Capital punishment seems excellent in theory: kill the criminals and eliminate crime. But how many people on death row are actually guilty? How many people were given a fair trial? Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg once stated, “People who are represented well at trial do not get the death penalty.”
People on death row are not always guilty. According to the death penalty information center, over 114 people have been exonerated from death row since 1972. Imagine if these people had been murdered! The blood of at least 114 innocent people would be on the hands of the government, and us. Once a person has been executed, no amount of evidence can reverse the sentence.
Unfair trials are far too common. According to Amnesty International, “95% of all people sentenced to death could not afford their own attorney.” States frequently appoint incompetent lawyers to death penalty cases. The American Bar Association recently released guidelines concerning the appointment of defense counsel in death penalty cases. The ABA says that all fifty states have failed to meet the guidelines. Is it fair to defendants that attorneys must learn the intricate and complex details of taxes to become a tax lawyer, but anyone who has passed the bar is qualified to defend a human life?
The death penalty is phenomenally expensive and a waste of tax dollars. A study done by the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy at Duke University found that “the death penalty costs 2.16 million dollars MORE per death penalty case than a sentence of imprisonment for life.” A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at 2,316,655 dollars. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security facility for 40 years is estimated at a mere 750,000 dollars. Study after study has been done, and the results unanimously show that the death penalty is financially crippling.
A compelling argument made by many who support the death penalty is that the death penalty deters criminals, and helps to eliminate crime. In fact, several new studies released seem to support this claim. However, Stanford University law professor Robert Weisberg has concluded that "Many of the new studies claiming to find that the death penalty deters murder have been legitimately criticized for omitting key variables and for not addressing the potential distorting effect of one high-executing state, Texas." Dr. Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University School of Law seems to agree with him. He recently remarked, "Recent studies claiming to show a deterrent effect to capital punishment are fraught with technical and conceptual errors." These statements show us that the death penalty might not be the same deterrent it was once thought to be, revealing a large proverbial "chink in the armor" of those who support the death penalty.
Many argue that they do not support the death penalty unless a defendent it 100% guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. However, does this scenario even exist? Can there ever be a jury who simply KNOWS that a defendant committed the crime they are accused of? I don't think it does. No one can argue against the fact that we, as humans, are flawed and imperfect. Our judicial system has proven itself in the test of time. It has been upheld for hundreds of years and is unarguably ingenious. However, it was designed and is implemented by humans, and as such, imperfect.
We can no longer continue to execute using this system, unless we want more innocent lives to be lost.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I agree that more needs to be done to create fair trials for everyone because it's always hard to hear that the government made a mistake and killed an innocent person. It's very sad that things like this happen, but I still support capital punishment for the fact that guilty people kill innocent people. It just isn't fair and it never will be
I firmly agree with your statement that it is difficult to realize that the government makes mistakes and murders wrongly convicted, innocent people. However, I believe that this makes our government just as bad as the criminals who actually do committ the crimes they are accused of. Mistakes happen, but when dealing with a human life they are not excusable.
In response to the statement that the death penalty does not deter criminals as much as we thought it did, that may be because we do not use it extensively enough. If every convicted murderer was sentenced to death regardless of the "seriousness" of their crime, then I believe we would see a much greater detering effect. I do not agree with the death penalty however. One too many innocent lives would be lost and we would be wasting too many taxpayers dollars. I'm just stating that an incredibly harsh system like this would probably have a greater detering effect.