Yes, those are the major arguments made. Or at least the first one is. The second ("revenge is sweet, and it feels good to kill the bastards") is rarely stated. Oddly, it's the most compelling to me, and the least hypocritical, and in the absence of what I consider much stronger arguments against state killing, it might be the one I'd go with. I would surely want to kill with my bare hands someone who harmed my beloved.
Here's a paradox, though. No one thinks of it, though it's been established many times. In fact the first of your two points ("it's cheaper to kill them than to lock them up") isn't true.
I know, that's counter-intuitive.
But, because of the lengthy and expensive legal processes and appeals that death penalty cases entail (unless we want to void these constitutional protections and kill even more innocents), and the exorbitant costs associated with funding the (expensive!) death rows on which these prisoners are held during these appeals, and the cost of the executions themselves (including maintaining the facilities at all times for their only occasional use), and the fact that of all the cases that are so expensively tried, most do not, in the end, after the second, "penalty phase" trial (add that cost, too), finally result in execution anyway... well, you put all this together, and you arrive at the counter-intuitive irony that the taxpayer pays more for each execution than it would have cost to keep that prisoner alive in prison for several decades along with all the other murderers-- and not necessarily the most vile ones (more likely the most poor)-- who are being held instead of executed.
Of course if our constitutional protections were eliminated, the trial process could be speeded up nicely. Well, not all that nicely-- even more of the imprisoned would be executed unjustly. (Some think that's no big deal, though if it were they waiting unjustly to fry, literally, I dare say they'd see it differently.)
The stats for this are collected in a book by Hugo Bedau. I forget the exact title. I could get it in a sec if someone's interested. The book is somewhere in this house. Such stats are available in other books, too, of course.
As for the minorities-and-poor matter, in that book or another I read an interesting study. More than one study.
The first was conducted in the state of Louisiana. (I'm almost certain it was Louisiana.) This was a few years ago, I don't know whether it holds true now or not, in any state. These cases are a few years old.
That study examined the files of all those who had been executed in that state. It found, surprise surprise, that in the history of executions in that state, not a single person had ever been subjected to the death penalty who was not poor and uneducated. No rich murderers had ever died for their crimes. No col grad murderers had ever died for their crimes.
Another study controlled for all other elements of the cases, and discovered that you were much more likely to receive the punishment of death (for the identical crime) if you were a black murderer than if you were a white murderer. But even more striking was the effect of the race of your victim on your punishment!~ If you were a black murderer, it would definitely be a good idea to only murder a black!-- a white victim would be much more likely to get you the punishment of death. On the other hand, if you were a white murderer, you'd have been a fool to go and murder a white person, because if you murdered a black one instead, they'd go ever so much easier on you. There was a veritable sale on killing blacks, if you were white! (The book I mentioned cited a state which, at that time, had never in their killing history executed a white for the murder of a black.) (I'm sure this situation has changed; these stats were of course embarrassing for law enforcement.)
I saw a segment on Dateline tonight about a mother, or step mother (I only saw the end of it) who was proved to have tortured her step son for years. She beat him, burned him, bit him, forced him to drink a hot pepper liquid and alcohol, and did many other hideous things to this boy who was finally taken away from her when he was five years old. She complained that he ate too much. (She was obese.) In fact, his bloated belly was the result of malnutrition. She got 18 months, served less. She is remarried, the mother of another baby, now.
I know I've said this before. It's a lottery. Rigged by money, and race, and race of victim, and sex, and education. Fame, too, of course. OJ reminded us of that. Tonight I learned that it's rigged by the age of your victim, too-- if you commit a crime with a child as your victim, your punishment is likely to be slight compared to what it would have been had you victimized an adult, they said.
I don't like the state to choose which of its criminal citizens to kill by lottery. Especially by a rigged lottery. We try hard, institutionally, to make the system fair. We really do. I believe that. But....
I don't like to have the state execute some people and give that woman eighteen months for years of torturing a little boy.
I'd like them to take the money they waste getting a few executions (out of the many expensive capital trials) and fight crime with it.
They said on this program tonight that a significant percentage of deaths attributed to SIDS are probably the result of abuse or neglect. (The torturer who got the slap on the wrist is now suspected of having killed her six months old son who was ineptly called a SIDS victim.) I'd like them to take that money they waste in that expensive exercise in futility and institute a good program for correctly diagnosing non-SIDS deaths and imprisoning those baby-killers before they breed and kill again.
That's just one idea of a better thing to do with the money.
|
