i don't know
Charles Schully
6th Hour
Capital Punishment: A False Sense of Security
Some people are still tied down in their reasoning by traditional convictions. Since when have the old ways been the best? I’m not going to claim that contemporary forms of punishment that exercise death are grotesquely inhumane, because our legal system has progressed significantly in reflecting the widely accepted contempt that Americans have for corporal punishment (actually complying with the demands of the 8th Amendment for the first time in history). But the mere upholding that some humans are less qualified for life, no matter how painlessly it is enacted, is contrary to the philosophies of humanity: that we, having established ourselves as distinguishably intelligent beings, must not act upon the savage instincts of primordial man, a common beast geared merely for survival; that we, civil animals, are capable of solving problems consciously, harnessing our mind’ vast terrains and unlocking their inner workings to promote kinship and universal understanding.
Some may argue that “kinship” ultimately requires peace, and this cannot be maintained as long as there are killers free. This is true. But has the immanent threat of lethal injection contributed to making a single dent in crime? A study by Isaac Ehrlich in 1975, which stated that each individual execution per year may thwart seven or eight murders on average, can be thanked for the testimonies that it does. But the methodology of the research is what counts, not always the results, and what numerous studies have subsequently reported is that this study is largely flawed. One particular, more recent study from 1997 has concluded that, "In sum, with the lonely exception of Ehrlich, whose work generally has been seriously questioned if not totally discredited, death penalty researchers have found virtually no support for the argument that the level of use of capital punishment (i.e. certainty) influences U.S. murder rates."
And what studies like Ehrlich’s lack, which also happens to be one of the fundamental steps of drawing inferences, is consistency. There have been no other major follow-up studies to replicate, and therefore verify, the logic of Isaac Ehrlich’s thirty-year-old report. All of those clamoring that execution prevents crime have provided no empirical evidence, just the concept that any sensible human would avoid killing if it meant the same fate awaited him (though that reasoning seems substantial enough for the average citizen). What has persisted over the years is studies that find no relation between the death penalty and homicides. Thorsten Sellin, a sociologist and a pioneer of scientific criminology, in an extensive, two-step report found the “inevitable conclusion…that executions have no discernable effect on homicide rates.” Though completed in 1959, Sellin’s study has what Ehrlich’s does not: precise replications that repeatedly affirm the original finding as new data becomes available. One study traced the homicide rates of Texas, California, and New York from 1982 to 2002, the states having executed 239, 10, and 0 prisoners, respectively. The rates as of 2002 fall into the same order as the number of executions (Texas’s being the highest; New York’s being the lowest). It is undeniable that all of the states that have more frequently resorted to the death penalty have more murders. Some studies go so far to suggest that its influence even potentiates crime, a trend known commonly as the brutalization effect. And pinning up trends against other nations does not help either. A study of fourteen countries that abolished the death penalty found no resulting increase in homicide rate. Need I say more?
Another, perhaps more compelling fact: twenty-three people, innocent people, have been executed in the United States. We’re not always as right as we think.
Here’s a more controversial topic: the backgrounds and ethnicity of Death Row inmates. It might be hard to admit, but it is true that the race of some defendants has played a role in their fate. The vast majority of capital offenders, though this is largely ignored, avoid capital punishment. Out of the thousands of homicides carried out each year, how many are sentenced to death? Less than one percent. Even after throwing out the self-defense and other less “murderous” murders, it is obvious that some people are getting the legal counseling that others aren’t. And it is simply ignorant to believe that the jury avoids the common fallacies of human error. The rich circumvent capital sentencing more easily by hiring more persuasive lawyers, plain and simple. No jury member is immune to an influential arguer, and sometimes the more credible one, despite evidence, wins. More condemning statistics reveal the facts. Though blacks, who still are concentrated in the lower class, constitute little more than 13% of the nation’s population, they make up almost half of those on Death Row. This reveals to us both the prevailing amount of African American and lower class convicts awaiting execution. A study found, one year, that 89% of exercised death sentences involved white victims, although 50% of the victims of murder were black. Raw data of death sentences in Philadelphia between 1983 and 1993 also indicates racial discrimination in sentencing. Out of 100 eligible defendants, a ratio found that blacks had a 38 higher percent of death sentencing, with 18 blacks for every 13 whites placed on Death Row. Such favoritism is not surprising, however. In 1998, data collected identified the races of all government officials empowered to prosecute criminals from the 38 “death penalty states,” those which have utilized capital punishment the most. 97.5% of them were white, 1% black, and 1% Hispanic.
And all data aside, who can honestly assume that those who grew up to be murderers were raised in conditions that did not contribute to such a lifestyle? By refusing to cite the environments in which convicted killers were born as a major factor in their decision to commit such crimes, one is ignoring one of the two key elements that influence a person: nurture. Every reputable psychologist will say this. And yet our judicial system carries on as if killers have a choice to be disadvantaged by destitute conditions. An exceptional case, the occasional outlying savior who rises above these violent neighborhoods and downtrodden housing projects is not justification for this. One cannot ignore the majority. Can we hold the people raised in desolation and poverty to the same standards we hold ourselves, expecting them to avoid a life of crime, out of only the fear of punishment?
The answer, of course, is no, and to again advance my sentiment I will resurrect the most quiet but omnipotent variable humans possess, our own brains. The ubiquitously accepted fact of psychology today is that neurotransmitters, chemicals that our brains fire in order to transmit messages across neurons. It is a fact that reduced serotonic activity (lower levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin) and crime is one of the strongest connections in psychological criminology. Our neurotransmitter prevalence is determined by genetics initially, and therefore a conjecture could be made that criminals act out of impulse, the result of a natural imbalance in his or her brain. This is yet another way that capital punishment discriminates, by prosecuting attorneys who ignore such relevant abnormalities in one’s psychology.
By implementing the death penalty, the United States also opens itself to discrimination. The other nations commonly accepted as “civilized” - those in Western Europe and elsewhere - have already abolished capital punishment. Actually, over 117 nations have abandoned it as a method of justice. The United States, in maintaining such a barbarian method of prosecution, shares a common practice with nations such as Iraq, Iran, and China, nations widely criticized for their violations of human rights.
Capital punishment also costs us money. Yes, although it does not seem feasible, executing someone is more expensive than keeping them alive. How much more? A Duke University study found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case. In 1994 the General Accounting Office estimated that keeping an inmate in prison costs about $16,100 a year. Florida estimated that each execution allocated $3.18 million. Keeping an inmate for fifty years costs substantially under one million dollars. Court expenditures are more costly than people think, and achieving the ultimate penalty requires a lot of money. Where does the money come from? The answer is obvious. Us!
Finally, all empirical statistics aside, the death penalty is an irrational response to one of our body’s most useless gearings, revenge. Advocates of victims’ rights note the immeasurable grief that families of murder victims feel. Sadness, and even anger, are normal and healthy feelings, especially for those suffering boundlessly the loss of a relative to violent crime. But justifying capital punishment for the well-being of the families is not reasonable. After 5000 years of human civilization, we have been left with some functions that are unnecessary in modern society. Among these is aggression, whose necessity has been curtailed by use of language and law. We are no longer hunters. Hammurabi’s Code has no place in contemporary society; we have discovered better means of solving conflicts: our brains’ superior capacity for reason through interaction. Therefore, by resorting to death as a means of justice, we are not only denying those accused the rights of humanity, to exist and pursue complacency, but we are denying the positive progression of society, that we are becoming more civilized and self-actualized as the human race enumerates, both in species and in science. The death penalty insists that humans are savage, instinctive beings. The death penalty refutes that we are able to influence others through logic, reason, and understanding. Humanity cannot progress if humans cannot tame their own kind!
6th Hour
Capital Punishment: A False Sense of Security
Some people are still tied down in their reasoning by traditional convictions. Since when have the old ways been the best? I’m not going to claim that contemporary forms of punishment that exercise death are grotesquely inhumane, because our legal system has progressed significantly in reflecting the widely accepted contempt that Americans have for corporal punishment (actually complying with the demands of the 8th Amendment for the first time in history). But the mere upholding that some humans are less qualified for life, no matter how painlessly it is enacted, is contrary to the philosophies of humanity: that we, having established ourselves as distinguishably intelligent beings, must not act upon the savage instincts of primordial man, a common beast geared merely for survival; that we, civil animals, are capable of solving problems consciously, harnessing our mind’ vast terrains and unlocking their inner workings to promote kinship and universal understanding.
Some may argue that “kinship” ultimately requires peace, and this cannot be maintained as long as there are killers free. This is true. But has the immanent threat of lethal injection contributed to making a single dent in crime? A study by Isaac Ehrlich in 1975, which stated that each individual execution per year may thwart seven or eight murders on average, can be thanked for the testimonies that it does. But the methodology of the research is what counts, not always the results, and what numerous studies have subsequently reported is that this study is largely flawed. One particular, more recent study from 1997 has concluded that, "In sum, with the lonely exception of Ehrlich, whose work generally has been seriously questioned if not totally discredited, death penalty researchers have found virtually no support for the argument that the level of use of capital punishment (i.e. certainty) influences U.S. murder rates."
And what studies like Ehrlich’s lack, which also happens to be one of the fundamental steps of drawing inferences, is consistency. There have been no other major follow-up studies to replicate, and therefore verify, the logic of Isaac Ehrlich’s thirty-year-old report. All of those clamoring that execution prevents crime have provided no empirical evidence, just the concept that any sensible human would avoid killing if it meant the same fate awaited him (though that reasoning seems substantial enough for the average citizen). What has persisted over the years is studies that find no relation between the death penalty and homicides. Thorsten Sellin, a sociologist and a pioneer of scientific criminology, in an extensive, two-step report found the “inevitable conclusion…that executions have no discernable effect on homicide rates.” Though completed in 1959, Sellin’s study has what Ehrlich’s does not: precise replications that repeatedly affirm the original finding as new data becomes available. One study traced the homicide rates of Texas, California, and New York from 1982 to 2002, the states having executed 239, 10, and 0 prisoners, respectively. The rates as of 2002 fall into the same order as the number of executions (Texas’s being the highest; New York’s being the lowest). It is undeniable that all of the states that have more frequently resorted to the death penalty have more murders. Some studies go so far to suggest that its influence even potentiates crime, a trend known commonly as the brutalization effect. And pinning up trends against other nations does not help either. A study of fourteen countries that abolished the death penalty found no resulting increase in homicide rate. Need I say more?
Another, perhaps more compelling fact: twenty-three people, innocent people, have been executed in the United States. We’re not always as right as we think.
Here’s a more controversial topic: the backgrounds and ethnicity of Death Row inmates. It might be hard to admit, but it is true that the race of some defendants has played a role in their fate. The vast majority of capital offenders, though this is largely ignored, avoid capital punishment. Out of the thousands of homicides carried out each year, how many are sentenced to death? Less than one percent. Even after throwing out the self-defense and other less “murderous” murders, it is obvious that some people are getting the legal counseling that others aren’t. And it is simply ignorant to believe that the jury avoids the common fallacies of human error. The rich circumvent capital sentencing more easily by hiring more persuasive lawyers, plain and simple. No jury member is immune to an influential arguer, and sometimes the more credible one, despite evidence, wins. More condemning statistics reveal the facts. Though blacks, who still are concentrated in the lower class, constitute little more than 13% of the nation’s population, they make up almost half of those on Death Row. This reveals to us both the prevailing amount of African American and lower class convicts awaiting execution. A study found, one year, that 89% of exercised death sentences involved white victims, although 50% of the victims of murder were black. Raw data of death sentences in Philadelphia between 1983 and 1993 also indicates racial discrimination in sentencing. Out of 100 eligible defendants, a ratio found that blacks had a 38 higher percent of death sentencing, with 18 blacks for every 13 whites placed on Death Row. Such favoritism is not surprising, however. In 1998, data collected identified the races of all government officials empowered to prosecute criminals from the 38 “death penalty states,” those which have utilized capital punishment the most. 97.5% of them were white, 1% black, and 1% Hispanic.
And all data aside, who can honestly assume that those who grew up to be murderers were raised in conditions that did not contribute to such a lifestyle? By refusing to cite the environments in which convicted killers were born as a major factor in their decision to commit such crimes, one is ignoring one of the two key elements that influence a person: nurture. Every reputable psychologist will say this. And yet our judicial system carries on as if killers have a choice to be disadvantaged by destitute conditions. An exceptional case, the occasional outlying savior who rises above these violent neighborhoods and downtrodden housing projects is not justification for this. One cannot ignore the majority. Can we hold the people raised in desolation and poverty to the same standards we hold ourselves, expecting them to avoid a life of crime, out of only the fear of punishment?
The answer, of course, is no, and to again advance my sentiment I will resurrect the most quiet but omnipotent variable humans possess, our own brains. The ubiquitously accepted fact of psychology today is that neurotransmitters, chemicals that our brains fire in order to transmit messages across neurons. It is a fact that reduced serotonic activity (lower levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin) and crime is one of the strongest connections in psychological criminology. Our neurotransmitter prevalence is determined by genetics initially, and therefore a conjecture could be made that criminals act out of impulse, the result of a natural imbalance in his or her brain. This is yet another way that capital punishment discriminates, by prosecuting attorneys who ignore such relevant abnormalities in one’s psychology.
By implementing the death penalty, the United States also opens itself to discrimination. The other nations commonly accepted as “civilized” - those in Western Europe and elsewhere - have already abolished capital punishment. Actually, over 117 nations have abandoned it as a method of justice. The United States, in maintaining such a barbarian method of prosecution, shares a common practice with nations such as Iraq, Iran, and China, nations widely criticized for their violations of human rights.
Capital punishment also costs us money. Yes, although it does not seem feasible, executing someone is more expensive than keeping them alive. How much more? A Duke University study found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case. In 1994 the General Accounting Office estimated that keeping an inmate in prison costs about $16,100 a year. Florida estimated that each execution allocated $3.18 million. Keeping an inmate for fifty years costs substantially under one million dollars. Court expenditures are more costly than people think, and achieving the ultimate penalty requires a lot of money. Where does the money come from? The answer is obvious. Us!
Finally, all empirical statistics aside, the death penalty is an irrational response to one of our body’s most useless gearings, revenge. Advocates of victims’ rights note the immeasurable grief that families of murder victims feel. Sadness, and even anger, are normal and healthy feelings, especially for those suffering boundlessly the loss of a relative to violent crime. But justifying capital punishment for the well-being of the families is not reasonable. After 5000 years of human civilization, we have been left with some functions that are unnecessary in modern society. Among these is aggression, whose necessity has been curtailed by use of language and law. We are no longer hunters. Hammurabi’s Code has no place in contemporary society; we have discovered better means of solving conflicts: our brains’ superior capacity for reason through interaction. Therefore, by resorting to death as a means of justice, we are not only denying those accused the rights of humanity, to exist and pursue complacency, but we are denying the positive progression of society, that we are becoming more civilized and self-actualized as the human race enumerates, both in species and in science. The death penalty insists that humans are savage, instinctive beings. The death penalty refutes that we are able to influence others through logic, reason, and understanding. Humanity cannot progress if humans cannot tame their own kind!