I'll admit that is the question which always makes me recoil deep inside. I will keep calm, because no argument is ever won by screaming with incandescent rage, but I'm sick to the stomach.
Maybe it's that I've made too much of a snap judgement, but all I hear is this: 'the value of a human life should be messaged not in justice, rights and all that twaddle, but in dollars.'
I do not share that opinion; and fortunately I also have the facts on my side. It can be cheap to kill someone, nobody is disputing that. If the individual is sentenced, then immediately taken outside and strung from the nearest tree, then it's very cheap indeed. At least in monetary cost.
The price in the loss of morality and justice was quite astronomical.
Worse case scenario would place a minor in life imprisonment, wherein he or she stays until they are in extreme old age. During this time, that individual would be sharing a cell, eating food brought and prepared in bulk. They would also be working, bringing in a wage which goes directly back into the prison system. (There's an argument that this is slavery through the back door, but few people really care about that one.)
On the other hand, the individual on Death Row is incurring many, many more costs. These include:
- Extra lawyers, judges, juries and the whole apparatus of the court-room. After all, these sentences usually go to appeal, time and time again, as a stay of execution is sought.
- Cost of hiring and attendant expenses for bringing in the right lawyers. In American law, there are strict requirements governing the experience and qualifications of lawyers in capital cases. The requisite attorney might not be locally available.
- The cost of retaining all court-room staff during lengthy appellate pauses. This usually occurs while everyone is waiting for the legally sanctioned lawyer to become free.
- Scientific and laboratory results. Those representing inmates on Death Row are far more likely to order DNA testing than, for example, blood sample tests. If the result is uncertain, then this can be repeated. Such professional input is very expensive.
- Paperwork and administrative costs. All of this evidence needs to be typed up, clarified and securely stored.
- Extra prison staff. People on Death Row are held in individual cells, with guards hand delivering everything from food to toilet paper. That requires a lot more staff than guarding people serving life imprisonment.
- Execution apparatus. Even once the inmate gets there, then the mode of killing them has to be paid for. These are huge costs, particularly now that countries like Britain have banned the export of drugs to be used in lethal injections. Those with the electric chair aren't faring much better. They have to pay a wage to electricians for a start; while everyone needs to pay doctor's fees, and coroner fees, and lawyer fees, and clerical fees (in both senses of the word), and security fees (there are going to be protesters outside) etc etc etc.
The US State of New Jersey stopped executing people in 1963, because each death sentence cost the tax-payer around $4.2 million ($6,129,405.55 in today's money). A former Californian judge Donald McCartin, who never stinted on sentencing people to death, ultimately called it, 'a waste of time and money'. He noted that it was ten times more expensive to impose the Death Penalty, than to go for life imprisonment.
In short, it costs an estimated $90,000 per inmate to house them on Death Row.
Like many children, I was fascinated by the kind of gruesome and unwholesome things that my mother would rather I didn't know about at all. This included dinosaurs, ghosts, murders, zombies, vampires, judicial punishment, werewolves, slavery and Big Foot.
Through my early reading of serial killers and all that was dark and dangerous, I encountered the story of Timothy Evans.
Team Sam: True Blood Gifts3 days ago
Haunted Battlefields: The Ghosts of the Somme3 days ago
Flora Sandes: A Female Soldier in the First World War4 days ago
Lamashtu: Mesopotamian Goddess and Prototype Vampire5 days ago
Comments
I've just read that whole comment going, 'yes' 'yes' *nodding in agreement' 'yes'. It's not adding much to the dialogue, but I agree with you on every point.
The only thing that I would question is the motive behind murder and acts of terrorism. I think they are too many and varied to assign solely to losing touch with the value of human life.
I agree with nickupton's argument that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent, as murder-suicides show. I think when people get to the point of committing extreme acts such as murder or terrorist acts, they're in a mental place where they aren't valuing human life, and I often think this lack of value applies to their own life.
I think the only argument for the death penalty that I could ever in theory support would be a practical one, if it is too expensive or costly to society to keep someone alive in prison, and it is deemed necessary to keep them there to protect people in society at large. But in our society, that's not how it works--because of the legal system and the requirements placed on the justice system, it is much more expensive to execute someone.
Given the extra costs, under the current setup I am completely opposed to the death penalty. I think I might even oppose it even if it were cheaper to execute someone.
The possibility of uncertainty too is disturbing, because death is irreversible. You can let someone out of prison later, if new evidence proves their innocence, and this happens now and then. You can't bring someone back from the dead though. This is another reason I'd rather err on the side of caution--the possibility of executing an innocent person seems too great a risk, one that I would never want to take.
I'm not even sure if I'd support executing people who really are guilty of what they are charged with, even if it were cheaper. I think there are multiple ethical and religious grounds too. I share a lot of beliefs in common with Christianity and I think there are a lot of teachings of Jesus, about love and forgiveness, which I hold important, which also make me tend towards standing against the death penalty in all cases.
Thank you very much for your comment, and I'm glad that I gave some pause for thought here.
I can't imagine how horrible seeing the Kathmandu and Bangkok prisons must have been. Even amongst tough prisons, they have a terrible reputation. It does make me raise my eyebrows somewhat, when people think that life imprisonment is the 'nice' option.
I certainly see the death penalty as revenge. Leaving that judgement in the hands of the family is necessarily going to invoke an emotional reaction. That's not justice, it's vengeance. Though I am aware that there's an argument that vengeance is right. I just don't want to see it in my law courts.
The Death penalty clearly is not a deterrent. The only justification for it is for punishment and revenge, then the debate becomes whether it is a fitting punishment (as you have mentioned a lifetime in prison is probably worse - I have visited prisons in Kathmandu and Bangkok and would certainly opt for death over life in those places) or if revenge is a justifiable reason for taking a life.
Like many others here I have never really been able to decide exactly how I feel about the death penalty, but I do often find myself coming back to the revenge argument. If I support the death penalty at all it is for revenge.
I read recently about a case in Iran where the judges gave the death penalty as an option but the final say was the victim's, or in the case of murder (this example was not) the family of the victim. In many ways if the death sentence is for revenge only then the victim's family making the decision makes sense.
A great, thought-provoking article.
I know the Louis Theroux documentary that you mean, i saw that too and it was very eye-opening! But yes, a very different system to that in Britain, albeit with some fundamental aspects (loss of liberty, locked up with dodgy people etc) shared with both.
Over-crowding is a huge issue here though. We have the largest prison population per capita in all of Europe, which the buildings weren't really designed to cope with.
This also means that prison staff are often so overwhelmed that proper care doesn't happen. Britain has an unusually high number of suicides in prison, because vulnerable prisoners aren't spotted in time.
As for the murders, as you said they aren't on Death Row in Britain, as we haven't got the death penalty. Something which seems common in the biographies that I've read is that sense of a life in limbo without purpose.
Reggie Kray said that he wished he'd been hanged, because 30 years of maximum security with no hope of parole is like a slow death. Myra Hindley said something similar. She had the added thing of every other prisoner wanting to hurt her, because of the nature of her crimes.
I agree that the prison system is very flawed, but I also have no alternative. It's been an on-going issue for centuries (I recommend a visit to Nottingham's law and order museum for an insight into that). Prison is revenge, and also protection for the public, but what else is on the table here other than killing them?
Very nice rebuttal, Jo. You make good points. I was referring more to the prison system in the U.K., which, we're led to believe - admittedly I've never been in one, is reasonably cushy. And where, of course, my hypothetical murderer wouldn’t be on death row. That is what would anger me - to know that someone, who has irrevocably damaged many other lives, faces, I would argue, very few consequences.
Having seen a Louis Theroux documentary on U.S. jails, I know it's a harsh existence there. However, I tend to think if you've done something that warrants being locked up: rape, assault, murder (and that's the big IF obviously), then your existence should be harsh. That said, I think more should be done to protect those you mention, who would be vulnerable within prison.
Like I say, my mind is not made up and probably never will be - we examined the death penalty in a philosophy class at uni and I couldn't reach a consensus then, either.
And, of course, leaving the death penalty aside for a sec, there can be no doubt that justice and prison systems are seriously flawed, which you seem to infer in your comments. But the question is, what’s the alternative? Can there ever be a justice system that is not open to abuse or miscarriages?
3/3
Death Row is a little different, in that the extra security means more staff have to wait on the inmates. But it's certainly not a pleasant place. It's somewhere you are locked up in the full knowledge of precisely when you are going to die. Inmates have sued the state for agreeing to an appeal, as they just want it over with.
Sorry, I went on a bit of a rant there! The short answer is: prison not fun; families (understandably) looking for revenge not justice.
2/3
I don't agree that prison is a 'fairly comfortable existence'. You are locked away without any liberty, with someone governing every minute of your day. Your only company are other felons. You're locked in with individuals who, by their very nature, are likely to be violent, rapists, thieves and all of the rest. Trauma and psychological problems are endemic.
That's before you even get to the greater issues. That's the propensity of some prisons (especially in the USA) to place people into solitary confinement for years on end. That's a recognised form of torture under UN regulations. If that doesn't take place, then an issue at the other end of the spectrum does. That's severe over-crowding, which is endemic throughout Europe and the Americas, as well as in other nations too.
These people can be locked several to a cell. They go to the toilet with an audience of up to 30 other men. They have to live with the same. No peace and quiet, a constant din.
As for the company, all well and good if you're at the top of inmate hierarchy, but what if you're not? Transgender women locked in with men, because the prison system doesn't account for their biological changes. You go in with the gender you were born, whatever your genitalia is now. Transgender women are prime candidates for rape inside prisons. Gay people do not fare much better.
If you're not a fighter, if you're an archetypal nerd, then you are fair game as prey. And you're locked in with the predators, whom the rest of society is being protected from.
Food is very same-y and routine. No variation and you can predict what you'll be eating on any given day throughout the calendar. Because it's the same rotation throughout the week.
Those in prison don't sit on their backsides all day either. They have to work for the 'privilege' of being inside. There's a school of thought which says that this is slavery through the backdoor, justifiable in society because these are the wrong-doers.
In Britain, tax-payer's money subsidises prisons, but in America they are privately owned. They become very rich off unpaid labour inside their cells and help keep America's economy afloat. I'm not talking a drop in the ocean here, but major contributions. The 'three strikes and you're down' system there makes it unbelievably easy for incarceration over relatively minor infractions.
Cont'd
1/3
Thank you very much. :) And thank you for commenting.
If someone murdered one of my friends or relatives, I would want to hunt them down and kill them with my bare hands. At least, I assume that I would. I've fortunately never been in that position. I am only human though.
However, that is simply revenge. That is me acting out in cold, harsh fury (or red hot rage) and wanting to lash out, because someone hurt one of mine. it's hitting right into the emotion that we feel when anyone is taken from us, regardless of the circumstances. There is always anger in grief, which becomes entirely justified when the death was untimely through any human intervention. Especially murder.
Is that a good time to be trusting anyone with justice?
Donald McCartin turned against the death penalty in part because of the monetary costs, but also because it was cruel to the families of the victims. I'm talking the murder victims here, rather than the victim of execution. The families couldn't have closure, while the final sentence was being dragged for decades through the courts.
(Remember that McCartin, as a Californian judge, sentenced nine people to Death Row. He was therefore involved in all of these appeals too and he saw the toll that was taken on the families.)
There's a second family suffering too. The family of the murderer are also innocent and they have to be party to someone planning, over and over again, the premeditated death of their loved one. Murder is cruel and indefensible, but being told in advance the date, time, setting and mode of death is worse. At least it is in my book.
Cont'd....
Really interesting article, Jo. I have to admit, though, I am in two minds over the death penalty debate. On the one hand, I agree that there are too many incidents of miscarriages of justice and, in some countries, too much opportunity for abuse of the system.
However, if someone a knew; a friend or relative had been murdered - and I'm thinking of a deliberate act (rather than a robbery gone wrong or something along that vein) - I know that it would drive me crazy to know that the person responsible was living a fairly comfortable existence in prison.
Although I’m not in any way religious, the argument I would use in favour of the death penalty would not be based on deterrent or money, but on the principal of an eye for an eye.
But then, I find myself thinking, someone like John Christie or Ted Bundy obviously had something biologically wrong with their brains. Therefore, were they really ‘responsible’ for their actions? Should it make a difference if they’re not?
It’s a thorny topic that’s for sure and, for me, at least, it’s not black and white.