Death Penalty pros and cons

We should murder the death penalty!

The death penalty used to have broader support because it was believed to be a deterrent, but the evidence is clear it is not...

"Scientists agree, by an overwhelming majority, that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. They felt the same way over ten years ago, and nothing has changed since then. States without the death penalty continue to have significantly lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment." — Amnesty International

In fact, some experts believe the death penalty leads to a higher rate of murders in the states where it exists, which they call the “brutalization hypothesis.”

Death penalty supporters often fall back on the argument, “At least it saves money!” But in reality, it doesn’t…

“Studies of the California death penalty system, the largest in the US, have revealed that a death sentence costs at least 18 times as much as a sentence of life without parole would cost.” — DeathPenalty.org

Death penalty supporters then say “it [could] save money if the state didn’t allow for so many appeals,” but then you must compare an ideal to an ideal!

Ideally, we could also bring down the cost of imprisonment, in fact, we could make it a financial net-positive by giving those locked up the opportunity to contribute to society. When given the option, a lot of people behind bars choose to work because it gives them a sense of worth. You also have to consider that in the Age of Abundance, the cost of food, water, energy, construction, surveillance has been dropping exponentially.

I will also add that the people who commit 1st-degree murder often have deranged minds and if we were to look at the glass-half-full then we could see that these minds are so unique that perhaps they can see and do things the rest of us can’t. As Steve Jobs said, “It’s the crazy ones” that change the world. In one their minds may be the next great song or poem or book or invention or painting…

(Pogo the Clown painted the above image. He was the inspiration for Stephen King’s “It” where he murdered more than 30 young men and boys while luring them as a children’s entertainer.)

Or at least they could help the police in stopping people like them from committing a similar crime in the future…

And sure, the state could save money by just hanging people from the tallest tree in order to reduce the costs of capital punishment, but then that would inevitably lead to more innocent Americans dying at the hands of We the People…

"Since 1992, DNA has exonerated more than 20 death row inmates, but DNA has only been available in a fraction of capital cases."

Supporters then say, “Since DNA is making it easier to convict beyond a reasonable doubt then we can kill with even more self-righteous certainty.”

But technology is constantly evolving. Maybe today it’s easier to discern who committed murder (although DNA doesn’t prove premeditation, which is required for the death penalty), but who is to say that in 30 years with crisper, face/finger-print surgeries, deep fake technology, etc, that it couldn’t end up being more difficult to discern who is guilty of a crime, especially for those who have the money to employ such advanced forms of deception? Is it so hard to imagine a rich serial killer employing these technologies to pin the blame on some innocent person?

The death penalty is also used as a bargaining chip, which in my opinion, is antithetical to a “fair trial”. Imagine if you were falsely accused of murder and your lawyer sits you down and says, “We can take your case to trial where if found guilty you will get the death penalty or you can plead guilty and get life without parole. I recommend you take the plea.” An emotionally-stable person would probably say, “No, thanks.” But an emotionally-distraught easily-suggestible individual could very well say yes.

Finally, there’s the emotional aspect where people want revenge on behalf of the victim! Blood for blood!

But perhaps we as a country can leave final judgment to God? Blind rage justice is not blind justice. Instead of playing God, the state should be limited in its role as executioner by only being allowed to kill people out of national self-defense. Someone whose locked up behind bars presents zero threat to our national security (and in fact, through their knowledge (as I mentioned before) or their connections could help prevent a future murder or attack. And if you think its smart to keep terrorists/mafia/cartel alive for the information they can provide then how is it fair to kill someone else simply because they lack those murderous connections?).

Gandhi said it best, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”