To Kill or not to Kill

The issue of the death penalty has been a source of concern, debate, and controversy

within the United States. Capital punishment has created divisions within the country because of

the morality of the situation and because there are many cases in which innocent people are put

to death. Many people feel that the death penalty is moral when used against murderers because

they think that murderers should be held to the standard of an eye for an eye. But as Mahatma

Gandhi famously said, “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.” If the

death penalty is abolished, there will be advantages and disadvantages, but for this situation, the

benefits will far outnumber the drawbacks and capital punishment should be banned in all of the

United States. The death penalty must be abolished in the United States because of its hefty

price tag, unfairness, and inability to be a deterrent to future crimes.

A major issue with the death penalty is that it costs absurd amounts of money to execute

one person. It is far more expensive to execute a person because of the long and complex legal

process required for capital punishment cases than to give them an alternative sentence of life

without the possibility of parole. This includes fees for investigation, trial, appeals, and

incarceration between trials. Richard C. Dieter, executive Director of the Death Penalty

Information center, stated that, “In California, a legislative commission concluded that it costs

the state an extra $90,000 for each death row inmate per year compared to the costs of the same

inmate housed in general population” (Dieter). The amount of taxpayer money that is put into

funding the death penalty is astronomical. According to some studies, states spend 48% to 300%

more prosecuting cases in which the death penalty is an option compared to cases in which it is

not. Also, North Carolina spends more than $2 million just to execute one person (Whitehead).

The option of life without parole is a more viable and less expensive option to the death penalty.
Not only will it save states millions of taxpayer dollars, but will also give inmates an opportunity

to repent. After the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, nearly 2,000 capital trials have been

conducted and only 13 people have been executed. In those 33 years, California has spent $4.6

billion taxpayer dollars on the death penalty system. That is almost $308 million per execution

(Delcour). The high cost of the death penalty system prevents the state from adequately funding

programs dealing with public education, the aging infrastructure, and the health care system and

may have caused higher taxes. The money saved could be used in many more cost efficient

ways that do not involve legal fees resulting from a capital case. Precious taxpayer dollars

currently being sucked into the death penalty system could be used instead to help and support

victims’ families. The state could do many things with money redirected from the death penalty

system, including repairing the aging infrastructure, providing counseling for the victims’

families, and improving the education system. The money being redirected into the education

system could help to keep people off the streets and prevent them from going to jail. For the

wellbeing of all people and for the future of the economy, the death penalty must be abolished in

the United States of America.

Despite what many people say, the death penalty not only is exceedingly expensive, but

also does not effectively deter crime. Supporters of the death penalty argue that people are less

likely to commit a murder if they knew the consequences. But, one of the most intriguing

questions that John. D. Bessler, attorney and adjunct professor of law at the University of

Minnesota Law School brought up was, “If executions were such a wonderful deterrent, why

would the government choose to hide them from public view and even pass laws prohibiting the

dissemination of news from them” (Bessler)? The society we live in is very violent. People

commit murder at shocking rates even with the threat of the death penalty over their heads.
Maybe, when prisoners were hung in front of an angry mob, the death penalty was a deterrent to

crime. However, many laws have been passed that prevent public executions. So, it is a lot

harder to portray the death penalty as a deterrent to crime. Gregory Ruff, a police lieutenant in

Kansas said, “I have never heard a murderer say they thought about the death penalty as a

consequence of their actions prior to committing the act” (Whitehead). Most people do not even

think about the consequences of their actions. They usually will think that they will commit

whatever crime they want and slip away unnoticed. 67% of all police chiefs recognize the truth

in Gregory Ruff’s statement and believe that the capital punishment system is not producing

noticeable results due to the slow process and infrequent occurrence of the death penalty

(Whitehead). Also, attorney and adjunct professor John D. Bessler said, “A recent study

commissioned by the New York Times examined FBI data and found that… over the last 20

years, death-penalty states’ homicide rates have been, on a per capita basis, an astonishing 48%

to 101% higher than in non-death-penalty states” (Bessler). This investigation uncovered

evidence that the death penalty not only does not deter crime, but may also be linked to

increasing crime rates in many states. According to statistics and studies on the death penalty

system, the number of homicides in non-death-penalty states is much lower than the number of

murders in states that use the death penalty. The death penalty is inefficient, yields poor results,

and must be abolished.

Besides being expensive and inefficient, the death penalty system is also extremely

biased. Since the system is so corrupt, the social class of the defendant is one of the biggest

factors in determining whether the defendant will receive the death penalty. Although the 6th

Amendment entitles all defendants to a lawyer, most defendants who cannot afford a lawyer will

not represented by a good lawyer. And as U.S. Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said,
‘“I have yet to see a death case among the dozens coming to the Supreme court… in which the

defendant was well represented at trial…People who are well represented at trial do not get the

death penalty”’ (Whitehead). Court appointed attorneys usually stand no chance against

experienced and well-paid prosecutors. But, any prosperous defendant will most likely have

lawyers that will provide a decent defense. Unsurprisingly those represented by a court-

appointed lawyer are twice as likely to be given the death penalty as those represented by private

attorneys or public defenders (Costanzo). It is obvious that the death penalty system favors those

with wealth and class and is biased towards those who are less fortunate. Many of the more

affluent people have their own personal lawyers or can afford to pay for a decent one. A better

lawyer will be able to present a better defense of his or her client and the defendant will most

likely be handed a lesser sentence. However, those who cannot afford a decent lawyer will be

appointed an atrocious lawyer that will probably provide an awful defense for the accused. U.S.

Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas once said, “one searches our chronicles in

vain for the execution of any member of the affluent strata of this society” (Costanzo). This

proves that the system heavily favors people with money and a high social status. If the death

penalty were abolished, this issue could be avoided and many defendants would not have to rely

on incompetent lawyers to defend their lives. It also reveals that the system does not embody the

idea of a system that carries out justice fairly. For the best interest of those who cannot afford a

decent lawyer, the possibility of capital punishment must be eliminated.

In the end, the cost, in both money and human lives, of the death penalty is not worth it.

The use of the death penalty must be banned because it is part of an outdated system and has

been banned by most countries in the European Union. The system is also exceedingly

expensive, has not been proven to be effective in deterring crime, and is biased. As a result,
many people wonder whether or not pouring millions if not billions of taxpayer dollars into an

ineffective death penalty system is worth the cost. At this point in time, the system is past the

point of no return and cannot be salvaged. Therefore, the best decision to make is to completely

outlaw the death penalty in the United States.

 Works Cited

Bessler, John D. "Capital Punishment Harms Society." Capital Punishment. Ed. Mary E.

Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Current Controversies. Rpt. from

"America's Death Penalty: Just Another Form of Violence." Phi Kappa Phi Forum 82

(Winter 2002): 13. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

Costanzo, Mark, and Friends Committee on National Legislation. "The Death Penalty Is

Discriminatory." The Death Penalty. Ed. Mary E. Williams. San Diego: Greenhaven

Press, 2002. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.

Delcour, Julie. "The Cost of the Death Penalty Outweighs Its Benefits to Society." The Death

Penalty. Ed. Jenny Cromie and Lynn M. Zott. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013.

Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Capital Punishment a Costly Option." 4 Sept. 2011.

Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.

Dieter, Richard C. "Capital Punishment Is Too Expensive to Retain." The Ethics of Capital

Punishment. Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. At Issue. Rpt. from

"Smart on Crime: Reconsidering the Death Penalty in a Time of Economic Crisis." Death

Penalty Information Center, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

Whitehead, John W. "The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished." Criminal Justice. Ed. Noël

Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Death

Penalty Is a Miscarriage of Justice: It Should Be Abolished." 2011. Opposing Viewpoints

in Context. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.