Christina Pendrak
Economics
April 1999

The Introduction

If an unknown person swept through the dorms of University of Wisconsin - Superior and viciously murdered 15 people while they were vulnerable in their beds at night, the school would be in an uproar. Parents and teachers and students alike would have one thing on their mind -- find who the killer was. What would we do to them once we found them? Have a lynch mob and party all night with him swinging in the breeze? Surely not. How about shake his hand and say "Thanks, we didn’t like them anyway." Not likely. We would send them through the blind eyes of justice to be sentenced to a punishment befitting his crime. What would be a fitting punishment? If they were sentenced to life in prison would the families feel that their childrens’ murderer got the punishment he deserved? If he got sentenced to the death penalty would he ever be executed or just remain lost in the paperwork of the system?

The Problem

The problem we are facing right now, is that the death penalty is not running very efficiently, as evidence of the increasing amount of deathrow inmates. Many of the murderers on death row simply live there and take their "revenge" on the system by plaguing them with appeal after appeal to try and get out of their sentence and ultimately costing taxpayers an exuberant amount of money. At the end of 1998, there were 3,517 prisoners in the United States sitting in death row [1]. Only 68 individuals were executed in 1998, and already 34 have been executed this year, an increase of 14 from 1998 and an increase of 19 from 1997 [2]. There are still over 3,000 inmates awaiting their death. If we were to reduce that number down to a more manageable number, say about 200-300, we would have to execute one person, per day, for the next twenty-six years [3]. It would be unlikely that this would be favorable in the eyes of American Citizens So how do we make the system work more efficiently?

Already today, states are spending millions upon millions of dollars to uphold the death penalty in their states. While at the same time they are facing budget cuts, that creates layoffs and releases thousands of inmates from prison before their terms were finished. Those who are against the death penalty would say that all of the money used for the death penalty should be used for crime prevention instead of on lawyers and appeals for murderers. [3]

The Answer

One thing that we learn in life is that if we invest money into something, most likely something better will come out of it. We go to college to invest in ourselves in order for us to live a possible better life in the future. On April 24, 1996 the United States Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. This act was to install a restriction on the convicted murderer so that after they exhausted their appeals at the state level they had one year and basically one chance to file an appeal at the federal level. [3] This was the government’s investment for the death penalty. Murderers will no longer be able to clog up the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Courts with their numerous appeals. If they cannot succeed in reducing their punishment to life in prison they will be executed within a relevantly short amount of time after their conviction. This, however does not apply to those who were placed on death row before 1996, so the results won’t necessarily be seen until those inmates have passed through the system, as slowly as they have been in the past.

"From 1977 to 1996, the average stay on death row increased from 51 months to 125 months" while they appealed their case to whomever would listen [1]. It is logical to believe that after a few years we will see that number reduce back down to a resemblance of 1977. With murderers having less chances of appealing and sooner execution dates it is sensible that their stay would not be as long as it is now. I would also assume that the number of executions will rise; as one man is placed on death row, a deathrow inmate will be executed. This does not mean that the system would be executing the 356 deathrow inmates per year as suggested, but maintaining or slightly reducing the number of deathrow inmates instead of having the number of inmates increase which puts more burden on the court system. Already, since the act has passed in 1996 execution rates has raised to an all time high, surpassing the previous high of 56 in 1995. And only three and a half months into 1999, we have executed 34 people, an average of 9.4 per month. By the end of the year, if we maintain the same rate of execution, we will have executed 113.3 people. That is 39.3 more people than the current all time high of 74 in 1997. [2] This is evidence that the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act has already had an impact on the system, a step forward in death penalty efficiency.

With the higher execution rate, and the lower amounts of appeals, the justice system will save money from lawyer fees and from the general maintenance of keeping a prisoner. Without the high number of appeals in the system, the courts will be able to spend more time on individual cases, and on different issues. Maybe another act could be reviewed to revise the death penalty again to make it even better. If there were not so many people on death row, we would have more space to keep more criminals. If there were not as many defense lawyer fees as well as processing and court fees to pay, we would not have to lay-off any police, maybe hire more or maybe build a new jail or create a new community program in regards to preventing crime. The money is there regardless of where it goes, and now with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, it won’t be channeled to the death row inmates but rather to more deserving programs in the system.

The Opposing View and Rebuttal

There are many groups out there that are against the death penalty. One of the largest is Amnesty International. They believe that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it is "cruel and unusual punishment." It is cruel and unusual because the inmate is told the exact date and time he will be executed. They also believe that the execution itself is cruel and unusual punishment. [2] I don’t think that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" just because it is the most humane of all deaths, and maybe more than a sentence of life in prison without parole. When a person is executed the number one goal, today, is that the prisoner is rendered unconscious before he dies, so that if any pain is present they will not feel it. That by itself is much more courteous than what their victims probably experienced. A cruel punishment would be to execute them in the same way they had killed their victims, with no warning as to the time it would happen. A cruel punishment would be to amputate the hand that did the crime and then put them in prison for life. A cruel punishment is making them live the rest of their lives in prison. We cannot let them out into the world if it is known that they will most likely kill again, but what kind of life is it to be in prison for the rest of it. Day after day, the same routine, an available education but no resources to use it on, gang fights, sexual abuse, solitary, isolation from the rest of the world; that does not seem like a life, let alone a pleasant, or inexpensive for taxpayers, punishment.

Another argument brought up by the Opposers is that if we cut away the appeals available then innocent people will be executed. To date, there are no cases of anyone being innocent and executed. Only 78 people have been found to be wrongfully convicted of the crime and were released; a very low number for the 3,000+ on death row and 534 executed [4][2]. I noticed also that of the 78, only one was convicted after 1993, and his charges were dropped because of improper evidence, and it took only three years to overturn his sentence [4]. In the early to mid 1990’s forensic sciences has made a big boom in the justice department world and gets bigger and better every year. DNA, forensic fiber analysis, forensic entomology, as well as other areas in the forensic sciences have been approved to be admitted in court cases. Evidence from these subjects greatly enhance the ability for both parties to reach a conclusion that is very accurate if done correctly. DNA has played a major role in cases and can prove innocence or guilt 99.9% accurate. This is not to say that mistakes can be made, but it is a definite improvement than relying on an eyewitness or a shoe print or some other such circumstantial and easily altered evidence.

The Argument

I believe that we need the death penalty in this country in order to maintain a resemblance of order. With the growing crime rates in this country we need to have hard justice or we will never be safe in our homes. If we abolished the death penalty many things would suffer. The families of the victims would suffer knowing that their relative’s murderer was still alive yet their loved one wasn’t. The world would suffer because more murders would occur because the murderers know that they would not be killed but live for free in a prison and never have to worry about life. We must also look at the benefits that the death penalty creates. If we execute vicious murderers we can say that it saves the air we breathe, there would be less chance at food shortages (these are extremes but nevertheless true), and it’s one less criminal to worry about. Also, the feeling of justice to the family members of the victims, and a deterrant for more murders.

The Conclusion

I have argued my point for the death penalty. The new Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act has shown improvement already in the efficiency of the death penalty and will show more improvement in the future. I don’t believe the system is perfect by any means, it is getting better though as evidence of the increased execution rate of the last few years. If we bide our time and watch our investment grow, I believe there will be a marked improvement in the system in efficiency, budget, and deterrent for murder. I also believe that this is just the start in our investment. It would cost just as much to fix the system we have as to get rid of it. I think it would even cost more to abolish the death penalty than it is to fix what we’ve got, for after all we already have the foundation and the head start.

As for the hypothetical victims at University of Wisconsin - Superior, their families and friends would be glad to see justice served. The fitting punishment for their murderer is in the eye of the beholder, and for the majority of the United States, the eye is geared to the death penalty.

References

[1] “Death Penalty Update”. Cooper, Mary H. CQ Researcher. Jan. 8.1999.

[2] Execution Statistics Summary. Amnesty International.
http://www.smu.edu/~deathpen/

[3] The Death Penalty : Opposing Viewpoints. Articles used from Ross, Michael and Kozinski, Alex and Gallagher, Sean. pp.134-145.

[4] Innocence: Additional Cases. Death Penalty Information Center
http://www.essential.org/dpicrecinnoc.html