Perez 1 Luis A.

Perez Professor Thomas AP English III July 31, 2011 The Illegality of Legal Murder The evolution of humans and humanity, as a whole, is an ongoing process. Ever since the dawn of civilizations, societies and individuals alike have attempted to leave behind animalistic instincts and primordial ways and have struggled to replace them with reasonable and just laws. That progression, from cavemen to law-abiding individuals, has been turbulent and unruly. Laws were first passed down and set by word of mouth, from ruler to ruler and nation to nation. The method was inefficient and cumbersome, inherently leading to disputes on both the interpretation of the laws and the laws themselves. Eventually, the legal system was codified but remnants from the old methodology remained. The Code of Hammurabi was the first codification, and in it the famous eye for an eye rule was firmly established (Hammurabi). During that time period, where demons still existed, mental illnesses were unknown, and the law was difficult to enforce, The Code of Hammurabi worked; it was a product of the era, for the people of the era, by the people of the era. But as time progressed and as democracies around the world began flourishing and old empires and dynasties began to give way to the rule of the people, the laws adapted and morphed with the times. Unalienable rights were formally introduced; the people began aspiring for a society more humane, more just, and more equal than yesterdays society. With new technologies, from gunpowder and the printing press to television and the internet, new laws emerged. Yet, the important factor is that old laws were done away with. Still, some remnants remained. Even though the eye for an eye philosophy was eradicated from many laws and

Perez 2 punishments, one blaring example of the thinkings now 3700 year existence remains under the guiseof the death penalty. While the democracies of the world attempt to preserve human rights around the world, from China to Libya, in their own nations there exists a law that disregards all democratic ideals. Capital punishment, the death penalty, or whatever name this legalized form of murder takes, is an irrational, duplicitous, and inhumane form of punishment that violates all forms of modern, democratic justice. The issue surrounding its eradication is complex, but the majority of the evidence points to it being unnecessary. Many proponents of the death penalty argue that it is a rational way to assure that dangerous criminals do not cause further harm to society, or to any individual. They reason that once a person has committed a murder, the only way to keep him or her from going on another rampage is to take his or her life away. Still, that line of logic is irrational. If the justice system was infallible, if no one was ever unjustly sentenced, or if humans had the power to bring back the dead, then the death penalty could be a reasonable system of permanent seclusion. But as was the case with John Thompson, a man who was recently acquitted when it was revealed that the prosecution had withheld important evidence for eighteen years, people are unjustly punished. I spent 18 years in prison for robbery and murder, 14 of them on death row. Ive been free since 2003, exonerated after evidence covered up by prosecutors surfaced just weeks before my execution date (Thompson). Given the imperfect circumstances under which the decision of sentencing a fellow human being must be made, the very idea of the death penalty is illogical. It will certainly keep any known murder from killing, but with how much certainty can a corrupt system declare who is a guilty of murder and who is guilty of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. A far better method, one that worked well enough to keep Dick, Perry, and manyothers in prison until their respective executions without allowing them to cause any harm,

Perez 3 is imprisonment under a high security prison. Dick and Perry spent two yearsno radios or card games, not even an exercise period indeed, they were never allowed out of their cells except each Saturday when they were taken to a shower room which seems extreme, but is far better than the death of an innocent man (Capote 320-334). Life imprisonment protects society from dangerous criminals and also protects the individuals, every human beings, right to life. It is the best solution to a fallible justice system in which a man can be unjustly sentenced to death when he has committed no crime. The ultimate penalty of death cannot be forced upon an individual when there is any doubt at all about his or her guilt, and given the tendency of humans to commit errors, there is always doubt. Therefore, what society must do to compensate for its lack of perfection is offer the suspected criminal a chance to be proved innocent and live out his or her life as a normal citizen, something that cannot be done after the person has been murdered by the state through the misguided concept of capital punishment. In the light of the previous argument, supporters contend that the death penalty is still a net benefit to society because it is less expensive to punish a criminal through the death penalty than to permanently incarcerate him. If the expenses that the legal system must accumulate in order to adequately prosecute and represent an individual and assign him or her to death row are ignored, then in theory there is greater expense in life imprisonment. But we live in a real world, where the representation of the accused cannot be ignored. In practice, 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 (Death Penalty Information Center). It might be tempting to dismiss this as wasteful spending, but it was also found that[d]efendants with less than $320,000 [in costs] had a 44% chance of receiving a death sentence at trial, but those whose costs were higher than $320,000 had only a 19% chance of being sentenced to death

Perez 4 (Death Penalty Information Center). To economists themselves [i]t appears, from considering evidence of when capital punishment was operating, that it does not work as a deterrent or as inexpensively as proponents argue (Cameron 197). Irrefutably, if the death penalty is to be accepted in the justice system, then the higher costs associated with it must also be accepted and taken into consideration. If the unfair system in which those with the money can reduce their chances of a death sentences is to be followed, then the cost of fairly and equally representing each accused must be acknowledged. The system in which the death penalty thrives is far more expensive to society than a system in which serious offenses are punished with life imprisonment instead of death. The global public is deeply divided about the issue, with many who support capital punishment citing retribution as the main reason. Yet, the death penalty has already been abolished in the majority of free, democratic countries; the European Union demands that its member nations abolish any form of capital punishment and replace it with life imprisonment or an equivalent. Even so, the United States of America, along with China and Japan, remains a retentionist nation that endorses the murdering of criminals. The American population is profoundly divided, as a 2005 study found (Pilot 861). The study surveyed citizens and discovered that retribution was the strongest reason for supporting capital punishment in the United States (Pilot 863). Hickock expresses a similar view when he states that revenge is all it is, but whats wrong with revenge? (Capote 332). To answer Hickocks question, revenge is wrong because it leads to continued retribution. Revenge is an irrational act that usually clouds the minds of people and doesnt allow them to see the facts objectively. If the only purpose the death penalty serves is to fulfill societys thirst for blood, then its very existence harms civilization, as the Europeans have come to realize. Still, some believe that revengeful

Perez 5 retribution could serve as closure for those close to the victims and those deeply involved in the investigations, but during the Clutter Case,Alvin Dewey, the lead investigator, arrived at a closure almost a year ago, [during] a casual encounter in Valley View Cemetery [that] had somehow for him more or less ended the clutter case (Capote 336). Dewey even felt awkward at the execution of Perry and Dick and felt that it just prolonged the suffering. Revenge served no purpose for him. Supporters of the death penalty need to realize that taking the life away from a criminal does nothing to bring the victims back, that murdering another human being does nothing to provide closure to the investigators, and that capital punishment does nothing to give peace to the families of the victims. The death penalty, when used as retribution, simply fills societys desire for blood. The death penalty has been around for a long time, and it makes complete sense. It costs less to quickly put an individual to murder than it costs to safely harbor him away from society in a high security prison. Or does it? The moral compass that always points to revenge and retribution is in our basic instincts and is what will lead to a peaceful society in which the families of victims of horrendous crimes can finally be at peace. Or are they? It is perfectly rational to place hundreds in Death Row and to take their lives away in our perfect, never mistaken, legal system. Or is it? It is time for the death penalty, for the supporters of the death penalty, to provide evidence that any of the former statements are true. The issue is complex, complicated, and murky just like the real word, but in light of countless studies and research, the available evidence demonstrates that the death penalty is a burden on the economy, on the families of the victims, and serves only to fill a base thirst for misguided justice. There can be no justice when the state takes on the responsibility of murdering its own citizens. The death penalty can be torture, for the individual whose life is being destroyed and for society as a whole.The

Perez 6 murderer has committed an atrocious crime, but society will not stoop to his level and avenge the murders evil deed with another.

Perez 7 Works Cited Cameron, Samuel. "A review of the econometric evidence on the effects of capital punishment." Journal of Socio-Economics 23.1/2 (1994): 197. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 7 Apr. 2011. Capote, Truman. In Cold Blood. First Vintage International Edition ed. New York: Vintage International, 1965. Print. Death Penalty Information Center. Death Penalty Information Center, n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. "Hammurabi." Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th Edition (2010): 1. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 10 Apr. 2011. Metz, Thaddeus. "Human Dignity, Capital Punishment, and an African Moral Theory: Toward a New Philosophy of Human Rights." Journal of Human Rights 9.1 (2010): 81-99. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 7 Apr. 2011. Pilot, Rebecca, et al. "Death penalty views in China, Japan and the U.S.: An empirical comparison." Journal of Criminal Justice 38.5 (2010): 862-869. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 7 Apr. 2011. Thompson, John. The Prosecution Rests, but I Cant. NYTimes.com. The New York Times, Apr. 9, 2011. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.