The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly asserts there shall be no cruel and unusual punishment administered to any one person. If the document outlining the beliefs of our nation says this, then why is the death penalty being used as a form of justice?
The last time the state of Missouri saw the death penalty issued was in February of 2011 with the execution of Martin Link. Link, charged with the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl in 1991, sat in jail for nearly two decades before he was executed by lethal injection. Yes, he committed a heinous crime, but does that give the government the right to commit the same heinous act against him?
This nation is built upon laws and a societal moral compass that has taught us murder is wrong. However, when the government commits the same crime against a guilty person, it’s generally accepted and even supported. Are we really so barbaric that we have reduced ourselves to follow this prehistoric eye-for-an-eye philosophy? We live in such an advanced age of technology, yet when we look at human rights, we seem to be stuck in a very old-fashioned mindset.
Besides the moral issues of the death penalty, the process of convicting and executing a person can cost the state thousands of dollars. In fact, states such as Texas, Kansas and California have all done studies that have found the death penalty to be more expensive than sentencing a criminal to life in prison. While the state of Missouri has not conducted a study like this, it’s likely to be brought up in the 2013 legislative session. State Senator Joseph Keaveny, a Democrat from the 4th district, plans to propose a bill that would enable this type of study to be carried out.
Not only are execution chambers and lethal drugs expensive, but legal fees from numerous court appeals can become a costly endeavor for the state. In the Kansas death penalty study conducted by the state's Legislative Post Audit Committee, it was found that, in trials alone, a case in which the criminal was sentenced to death would cost around 70 percent more than in cases where the criminal was not sentenced to death. The study found the median of the cost for one prisoner sentenced to death to be $1.2 million, compared to a median of $750,000 for a prisoner not sentenced to death. Out of the 14 cases studied, the state absorbed 85 percent of the cost — a hefty $1,020,000.
If the death penalty is really going to cost the taxpayer that much money, than why do those who feel so strongly about it still care to implement it? Yes, action should be taken against these criminals, but do taxpayers really want it to come from their own pocket? There are thousands of other productive uses for this money. It’s not just that the state is basically throwing away money, but that it’s taking away our opportunity to grow, both as a state and as a nation. Think of all the programs that keep getting cut from the budget each year. Public schools are receiving less funding than ever, and instead of supplying these kids with art classes or extracurricular activities, we’re using it to kill.
Are these really the values we want to teach the next generation? We are not just morally obligated to abolish this inhumane practice — we are fiscally obligated to do so for the betterment of our world. After all, if we don’t abolish it, then we’re committing treason against the document we solemnly swear by.
Post a comment
Start a discussion
Concurrence or rebuttal, if you have a strong opinion, let's hear it. The Maneater Forum seeks to publish a diversity of opinions and foster meaningful decision. Readers are encouraged to actively contribute to and develop new discussions. Add to ours, or make your own point.
Article comments
at 11:16 a.m.
dudley sharp: Grace: Fact checking is required. Saving Costs with The Death Penalty Dudley Sharp Could all jurisdictions save money by using the death penalty, as opposed to life without parole? Of course. The Virginia Example Virginia executes within 7.1 years of sentencing, on average, and has executed 72% of those so sentenced (108 out of 149), within the modern death penalty era, post Gregg v Georgia (1976) (1). All states could do that, or similar, and save money over LWOP. Texas Contrary to consistent urban legend, an academic review, by a neutral academic, found that the verifiable costs in the oft quoted "Texas cost study" actually found the death penalty was cheaper than a life sentence (2). I have told the Dallas Morning News, for many years, to stop using their totally inaccurate cost review. They still use it. They found that it costs $2.3 million per average death penalty case (for 5 cases), more than 3 times more expensive than a $750,000 life sentence. (C. Hoppe, "Executions Cost Texas Millions," The Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992, 1A) Problem is that they looked at the pre trial, trial, incarceration and appellate costs of the death penalty, but only the incarceration costs of life WITH PAROLE ELIGIBILITY. That study looked a 5 death row cases. Texas has had over 1000 since 1973. North Carolina Contrary to consistent misinformation, the study actually finds that LWOP is more expensive that the death penalty (3). A perfect example of how bad things are in academia. This cost review has been quoted extensively, in academia, media and in anti death penalty literature. Every time I have seen it cited, it has been, blatantly, misleading and in error. Not once have I found any correction from the authors. contd
at 11:19 a.m.
dudley sharp: Twice, the 5th Amendment authorizes execution. (1) “ No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . ” and (2) “. . . nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ”. The 14th amendment is, equally, clear: ” . . . nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .” Over 200 years of US Supreme Court(SCOTUS) decisions support those amendments and the US Constitution in authorizing and enforcing the death penalty. Some wrongly believe that the SCOTUS decision, Furman v Georgia (1972), found the death penalty unconstitutional. It did not. The decisions found that the "statutory enforcement", the laws as written enforcing the death penalty, were a violation of the 8th Amendment. Laws were re-written and new death penalty statues gained SCOTUS approval, in 1976, under Gregg v Georgia, with 39 states, the federal government and the military, eventually putting new death penalty laws into effect. SCOTUS did not find, nor can it, that the death penalty, per se, violates the 8th Amendment. Based upon the death penalty being integral within the constitution, through the 5th and 14th amendments, I do not believe it will ever be found unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court was established in 1789 and has had 112 Justices through 2011, only 3 of which found the death penalty unconstitutional, on extraordinarily weak grounds, as is obvious.
at 5:41 a.m.
Dudley Sharp: Grace, fact check the Kansas cost study. Yes, the "study" found that death penalty cases cost 70%, or about $500,000 more, per median case cost than for the equivalent non death penalty murder case (4). However, the foundation was this: " . . .there was nothing we could look at to verify the accuracy of any of the data assembled for this report." (page 2) (4). "Actual cost figures for death penalty and non death penalty cases in Kansas don't exist." (page 10) (4). On pages 29 and 31 the study discussed methods of saving money. (4) "Performance Office Report: Costs Incurred for Death penalty Cases", A K-Goal Audit of the Department of Corrections, by the Legislative Division of Post Audit - A Report to the Legislative Post Audit Committee, December 2003
at 1:14 p.m.
Christine Petruska: Great article Grace. I appreciated your opinion and your facts about the death penalty. I am looking forward to your next article. I am definitly going to be a fan of yours.
at 10:43 a.m.
Elizabeth CoffmanRN: Grace, I appreciated your article concerning the' Death Penalty'. This is a subject that is in continual debate. No one can argue the money can be better be utilized for things as you mentioned. More to the point is the 'eye for an eye' philosophy....revenge is seamingly the desire of peoples . So, after revenge is taken by murdering thr prisoner, are we better off? We are still left with a moral issue of taking the life of another....though legal...still barbaric. The issue is a moral and pro-life one. Society needs to change within itself, and start caring for the respect of life....ethically and morally. Putting to death an individual, doesn,t change the hearts of people. We have become a callous peoples and greedy. Change ourselves and good things will follow.....usually....it is not easy. So, putting one in prison is punishment...always remembering what they did. Murdering them is fear for the moment and their punishment is over. Make the prisoner repent in jail....no parole! This is why, I appreciated Grace's article....ayoung person with mature heart felt common sense thinking.