Death Penalty Punishment

1092 Words 5 Pages
The death penalty puts innocent lives in danger. Rarely, innocent people have been put on the death row for a homicide. Studies show that as of October 2015, the U.S. have executed over 1,414 individuals since 1976. 156 individuals have been exonerated from death row--that is, found to be innocent and released - since 1973. (death penalty.org) In other words, 1.1 in 10 prisoners in the death row are innocent. Some of them get reimbursed by suing the state government for putting their lives in danger, for wasting their time, and disrupt their families. Then again, if these people were executed before appeal, it is irreversible, and there is no way to reimburse their lives. For example, Carlos De Luna, a man found near a crime scene where a gas …show more content…
Inmates are granted to appeals that could take for over 30 years, and during those years it costs money to give them extra legal resources, attorneys, multiple trials, and special single celled death row prison. Arthur Alarcon and Prof. Paula Mitchell of California revealed the breakdown of the amount on a death row inmate on their assessment of cost. They concluded that the cost of death penalty since 1978 have increased $4 billion. Of the $4 billion, $1.94 billion is for pre-trial and trial while $1 billion is for incarceration, and the rest on courts of appeal. The authors later said, “if the Governor commuted the sentences of those remaining on death row to life without parole, it would result in an immediate savings of $170 million per year, with a savings of $5 billion over the next 20 years.” This is a huge amount of money funded to a controversial policy. On top of that if an inmate is to be found innocent, the government will have to compensate. There are other immediate issues that affect a more people and could be solved. For instance, it could build a school and give rise to the people that are suffering, or build a hospital and help people without insurance instead of funding it to kill a prisoner. People pay their taxes for a collective goods of the society. Nevertheless, executing a criminal cannot collectively provide for the society, and it is not worth to …show more content…
Many argue that keeping the life of a murderer is unjust for the life that is lost. These people have the ideology of “an eye for an eye”, since the criminal took a life, his life must be taken as well. Even though I agree that the criminal must pay for the crime, killing a murderer automatically makes you a murderer, yet the government claim that the execution is humane, so it cannot compare to murder. However, there is no humane way of executing a living person. You do not have to punish a criminal with the same crime. For instance, if a person robs you, the police do not rob him back. He will be sent to jail for the appropriate amount of time and pay the victim a retribution. The main reason people want the criminal to die is to take him away from the society. Locking him up will assure that he never gets back to the society. Some family members of the victim will want the criminal to die, yet it can never give them the victim back. Furthermore, taking the criminals lives away is letting them go easy. Leaving them in a cell alone lets their consciousness torture them for years. If becoming humane as the prosecutors’ execution method is suggested, there is nothing humane that allowing them to rehabilitate and live a better live in prison. Another essential point is that life without parole is reversible as supposed to death penalty. People support death penalty mainly because it deters

Related Documents