anyone again!
It’s sad that some criminals are so corrupt and without conscience, that they will never again be safe to be released back into society, and in those cases the best justice to administer is to execute them. When such criminals are executed it can actually ease their suffering, as well as the suffering of families whose loved ones were their victims.
“…will feel a sense of relief as they watch the monster who took away their child’s life in such a brutal way, executed while they watch?”
I should have let the sentence end with “…who took their child’s life in such a brutal way.”
[…] needs to be much more: namely, effective, efficient and constructive. The death penalty, as we have seen, is not; of all the possible functions of criminal justice, it serves only one: it separates the […]