Final Draft, Mediation Paper

The existence of capital punishment is a controversial and much-debated public issue in our world. Some people believe that the death penalty is a necessary retribution for the crime of murder. Others believe that the death penalty should never be used because it unethical to take someone else’s life, even if he or she is a criminal. Especially with the possibility that the judiciary process may wrongly convict an innocent person, many argue that the death penalty is far too severe. With both sides of this issue raising compelling arguments, the conflict regarding capital punishment cannot be mediated.

With or without the death penalty, we can assume that society deems it necessary behavior to punish those who break the law. The extent of punishment to be carried out is what is debatable. The death penalty argument raises not just ethical, but economic questions as well. Depending on how the evidence is presented and interpreted, the cost of the death penalty is highly disputable. On one hand, it is hard to ignore the monetary toll on taxpayers to account for a more complicated jury selection process, a longer trial, a greater number of motions and appeals and other aspects that constitute a capital punishment trial. As of 1994, a single death penalty case costs tax payers in Texas an average of $2.3 million per execution. The cost per execution in the state of Florida is even higher at $3.2 million(Dieter). It’s hard to compare this to the average cost of a holding a prisoner with a life sentence, a mere $593,000 (Heningfeld 193). From a financial point of view, life in prison seems to be the best bet for society. Therefore, support for maintaining the death penalty must rely on ethics.

The main reason that the death penalty still exists despite high prices is its deterrence effect on potential future criminals. According to Joanna M. Shepherd’s testimony before the House Judiciary Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee, studies as recent as 2004 have “consistently shown that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect, with each execution deterring between 3 and 18 murders” (Heningfeld 95). According to some opinions, the cost of losing innocent lives far outweighs a few million dollars sacrificed to pay to bring a guilty murderer to justice. Therefore the evidence supporting capital punishment’s hindrance effect makes the death penalty seem worthwhile, if not necessary. Such strong support must be considered when choosing to allow or not allow this form of punishment.

Despite this support, opponents of the death penalty argue fiercely against the deterrence effects of capital punishment. Their main argument is that research and studies are flawed. In fact, the two states with the highest number of executions in 2003, Texas with 24, and Oklahoma with 14, actually saw increases in murder rates from 2002 to 2003. Even worse, “the top 13 states in terms of murder rates were all death penalty states” (“Innocence and the Death Penalty”). The existence of capital punishment in these states does not seem to have an effect on future murders. This is one of the main discussion points when debating the death penalty, due to such varied evidence. Depending on the study, it is truly difficult to determine whether or not murders are actually being deterred. When the evidence can go either way, the entire death penalty dispute must be left unresolved.

Mirko Bagaric of Australia’s The Advertiser goes to an extreme when he states, “It is difficult to make a stronger case for capital punishment [than for Saddam Hussein]. Yet even Saddam’s hanging was unjustifiable, and the world is a slightly worse place because of it” (Bagaric). Not only does Bagaric believe that deterrence does not occur, the execution itself is simply sending the wrong message.

Another factor about the death penalty that must be considered is the possibility of executing a wrongly-accused, innocent person. A commission established by the New Jersey Legislature to study the impact of capital punishment concludes that, “’Executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible mistake.’”(Graham). The committee argues that due to the chance of executing the wrong person, as remote as it might be, the risk that comes with carrying out the death penalty is not worth taking. The danger that an innocent person could be sentenced to death because of errors in our government is a big concern with capital punishment.

Statistics show that “As of March 2005, 128 innocent people have been released from death rows across the country since 1973” (“Innocence and the Death Penalty”). Anybody can make a mistake, nobody’s perfect, but when that mistake is taken away an innocent person’s life, it cannot be justified. There are others that believe even if the occasional innocent person is sentenced to death, this punishment will in turn save a greater number of lives. With this dilemma remaining unsettled, it is unclear what the moral solution is.

Suppose we assume that capital punishment trials always determine the correct verdict and never convict an innocent person. The debate is still unable to be resolved whether or not it is ethical to purposely take another person’s life, even when it is through judicial process. Supporters believe in the reasoning of “an eye for an eye”, while opposition believe any form of killing is simply unlawful. Either way, those questionable for the death penalty deserve harsh punishment of some kind. But should this harsh punishment be in the form of life in prison without parole, or a lethal injection?

The whole point of the death penalty is to inflict the convict with the worst possible punishment, so that they too can feel the pain that they have imposed upon others due to their heartless crimes. One person or even a group of people cannot really define what extreme cruelty is in accordance to everyone. Some people may find that spending the rest of their life in prison, rotting away in a jail cell is the worst form of penalty. Others may feel that killing them and taking their whole life away is far worse. It must also be considered that it is unfair for the families of innocent victims to have to go to a cemetery to see their loved one, while the murderer’s family can still visit jail. When it comes down to it, people cannot decide in our world today, let alone our country, which is going to be the worst form of punishment. It is almost impossible to find a common ground when both bring up valid points.

The disagreement over the use of capital punishment has been around longer than anyone can remember. It in itself is a moral conflict. Is killing wrong all the time, or is it acceptable in certain necessary situations? We in today’s world are in no position to resolve this age-old conflict by declaring the death penalty morally just or unjust.