CAPITAL PUNISHEMENT: OMIT OR REEVALUATE

Capital Punishment: Omit or Reevaluate. Lanny M. Hackney Northeaster State University

CAPITAL PUNISHEMENT: OMIT OR REEVALUATE

Capital Punishment: Omit or Reevaluate. I would like to argue that contemporary capital punishment is an unnecessary pecuniary measure that burdens state budgets to the extent where infrastructure, entitlements, and education incur significantly increasing negative opportunity costs. Capital punishment should be done away with or reevaluated in terms of costs to benefits while examining the values or beliefs of those administering it. There is an attitudinal inherency with the policy in that is undermined by the authority of those charged with its administration. That is to say, the financial burden encumbered to states who seek CP is essentially throwing taxpayer money away (WilliamsHerald, 1998). As citizens of these states we pay substantial cost to justify predictions of dangerousness in individuals when in fact behavioral scientist such as Charles Ewing reference data where preventative detention and preventative execution for reasons of dangerousness to society have been wrong 51-95% of the time (Ewing, 1991). The increasing number of overturned convictions and commutations for wrongful convictions according to the ACLU and Death penalty information Center support this data (Bienen, 2010; Silas, F. A., 1986). We live in a country stricken with growing economic uncertainty coupled with fears of global climate change, depletion of natural resources and overpopulation (Center for Bio-Diversity), and we still seek dangerously expensive measures for violent crimes with loosely interpreted connotations, adding to that financial hardship. How constitutional can it be to expend resources that do not exist while seeking to prevent future crimes? Our nation has had its hand in many countrys wars and that fuels a veritable state of high emotional sensitivity in regards to financial states of affair (Blenkin, 2006). There is such an emotional sensitivity toward the economic status of the country that, a policy such as capital punishment can opportunistically gain supporters with rhetorical appeals to consequences,

CAPITAL PUNISHEMENT: OMIT OR REEVALUATE

religious beliefs, and other values with disregard for the long term consequences as long as it proposed to be in the public interest. Consequences such as, a widening gap in the difference between those sentenced and those executed according to federal judge Alex Kozinski of California. Our military has enormous spending budgets, those in higher income brackets enjoy huge tax breaks, and social disparity increases among the lower class (Briggs, 1998). If capital punishment financially costs so much, it doesnt actually deter future murder except inside prison walls (Delauf, et.al, 2013), sentencing to execution ratios is disproportionately high, then the only societal benefit it seems is one not even tangible, but affective and value driven in nature(Schwarzschild, 2002). The money state budgets would surplus as a result of reforming or removing capital punishment would greatly benefit education, infrastructure, or alternative energy improvements. It is identified that states across the nation are spending too much on trials and capital punishment that there are times they need to make cut budgets for education, health care and libraries(American, p.5, 2009). We must critically assess if the cost of pursuing retribution for the families of victims is worth as much as what those costs could do for the rest of the community or state. To seek satisfaction or retributions for losses in violent crime instances would appear to be a value driven endeavor and not one of justice seeking. When there is a policy in place for violent crime offenders, but the policy is undermined by those administering it, it loses its purpose. So, I argue that Capital Punishment proceedings be done away with at the state level on the grounds that the values of those enforcing it undermine its authority. Those administering it know full well the costs associated with pursuing Capital punishment cases and will at times negligently incur costs,

CAPITAL PUNISHEMENT: OMIT OR REEVALUATE

financial or otherwise fulfilling personal expectations while lacking objectivity, to bring some family retributions for their losses even though most cases never get to the execution dates. I see an attitudinal inherency with the policy of Capital Punishment being purported to be a sound course of action for violent crimes. Capital punishment has costs exceeding that which states budgets cannot safely incur and, often times, states will make pecuniary sacrifices to infrastructure, education, and sustainability in order to pursue the death sentence (CITE). Capital Punishment is grounded in the notion of a commensurate behavioral response system to criminal action, similar action for an action, in this case the actions are violence for violence if you will, and is a notion grounded in the Christian belief system. It stems from the proverbial adage of an Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth, foot for a foot, as stated in scripture from the Bible NIV 2013(Matthew, 5:21). Alternatively, if one were to be abiding by scripture, that same logic would reference (Deuteronomy, 5:17), You shall not murder and would be valued just the same, but it is not fitting to their individual narratives or personal expectations. There should not be any emotional or religious valued reasoning applied to written policy, applied when administering a policy, or policies that are constructed as a means to make a moral judgment. Especially, when one is trying to justify committing an immoral behavior on the grounds that another has done the same thing. The argument for commensurate action for violence, is fallacious to the extent that ad Hominem, tu quoque says that 2 wrongs do not make a right. When addressing the fact that the nature of an individuals actions to be violent is enough justification to do to them, that which they have done to another, it does not make it any more right. There are two typical circumstances where for violent behavior is justified in our society, self-defense, where one commits violence to prevent/deter harm to ones own self and violence

CAPITAL PUNISHEMENT: OMIT OR REEVALUATE

justified for punishment such as in Capital Punishment (Reitan, 1993). Those administering the policy of capital punishment for violent offenders assert that it deters future violent behaviors from other criminals if their life is threatened. Capital punishment does not deter future violent behaviors as asserted by its supporters in that it is an argument that is prima facie wrong (Reitan, 1993) and has never been proven. In a study published in Journal of Criminal Justice (Wormer, K, 1999) examines the primacy of suicide in murder and homicide cases as suicide murder rather than murder-suicide. That is to say murder is being used as a coping mechanism in order to end ones own life. The existence of the death penalty influences those wanting to kill them self into actually having the nerve to do it after killing many others or allowing death by cop (Worner & Odiah, 1999). Violence breeds violence a fact borne out of crime statistics; The average homicide rate in states without CP is considerably lower than the other 38 who have it(Wormer, p.362, 1999). This notion could explain Columbine killings or sandy hook for that matter. Those seeking to get cop assisted suicide is so prevalent training programs have been created to allow police to notice if these behaviors are present in crimes in which they are called upon (Wormer, p363, 1999). Furthermore, psychological research has shown that once one has used a gun to kill another it is easy to turn the gun on the self(Wormer, p.362, 1999). The Journal of the AMA has published articles insisting that CP cases are similar to State assisted suicides and a paradox not easily proved but still an objective viewpoint nonetheless. When considering one of the key opportunity costs to keeping Capital punishment it is necessary to acknowledge the prisoner overcrowding situations like in Californias penal system (Weisberg, 2011). A crowded prison system is one type of infrastructure, that could greatly benefit from the resources spent on capital punishment proceedings. Iowas infrastructure budget just got a $ 106 million dollar approval and it will not be used for seeking CP as it

CAPITAL PUNISHEMENT: OMIT OR REEVALUATE

doesnt have it. A large portion of Iowas infrastructure goes to transportation, and renewable energies (infrastructurereportcard.org) Iowa is ranked 10th in renewable energy producing more than 10GwH. Transportation, public institutions, and water conservation suffers the most in the states with the death penalty whereas in states like Iowa which doesnt have CP has significantly lower needs projected over the next 5-10 years. Bridges in Texas have been needing repairs for some time 8,680 of the 52,260 bridges in Texas (16.6%) are considered functionally obsolete and they have one of the highest death penalty seeking court systems in the country. I propose a solution that would increase scrutiny upon what constitutes a crime punishable by death, instituting crucial examinations of the number of ethnic vs. whites who receive death sentence for similar crimes, and some form of bias discovery testing that would seek psychological or religious evaluation of the policy administrators or remove CP all together. The sheer financial surplus as a result of removing it all together is working for those states who have abolished it so seeking consult from those states would be beneficial. The values in place by those states who have the death penalty are for the most part seeking vengeance in order to gain public support, these states are significantly religious and these values undermine the authority policy administrators have to seek or not seek CP. Investigations into why policy makers insist upon making sacrifices to infrastructure or other areas of the sates allocated funds when fiscal analysis that do not permit deviation from the budget. Those in charge should not have the authority to pursue measure outside of what is feasible my the states pecuniary capabilities and if they do they should be brought up on some formal hearing and examined for making value judgments and not objective public interest decisions. Whether it be for seeking CP or not, misuse of ones authority especially to seek revenge for gain of public support is unethical. Logical reasoning is not in place at the forefront of decision making when it comes to

CAPITAL PUNISHEMENT: OMIT OR REEVALUATE

incurring these high actual and opportunity costs and these individuals should have some personal evaluations examining their ability to perform their duties as prescribed by their office.

CAPITAL PUNISHEMENT: OMIT OR REEVALUATE

References American magazine .org (2009, October 26). The Price of Death. America. p. 5. Bailey, W. C. (1980). Deterrence and the Celerity of the Death Penalty: A Neglected Question in Deterrence Research. Social Forces (University Of North Carolina Press), 58(4), 13081333. Bedau, H., & Cassell, P. G. (2004). Debating the Death Penalty : Should America Have Capital Punishment? : the Experts on Both Sides Make Their Best Case. Oxford University Press. Bienen, L. B. (2010). Capital punishment in Illinois in the aftermath of the Ryan commutations: Reforms, economic realities, and a new saliency for issues of cost. Journal Of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(4), 1301-1402. Briggs Jr., V. M. (1998). American-Style Capitalism and Income Disparity: The Challenge of Social Anarchy. Journal Of Economic Issues (Association For Evolutionary Economics), 32(2), 473-480. Durlauf, S., Fu, C., & Navarro, S. (2013). Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Understanding Disparate Results. Journal Of Quantitative Criminology, 29(1), 103-121. doi:10.1007/s10940-012-9171-0 Ewing, C. P. (1991). Preventive detention and execution: The constitutionality of punishing future crimes. Law And Human Behavior, 15(2), 139-163. doi:10.1007/BF01044615 Gershowitz, A. M. (2010). Statewide Capital Punishment: The Case for Eliminating Counties' Role in the Death Penalty. Vanderbilt Law Review, 63(2), 305-359. Infrastructure Report Card. Accessed April 12, 2013. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/iowa/iowa-overview/ Johnson, K. (2012). Study finds no evidence death penalty deters crime. Christian Century, 129(10), 17. Kozinski, A., & Gallagher, S. (1995). Death: The ultimate run-on sentence. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 46(1), 1. Reitan, E. (1993). Why the deterrence argument for capital punishment fails. Criminal Justice Ethics, 12(1), 26. Silas, F. A. (1986). Death penalty: ACLU alleges capital mistakes. ABA Journal, 72(2), 27. Solomon, G. F. (1975). Capital punishment as suicide and as murder. American Journal Of Orthopsychiatry, 45(4), 701-711. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1975.tb01196.x Sullivan, D. (2010). The death penalty loses its mind: an interview with Professor James Acker. Contemporary Justice Review, 13(4), 477.

CAPITAL PUNISHEMENT: OMIT OR REEVALUATE

Schwarzschild, M. (2002). Retribution, Deterrence, and the Death Penalty: A Response to Hugo Bedau. Criminal Justice Ethics, 21(2), 9. Van Wormer, K., & Odiah, C. (1999). The psychology of suicide-murder and the death penalty. Journal Of Criminal Justice, 27(4), 361. Weisberg, R. (2011, November 11). California's de facto sentencing commissions. Stanford Law Review Online, 64(1). White Paper On Ethical Issues Concerning Capital Punishment. (2012). World Medical Journal, 58(3), 82-87. Williams-Harold, B. (1998). A costly matter of life or death. Black Enterprise, 29(2), 26.