Should convicted serial murderers be put to death for their crimes?

I do not believe that the death penalty should be administered as punishment in the case
of serial murderers for the following reasons: the costs of these trials, the conviction error rates,
the issue of mental instability, and the flawed reasoning behind the execution model.
Since 1976, there have been 1,375 criminals who have received the death penalty. In this
same span of time, 144 individuals have been released from death row due to later findings
regarding evidence of their innocence - that is more than a 10 percent error rate(1). Risking the
lives of innocent people is not something our justice system should tolerate, and choosing a
punishment option such as a life sentence in prison at least leaves room for correction of legal
error. Another factor that surprises many people about these death row trials is the cost,
especially comparative to the cost of trials that result in life sentences instead. The average cost
of defending a trial in a federal death case is $620,932, about 8 times that of a federal murder
case in which the death penalty is not sought (2). In Florida alone, each case resulting in
execution of a murder criminal costs an average of $24 million dollars (2). These raised costs
alone should be cause for judicial reform and are a justifiable reason for shying away from the
death penalty as a punishment. However it has also been found that the death penalty does NOT
act as a deterrent to murder by 88% of the top criminal studies experts in the nation (2). What of
the mentally ill serial murderers? Almost no states that deem the death penalty legal have any
legislation that deals specifically with mentally unstable murder criminals, only those who are
found to be mentally retarded or insane are exempt (3). This leaves many serial killers who may
be mentally challenged at a severe disadvantage in the court room. Lastly, the idea behind capital

punishment is that the actions the criminal committed that resulted in the taking of an innocent
life deserve to be equally punished, by taking the criminals life. As I will further discuss in the
next section, this is a flawed argument that begins to demand an eye for an eye which equates
to revenge and retribution, neither of which are a morally justifiable reason for prosecution. The
families of the killers must be considered in these matters too, as the death of their loved one is
considered a trade off for the lives of others loved ones.
Potential counter arguments include the eye for an eye motto, which states that anyone
convicted of murder should themselves be executed, and the idea that the threat of execution
could be intimidating enough to prevent many potential killers from attempting to commit such
crimes. First of all, the eye for an eye motto is not a widely used method in the United States,
as most criminal convictions result in prison time, monetary charges, or community service time.
If we were to further play out the eye for an eye mentality, there could be suggestions that
rapists are raped as punishment, that thieves are stolen from, extortionists be extorted, or those
who kidnap have their children or loved ones taken from them by kidnapping. I do not believe
this is a system we would want to have in place, and if the method cannot be applied on a broad
spectrum, why should we implement it in just one area? Secondly, the idea that the threat of
potential execution if a serial killer is caught would seriously hinder the serial killers efforts is
ludicrous. Many serial killers have mental, emotional, and personality disorders, making them
unstable and often described (sometimes by themselves) as not in their right mind especially
while committing their murderous crimes. Example: Jeffery Dahmer met 26-year-old Steven
Toumi, and could not recall killing him but woke up next to his dead body with no recollection
of what happened, indicating an unstable mental state at the time of the crime. If this is a
commonality or even a possibility in the case of serial killers, how can we expect the threat of

punishment to affect their actions? In addition, the future threat of punishment is usually only
plausible when the crime is premeditated. This would mean that any and all murders which were
not foreseen or forethought would be most likely unaffected by the threat of the death penalty.
In conclusion, the death penalty as a punishment for serial murder is costly, ineffective,
and cruel. Based on this evidence, the most logical course of action would be to eliminate capital
punishment from the sentencing options for Americas criminals, including serial murderers.

Bibliography
1.
2.
3.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty#financialfacts
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/mental-illness-and-death-penalty#legislation