Monday, July 25, 2011
The end of Death Row
In Texas, we have been conditioned to think that some kind of action can warrant the organized, government supported and enabled execution of another human being. While the government is in place in order to protect her citizens, I have a hard time believing protection occurs through intentional death. By achieving 'justice' by punishing those who kill, it seems that the government would find a way to maintain her integrity while extending punishments. However, through the death penalty, it seems that she is simply crouching down to the criminal's level and committing the same crime she is claiming to exert a punishment on. While we can convict a citizen of a crime worth of capitol punishment based on the fact that he or she took another human's life, we stand behind the government as she continually takes life after life because it is 'justice'. While I understand the financial strain of keeping criminals alive in our prison system, I think there are other ways we can cut back on the mass amounts of spending that occur toward our prisons. However, the financial issue is hard for me to grasp, as the death penalty itself brings extra costs upon our prisons. The risk of a wrongful conviction also makes it hard for me to stand behind a punishment of death. There is no hope in death, no turning back, no room for mistakes. And as a people who are defined by continually making mistake after mistake, I cannot believe I would ever be certain enough in my own decision, much less someone else's to take such a permanent action. Lastly, the inconsistency between who is actually sentenced to death and who escapes with life sentences is troublesome. The line between convictions is blurred and too easily influenced by factors such as location and timing. These circumstances lead to difficulty in supporting the death penalty. Since the death penalty is such a serious and permanent act, we must have a solid defense in order to truly support it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My classmate Lauren wrote a very good commentary on The End of Death Row. One very important point she hit on was, “While I understand the financial strain of keeping criminals alive in our prison system, I think there are other ways we can cut back on the mass amounts of spending that occur toward our prisons. However, the financial issue is hard for me to grasp, as the death penalty itself brings extra costs upon our prisons.” This I believe is so very, very true. The death penalty is much more expensive then it’s alternative, life in prison. Texas is spending an estimated total of $2.3 million on each case. This is about three times more than imprisoning someone at the maximum security level for forty years. The trial themselves cost more than just a regular murder trial. Yes, people believe it is needed to help lower the population in overcrowded prisons. However, I believe there are other things to resort to. Texas is known for being especially tough on inmates and tends to punish inmates harshly and has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the country. An alternative to reduce the population is possibly reducing the minimum sentencing and mandatory time served guidelines. The no-tolerance for drug related crimes could also be fixed. I honestly do not agree with people receiving huge sentences for drug related charges. Of course I agree with punishment but sometimes I think the punishments are too extreme. This huge incarceration rate is doing nothing but costing tax payers more money. These are some very important things that politicians leave out about the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteAnother excellent point that Lauren made was the fact that, “there is no hope in death, no turning back, no room for mistakes. And as a people who are defined by continually making mistake after mistake, I cannot believe I would ever be certain enough in my own decision, much less someone else’s to take such a permanent action.” This procedure is mainly used for retribution and to make the victim’s families and friends feel better but at the same time there is a fine line between those who receive the death penalty and those who receive life in prison. That line is blurred. However, there have been people who were convicted with the death penalty, executed, and then later found to be innocent. Texas has such a huge rate of people receiving the death penalty, how many of those people were and are innocent? I can understand there are horrible crimes and everyone wants a person to pay for it but there needs to be absolute proof, no questions, and a solid, solid case in order to support the death penalty and actually execute someone.
The death penalty is harming the tax payers and the innocents. Even after the person is executed, depression and devastation still live on in the families who lost the loved ones. So who really is paying for the death penalty? To me, it seems like politicians, prosecutors, presidents, people etc. are choosing the death penalty for symbolic reasons and positions on toughness rather than substance and effectiveness. Our criminal justice system definitely needs work.
Caitlin Huber-Stage 5
ReplyDeleteLauren made some excellent points in her discussion of the death
penalty in Texas. She argued that the death penalty is simply sinking to the level of the criminals who have been convicted of these serious crimes. I agree with that but as she pointed out allowing all of the criminals who have life sentences to live in prisons puts a huge financial burden on the state. The public would be outraged if taxes were increased to pay for the prisoners who were sentenced to die in prison, this is where the death penalty comes into play. If the prisoners are going to die in prison anyway, this speeds up the process. That sounds terrible to say but keep in mind these people were not put on death row for their service to society; they are criminals, murderers, rapists, thieves. This is the image Texans have in mind when discussing the death penalty; it's all people who deserve it. Or is it?
In Lauren's "The End of Death Row" she also discussed the possibility of a false conviction. This would result in innocent people being put to death in Texas prisons. The hard truth is that this does happen. But how can the government be certain of the person who committed the crime without witnesses? And even then, what if it was dark and the person was misidentified? There are a lot of things that can happen to falsely convict a person and there is no way the government can "make it up" to someone who is dead. This happens a lot with people who were wrongly held prisoner. When their innocence, is proven, they are offered money or some other "compensation" or what have you. This false imprisonment is hard enough, what if the innocent party was murdered by the government with a later discovery of their innocence? How does the government deal with that? What are the families supposed to do?
These are all questions I do not have the answers to. I cannot think of a plan that could right the wrongs of the government in this sense. Policies need to change as far as punishment goes in Texas. I am not against the death penalty if there is undoubted proof. I believe people who do horrible things deserve horrible things themselves. The issue of innocence is what gets me. I do not know how the government can possibly make a plan that allots time to prove innocence. Really, it's an issue of revenue. Allowing these people to live longer is just another price tag to the government. This vision needs to change.