Hale 1 Jacob Hale

Professor Sally T. Johnson English 1010 24 September 2012

The Death Penalty: A Struggle of Morals The light of one lamp above a medical table shines cold and harsh in the surrounding room. A family is behind mirrored glass, as the man that killed their loved one walks into the room. This is something theyve waited for, for so long: the death of that monster. The man sits down on the table, and waits for the doctor. As he sits, he and the family both think of the events that led up to this. And questions spin in their head; they spin in everybodys head. Is this right? Is this man really guilty? Did the fact that he was poor or rich, white or black, make a difference in his trial? Did he really have the best public attorney? Will I really feel better after his death? Is the death penalty really the best way? Morality throughout the ages has always been a subject of high debate, and even more so when it comes to the death penalty. Abolitionists and human rights activists scream that this is wrong, and that no government has the right to remove a human being from this world! But what about the criminals? Did they have the right to take away somebody elses life? Many people would argue that the death penalty is there only as a possible punishment; the choice to make it the consequence occurs when the criminal commits his crime. The death penalty honors human dignity. It treats the criminal as a free moral actor who has the ability to control his own destiny for good or for bad; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense. But how can society actually say that we have the right to take away somebody elses life? It may be a punishment, but can we really justify removing a human being from this world by saying well he did it! The debate whether or not someone who commits violent crime deserves to die, is not the topic in question, but rather, should the state or federal government have the right to end a mans life?

Hale 2 Is a system accused of being corrupt through racism, bias towards the wealthy, and bigotry upon the poor? Really the best place to determine whether a man lives or dies? The practice of bigotry in the court is always a scary thing to contemplate. That fact that maybe a man received a harsher punishment just because of his skin is something that society thought they got rid of a long time ago. But yet, it still appears in courts today throughout the country. And not just the color of the skin, but the income level of the defendants also affects that decision. In the courts today we see that African-Americans are THREE TIMES more likely to receive the death penalty than whites. Study after study shows that the death of an African-American is valued less than the death of a Caucasian. What does this mean? People who kill whites are more likely to receive the death penalty than a person who killed an African-American. The over powering statistics of minorities being exploited in courts involving the death penalty is alarming. But at the same time, can society expect anything different? A statistic shows that fifty percent of the inmates currently on death row are African-American. But other studies will also show that minorities will always be more involved in crime than the majority. Minorities are usually plagued with poverty which is a breeding ground for crime. The lack of money and general needs create extra stress on the population causing acts of theft, robbery, and violent acts to break out. You will always find more minorities in these breeding grounds than members of the majority, leading to more minority criminals. The factor of money in the courts of law not only affects the reason for the crime, but also the outcome. Many people would argue that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison because of the many more specialists and lawyers involved. Not to mention the many appeals that happen afterwards to make sure the right procedures were carried out. And while it may be true the upfront costs of the death penalty are higher than life in prison, the net costs of both are quite the opposite. The same reasons why people say the death penalty is so expensive, also apply to sentencing someone to

Hale 3 life in prison. Just as many specialists, lawyers are involved and just as many appeals occur. So whats the difference? The death penalty, trial and sentence, will end sooner than life in prison. The death penalty will be over within maybe 10 to 20 years of the crime. Life in prison will continue until the prisoner dies of a natural cause, making life in prison, possibly span over 40 to 50 years. And guess whos paying for that? The tax payers are. Everything in this world comes at a price, including lawyers. Lawyers are usually the butt end of many a joke in society, but I wonder if we know how really important they are. Lawyers are sometimes the only thing standing in the way of a defendant and death row. Many times, though, this last defense is sadly thin and despairing. On average a shocking two out of three death penalty convictions have been overturned on appeal. This happens because of misconduct and lack of competence from the police, prosecutors, and brand new lawyers placed on these capital cases. There are even stories of public attorneys falling asleep during a trial. How can society stand by and let the court systems so poorly represent people when now, more than ever, they actually need it. Stories of attorneys falling asleep, and inexperienced ones put on such important cases, may be true. But how often does it happen? Many people would say that youre only looking at one side of the coin. When the death penalty is stated as a possible punishment, the defense and court counsel are immediately notified. As many people know, the defendant, if not already in possession of a private attorney, is given an experienced criminal defense attorney. In some states, such as California, the judge can even appoint a second lawyer to the case, giving it just that much more representation. Not only that, but the capital case defense counsel are allotted more funding than usual in order to obtain not only the best lawyer, but also the best forensic scientists, jury selection experts, and so on. To further the point, attorneys also have to routinely file and object to anything to keep their defended from conviction.

Hale 4 But why does civilization even have to worry about this in the first place? You think peoplewell sane peoplewould stop to think before they committed a crime because death is on the line! Common sense and basic instincts tell us to avoid death at all costs. In fact, many statistics now show that death is the number one fear. Likewise, studies have shown people dont fear life in prison as much as death. But despite all this logic, nothing shines through as permanent. No statistic can tell us how effective the death penalty is. And despite the death penalty being used in most statesand it also being denied in severalthe crime rates does not differ in either. They stay consistent. The death penalty is definitely a fickle and touchy subject to be sure, but not one to be denied or ignored. With the lives of many riding on the line, it is imperative for us to find a solution. But the debate is still hot and many statistics are proving both sides of the battle. Is the death penalty really the best way? is a question, I feel, will be asked for many years to come.