Capital punishment or the death penalty is one of the most contentious types of punishments in the United States of America. It is the type of punishment that puts to death an individual who is found guilty of a crime as a result of a legal trial. The implementation of the death penalty dates back to the 1600s but has undergone many reforms thereafter. The discharge of the death penalty is very uncommon because it is usually applied for crimes of aggravated murder. Because the public views the death penalty as too harsh, immoral, and inhumane, it has been abolished in some U.S. states and territories except in Alabama, Montana, Nevada, California, Pennsylvania, and Texas, among others. Public opinion on death penalty has always been divided. Some sectors of society consider capital punishment as a crime deterrent, while some argue that instead of discouraging the perpetration of crime, it only diminishes the moral levels of the government.
Arguments Against Death Penalty
In California, those who are not in favor of capital punishment cited many issues about the death penalty. Among these issues are costs, delays in death penalty convictions, backlogs, lack of or shortage of lawyers handling death penalty cases, and denial of due process, among others. Still, even with all these justifiable and valid concerns, many support and consider the death penalty as the perfect punishment for crimes. However, the huge consideration is how the state would pay for such proceedings because of the huge financial outlay needed to pay for the offenders’ litigation, living conditions, and others.
Instituting the death penalty is costly for the state of California. Alarcon & Mitchell (2012) published their findings about the costs involved when prosecuting a prisoner. According to their report, Californians have spent over $4 billion in taxpayers’ money for the 13 executions the state had during the past three decades. Roughly, the amount translates to almost $309 million per execution of criminals. Additionally, the state spends $185 million more annually for the upkeep of death row prisoners than those sentenced with life imprisonment. For death penalty prosecutions, California spends 20 times as much as a life-without-parole case, while jury selection also entails extra costs amounting to around $200,000 for capital cases because these usually takes three to four weeks before a sentence is finalized. This does not even include attorney’s fees that could reach as high as $300,000 to represent inmates whose cases are on appeal. Apart from all these, there are also the costs associated in feeding, caring for, and guarding all other prisoners, and other fees such as court documents, jury selection, appeals, investigators, and other expenses related to the cases of all prisoners (S21).
Considering the amount spent on prisoners, a looming question is whether spending billions of dollars for the state’s capital punishment, including the upkeep of these prisoners, more important than other items that the state has to focus on, such as education and the fact that it is only beginning to rise amid the global financial crises of recent years (Petersilia 340).
Delays in decisions pertaining to conviction or execution. There is a huge time lag between conviction and execution for prisoners. According to California laws, death penalty cases must be thoroughly reviewed by the California Supreme Court. However, due to the bulk of cases received by the office, there is a backlog of cases for review and on top of that, the courts have to appraise additional 9-10 thousand appeals annually – further adding to the current workload. Thus, some convicted prisoners either dies of old age or other natural causes rather than by execution. Aside from adding up to the rising expenses for maintaining prisoners, the delays have resulted to other issues such as issues on due process and lack of closure for victims’ families (Alarcon & Mitchell S34).
Another significant factor that causes delays in appeals in capital punishment cases is the scarcity of death penalty lawyers qualified to handle such cases. These types of cases require a special knowledge and understanding of the law especially since an individual’s life is at stake. Additionally, because handling such cases can be emotionally taxing and time consuming, not many defense lawyers are keen on taking death penalty cases even if clients are willing to pay huge sums of money.
Disputes pertaining due process. Just like any other justice systems, there are instances when the rights of the death row inmates are placed in the hands of judges or prosecutors who are more interested in the politics rather than the legal implications of the case. The death penalty hearings can also be a haven of racial discrimination bias (Lynch 2), including situations where police officers or the prosecution team would intimidate and force defendants or witness to give false confessions. In some cases, they are also encouraged to withheld information from the defense.
Alarcon & Mitchell (2012) acknowledge that reversals occur at times, but the problem is that reversals often happen years after a conviction has been made. As a result, those who are not guilty of any crime spend time and languish in jail for years before true justice is served. In some cases, the witnesses may have died or moved residences already, evidences have been destroyed, memories have faded, and facts and circumstances may not be evaluated properly based on the current times.
Convictions of wrong individuals. One of the most important issues surrounding the death penalty is the many cases of wrongful convictions that occurred in the past. Several groups participate in the process of understanding the crime and deciding the outcome of a situation, including the jury, witnesses, the victims and parties involved, and the judge, among others, who are all capable of human error. There have been cases when individuals were incorrectly identified as the perpetrator of crime just because of a resemblance to the actual suspect. Additionally, there is also the possibility of mishandling of evidences, false confessions, biased handling of the case, and unqualified lawyers representing the suspects.
As in the case of Harold Hall who was sentenced to double-murder conviction in 1985, he was forced to admit to a crime he did not do after he was denied food, threatened, and was not informed about his rights as a private citizen. He spent 19 years in jail and after several appeals, the courts later on concluded that his confession was a result of being subjected to threats, causing Hall to succumb out of desperation and fear (Dolan).
Impact of Death Penalty on Sentences and Corrections in California
Without looking at the costs that capital punishment in the state of California brings, there is the belief that death penalty is the ultimate form of punishment in society. This is because death brings with it certain finality to the individual’s life. The sentence is severe and enormous that other types of punishments appear mediocre. Capital punishment does not allow for rehabilitation for the erring individual, which somewhat becomes the meaning and purpose when a conviction is not executed immediately. The prisoner is given a second chance at life, that is, to become a better person than when he first entered prison. Most importantly, the death penalty does not offer redemption for an individual who was wrongfully accused of a crime, but was executed prior to being found not guilty of the offense. Once executed, it is absolute and irrevocable, leading to the loss of an otherwise innocent life.
Improvements on Current Practices
Public opinion plays a major role in the jurisprudence of death penalty. At the onset, the public normally reply that they are in support of capital punishment as a form of chastising crime offenders. However, when given a different alternative, such as life imprisonment without parole, the opinion shifts to a more humane form of punishment, which is the latter (Lynch 7).
Petersilia (2008) claims prisoner reintegration could help improve current processes. While prisoner reintegration remains a controversial option, Petersilia argues that prison officials should begin to embrace the idea that this could become a reality for some of the prisoners. The current ruling is that the prison system has nothing to do with the prisoner’s behavior upon his or her release from jail could place the public’s trust and safety on the line (343). Regardless of the timeframe of the prisoner’s release, the fact that this person stayed within the confines of the prison system means he should slowly be aided in assimilating back to society to ensure that the individual does not go back to his previous ways. Recidivism should be a priority of the prison system if it does not want the public to blame them for prisoners’ relapse. As such, California should come up with a rehabilitation program that will occupy the prisoners’ time and give them something to do when they integrate back to society (National Academy of Sciences 196).
For his part, Lynch (n.d.) says the commutation of the death penalty to life imprisonment is a far better option than the death penalty considering that the latter is so inhumane. When people begin to understand the high costs associated with death penalty, the lack of deterrent effect, issues on incorrect convictions, and instances of racial discrimination, the support towards capital punishment diminishes (7). This is because there is also the belief that “Californians can be kept safe from convicted killers by putting them in prison for life with no option for parole” (Payette), and the benefit is the huge savings for the state. The money may be used to searching for killers who remain free instead of spending too much money on maintaining death penalty proceedings. Additionally, part of the money may also be used as salary for more policemen on the streets so that crimes will further be diminished.
The Safe California Act could have been a way to abolish capital punishment in California. Also known as Proposition 34, it would have eliminated death penalty for the state and replace it with life imprisonment without parole, but during the elections, the voters opted to push through with death penalty despite the possible huge savings California will gain from it. Based on the proposition, the current death row inmates’ sentences in California will be commuted to life imprisonment without parole, and while they are still in prison, they will be required to work within the prison grounds and make restitutions for their crimes. But, despite these possible financial gains for the state of California and the prisoners’ opportunity for change, Proposition 34 was rejected.
Conclusion
The judicial system is imperfect and thus, is capable of committing mistakes. This is the biggest issue when executing the death penalty, that is, an innocent individual is wrongfully convicted and executed for a crime he did not do. Death penalty is irreversible and once executed, there is already a sense of finality where the person is no longer given the chance to change himself through rehabilitative means. It is exacting and lasting and removes any possibilities of the perpetrators of crimes to be forgiven or redeemed when the sentence has been carried out.
Works Cited
Alarcon, Judge Arthur, L., & Mitchell, P. M. “Costs of Capital Punishment in California: Will Voters Choose Reform this Month?” 2012. Print.
Dolan, Maura. “Man Wrongly Convicted Can Sue LAPD, Federal Court Panel Rules.”. 2012. Web. 24 May 2016. <http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/24/local/la-me-confession-lapd-20120925>.
Lynch, Mona. “Capital Punishment.” N.d. Print.
National Academy of Sciences. “The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences.” 2014. Print.
Payette, Brandon. “A Broken System: California and the Failed Death Penalty Experiment.” 2011. Web. 24 May 2016. <http://web.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=1765>.
Petersilia, Joan. “Influencing Public Policy: An Embedded Criminologist Reflects on California Prison Reform.” 2008. Print.
