Persuasive Essay "The Chair Gets the Hot Seat"

Professor Gayle Feng-Checkett’s Eng. Comp. 102 class. May 4, 2005. Persuasive essay with light research, in-text citations, works cited-MLA style.

The ‘Chair Gets the “Hot Seat”

By Nathaniel E. Kistner

Since the days of the earliest American colonies, and even longer before that, the classical, underlying theme of criminal law has always been something to the effect of: “an eye for an eye”, a life for a life. Laws like this were literally carved in stone (specifically diorite), such as the code of laws written by Hammurabi of Babylonia. This idea is perhaps most notably manifested in the spirit, if not the practice, of the death penalty. On the face, the concept of a penalty of death seems overtly logical. Taking a life begets punishment; the punishment for killing is death. Were it only that simple would a modern system of capital punishment be appropriate; however, these days are far more complicated. These days, the legal processes and legislature involving capital punishment in the United States have become so contrived, so inefficacious, that it has created a money draining, prison filling, court overwhelming, societal terror that reaps little positive benefits, if any. Some would argue that reform is possible and necessary. Unfortunately, in so litigious a society which holds human rights in such high regard as the United States, what could possibly be reformed without someday returning to its’ present unfortunate state of occlusion? Plainly put, the death penalty was once an effective deterrent, but in these complicated times, it simply doesn’t do much of anything anymore, literally. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the death penalty has

become an outdated concept, which has proven an inefficient deterrent and a costly endeavor that ultimately yields only negative results for society as a whole.

The death penalty has become what experts would jokingly call somewhat of a “growth industry”. Due to the complex legislature and legal processes involving capital offenses, executions are rarely carried out and inmates sit on death row for years. This gives little credence to arguments for the death penalty as a means of removing dangerous offenders from society. In 2001, there were 3,581 inmates total awaiting execution in the United States (Table 6.76, Bureau...). Out of all of those inmates, only 66 of them were executed that year under civil authority (Table 6.76). So what became of the 3,515 who were not executed? Most of them are still there. Like killer Gary Alvord of Florida, who has been on death row since 1973, and is still using up some of his appeals in the courts (“Anger and Amb…”). Or the 109 death row prisoners of Georgia who have been guests of the green mile since 1980 (“Anger and Amb…”), a year in which no executions whatsoever were carried out under civil authority (Table 6.75). Murderer Duncan McKenzie was the first person to be executed in the state of Minnesota since FDR’s third term, after avoiding the needle for 20 years, and only losing his final stay of execution by a single vote (“Anger and Amb…”). Statistics show that for every one person executed in the United States, an average of 5 new inmates land on death row (Anger and Amb…). This system of punishment is creating a pileup which experts say could only be cleared up if states began to execute one person per diem until the year 2022 (“Anger and Amb…”), a solution which, suffice it to say, is unlikely by far. With

the system of capital punishment in such sorry shape, many arguments that proponents of the death penalty would offer are shoddy at best. The entire ‘incapacitation’ effect that was supposed to be the desired outcome of capital punishment is not being realized anymore, not by a long shot. The US Bureau of Justice Statistics stated that beginning in 1992 the number one killer of inmates on death row has been “Natural Causes” (Anger and Amb…”). This one fact is a sad irony, but successfully sums up the result of an ineffective system of punishment. Alex Kozinsky, a federal judge known for upholding death sentences, one of the most outspoken and conservative proponents of the death penalty out of all federal judges, calls the American system of Capital Punishment the “Worst of all worlds…” (“Anger and Amb…”), stating that: “We have constructed a machine that is extremely expensive, chokes our legal institutions…, and ultimately produces nothing like the benefits we would expect from an effective system of Capital Punishment.” (“Anger and Amb…”).

Further strengthening the perception of capital punishment to be a “growth industry” is a startling overabundance of data supporting the argument that capital punishment is an economic drain. As illogical as it may seem, a system of capital punishment is far and away more costly than life imprisonment for any offender in any state at any security level. De facto, in all jurisdictions with a death penalty, the aggregate cost of a single execution is, on average, double that of life imprisonment (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Supporters would claim that executing a prisoner gets them out of the system and off the books for good, and logically would cost less money than keeping them alive and imprisoned for the duration of their natural life. On the face, this

is a logical argument, but the fact of the matter still remains that a death penalty is much more complicated than a simple condemnation to death and the execution of such a sentence. New York’s average death penalty trial alone costs $1.4 million, more than double the cost of one life imprisonment (“…Is an Ineffective”). In Texas, one of the biggest and most active death penalty states, the average cost of one case of capital punishment is approximately 52.3 million dollars, three times the amount of one life-imprisonment in that state in a maximum-security prison (“…Is an Ineffective…”). So why, if capital punishment expunges the system of offenders has it become such an expensive measure? Truthfully, and as mentioned before, a death sentence is hardly a sentence to death, but rather a long sentence of internment with a threat of death tagged on the end. The real source of the extraneous cost incurred by capital punishment lay in the existence of the capital trial, and it is too often not just one capital trial, but a capital trial, a conviction, and a long string of appeals which can linger on for decades. With a capital trial, the stakes are clearly much higher, having a human life in the balance. Prosecutors and defense attorneys begin to pull out all the stops. Staff will be removed from other cases to help with a capital trial; money will be spent on expert witnesses, and extensive research will be done in order to make a case. The cost of the average capital trial tends to be many times that of any trial regarding a non-capital offense. In Kentucky, for example, the average capital trial costs within the range of $2-5 million, and in North Carolina, the state spends an average of $2.16 million more on one capital trial alone than it does on the average non-capital trial including the cost of life imprisonment (“…Is an Ineffective…”). These “normal cases” pale in cases like that of

Thurgood Marshall from Thurston County Washington, who in 1999 cost the state $346,000 dollars to condemn his to third death sentence (“…Is an Ineffective…”). He then racked up costly hospital bills while the state saved him from liver disease so that he could live until he made it to the chair, or at least of course to until he made his most recent sentencing hearing. That hearing alone ran the state another $700,000 legal bill (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Admittedly, the aforementioned is an extreme case, but it simply goes to show what kind of unexpected expenses can and do crop up in a seemingly simple system. The high costs of capital trials drain away valuable revenues from state budgets, leaving other state programs with their hands tied and their wallets empty. Police departments and other government departments are forced to make cutbacks, like New Jersey’s cutbacks in 1991, a year in which the state police department had to lay-off 500 officers in order to put into place a $16 million death penalty program (“…Is an Ineffective…”). The budget cuts of Florida and ten other states for the sake of capital punishment resulted in the early release of thousands of inmates who had only served an average of 20% of their sentences (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Perhaps the saddest and most ironic side effect of all of this misguided spending is the loss of funding for victim advocacy and recovery programs. Money for victim recovery programs such as counseling, therapy and other state-funded plans has become scarce to nonexistent. Such funding problems lead to a focus on retribution rather than reconciliation, a system in which all of the attention (and money) is spent on the perpetrators, and the victims are left in the dust. Where, in such a system, is justice being served?

Capital Punishment, in its current state of crippling mutilation has lost most of the effectiveness that it once had in days of yore. Public executions, while graphic and terrible, left their mark on society and instilled fear in the hearts of any malcontents, offering an “in your face” style of crime and punishment. Any executions performed these days are done somewhat under the radar; moreover, the fact still remains that the amount of death sentences actually carried out pale in comparison to the amount of sentences that aren’t. Proponents of the death penalty would argue for the deterrent effect of capital punishment, but to be blunt, a penalty of death that doesn’t usually kill anyone is not much of a deterrent at all. Instead of being made an example of, inmates are kept locked up indefinitely with a dubious threat of impending death. Forgotten about and “doomed” by the state, these inmates are left to rot using up appeal after appeal and never being rehabilitated or counseled, why rehabilitate a dead man? Once they are sentenced to death, what more have they to lose? This leads to increased prison killings, like the Graterford Pennsylvania prison guard who was murdered by an inmate who was already serving on death row for killing two infants and an elderly woman (“Capital Punishment Canards”). Or, take for example the two death-row inmates of the Florida State Penitentiary in Starkey who were killed in 1995 by a fellow inmate (“…Canards…”). How do you punish someone already on death row? Do you threaten to kill them again? Even if and when an inmate is convicted of a second or even a third offense, that does not expedite the implementation of their sentence. If those who kill rarely ever receive the punishment that they are meant to, then the deterrent effect of a death sentence is slim to none. Unfortunately, data regarding murder rates and the death

penalty is completely inconclusive. Oddly enough, data exist on both sides that show a correlation between murder rates and death penalty, some studies shows the relationship to be a direct one, while in others it is the inverse. While it is true that the United States is the only western democracy with a death penalty, and has the highest homicide rate (“…Is an Ineffective…”), there seems to be less correlation between homicide rates and capital punishment within the states than once thought. Instead, murder rates seem to be a product of region to some extent, with the southernmost U.S. states having a consistently high rate of homicide, (far above the national average) and the northeastern states having the lowest (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Still, the strongest determinant of homicide rates seems to be some identifiable, exogenous variable. Expert Steven Messner, a criminologist at the State University of New York at Albany explains:

“It is difficult to make the case for any deterrent effect by these numbers. Whatever the factors are that affect change in homicide rates, they don’t seem to operate differently based on the presence or absence of the death penalty in that state.” (“Capital Punishment Does Not Reduce Murder Rates”)

Capital punishment, in the face of its ineffectuality as a deterrent, and its awkward nature as a system of justice, still seems to have one major effect, albeit an incidental and regrettable one. Once thought to be a statistical fluke, the concept has gained enough steam that criminologists are now calling it the “brutalization effect”. Conclusive data shows that the public release of information regarding the actual carrying-out of an

execution seems to have a direct relation to murder rates in that region. Murder rates seem to rise in a region during the time period surrounding and following a publicized execution. Following an execution in Arizona, an increase in gun-related and spur-of-the-moment killings arose in 1999 (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Georgia reports an increase of an average of 26 homicides during the months surrounding most executions (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Pennsylvania and California have both reported threefold increases in homicide rates surrounding each execution (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Criminologists reason that this brutalization effect is the result of capital punishment desensitizing the public to killing to some extent. The argument also arises that it legitimizes killing for vengeance in the minds of prospective criminals, somewhat of an attitude of “if the state can do it, I can do it” (“…Is an Ineffective…”). Many would argue that this is an extremist point of view, assuring that any sane person would never draw a conclusion as such; however, the dangerous people in question are obviously not the most reasonable individuals.

Capital Punishment has existed in one shape or form since the very earliest period in America, and has undoubtedly seen our people through some tough times. Over the years though, issues of government, religion, right-to-live and numerous other debates have molded and changed the system of capital punishment into a mere shadow of what was once a useful structure. In the current days of increasing mental illness, drug abuse, and rising violence, times are getting tougher and more complicated by the day. Americans as a people know more now and have advanced beyond all previous expectation. Those beliefs and systems that have failed to prove themselves in today’s

world are being removed and replaced; perhaps it is time that some new ideas are brought to work on the American system of justice. Perhaps it is time for change.

Works Cited

“Anger and Ambivalence”. Kaplain, David A. Newsweek, vol. 126, no. 6. August 7,

1995. Reprinted by Permission. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 29 April 2005.

“Capital Punishment Canards,” Insight on the News, vol. 190, March 4, 2003, p.52.

Reproduced by Permission. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 29 April 2005.

“Capital Punishment Does Not Reduce Murder Rates”. By Raymond Bonner and Ford

Fessenden. Does Capital Punishment Deter Crime? Roman Espejo, Ed. At Issue Series. Greenhaven Press, 2003. pp 14-20.

“Capital Punishment Is an Ineffective Crime Control Policy” by Gary W. Potter. Does

Capital Punishment Deter Crime? Roman Espejo, Ed. At Issue Series. Greenhaven Press, 2003. Excerpted from Gary W. Potter’s statement before the Joint Interim Health and Welfare Committee, Kentucky legislature, Mar. 10, 1999. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 29 April 2005.

“Table 6.76.” Bureau of Justice Statistics Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics-2002.

Kathleen Maguire, Ann L. Pastore Ed. 2003 The Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Center, University at Albany, State University of New York. Albany NY.