What's up with the death penalty?

Freddie Pitts and Wilbert Lee had meet that night on 1963. That night was the night when two gas station attendants at Port St. Joe in Florida were killed. Freedie and Wilbert were condemned to death for that crime, though no physical evidence linked them to the scene. They lived twelve agonizing years waiting to die for a crime they knew they didn't committed. Their convictions were a result of coerced confessions, erroneous testimony of an alleged eyewitness, and incompetent defense counsel. Waiting for death, in a six feet wide, 9 feet long cell, was their life until another men - sentenced to life for another homicide - confessed to the murders. That new information prompted a second trial. Again, the jury convicted Freedie and Wilbert. In 1975 Florida's governor pardoned the two, mentioning "I am sufficiently convinced that they are innocent". Had their execution not been stayed while the constitutional status of the death penalty was argued in the courts in the early 70s, these two innocent men probably would not be alive today. There are dozens of stories like this. There is Anthony, Ray, James, Robert, Andrew… How do feel about Freddie and Wilbert? What if they were your parents? Or your brothers? Or you? The death penalty was to be abolished. I'm going to tell you why.

I don't believe in the argument of deterrence. Death penalty does not prevent future murders. The US, with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than any European country, which banned it. Persons who commit murder either premeditate them or they do not. If the crime is premeditated, the criminal is concentrated on escaping detection and conviction. They are sure they are smarter than the justice and don't believe the shadow of capital punishment will touch them. If the crime is not premeditated, is hard to imagine how any punishment will deter it. Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking had been suspended.

I don't believe in the argument of retribution. Death penalty is not a just response for the taking of a life. Retribution is another word for revenge - an eye for an eye. Our laws should lead us to higher principles that demonstrate a complete respect for life. We don't allow torturing the torturer, or raping the rapist. When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed, but killing someone does not rebalance the scale, it tips it to the other side. The standards of a mature society demand a more measured response. It should lead us to higher principles that demonstrates a complete respect for life. Vengeance is a very strong and natural emotion, but it was no place in our justice system.

I believe in the argument of innocence. Death penalty imposes an irrevocable sentence. Since 1973, at least 88 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same time 650 people have been executed. How many of those 650 were really guilty? The irrevocable sentence of capital punishment doesn't allow injustices to be corrected. According to the Innocence Project organization as many as 10 percent of inmates in the United States may be factually innocent of the crimes of which they were convicted, according to the National Institute of Justice. That's as many as 200,000 innocent people languishing in American prisons. How do you feel if you were the one that was mistakenly sentenced to die for a crime you didn't commit?

I believe in the argument of arbitrariness and discrimination. The death penalty is applied unfairly. It does not single out the worst offenders. It selects an arbitrary group based on such irrational factors as the quality of the defense counsel, the county in which the crime was committed, or the race of the defendant or victim. A poorly represented defendant is much more likely to be convicted and given a death sentence. Prosecutors also have an enormous discretion about when to seek the death penalty and when to settle for a plea bargain. Situations where police used coerced confessions or questionable eyewitness identifications; prosecutors who exploit false testimony or inaccurate scientific evidence; jurors who are tainted by prejudice; judges who are out for headlines; and suspects who are easy marks -- because of their race, criminal background or inability to afford a good lawyer.

Let's replace the death penalty with life without parole for serious crimes. The safety of society can still be assured without using the death penalty. Let's make the prisoners live a simple life, a life without luxuries or privileges. Let's allow them to give back to society. I don't believe in the death penalty. I don't believe it prevents future murders. I don't believe it is a just response to crime. Let's end this example of barbarity. No society can safely entrust the enforcement of its laws to torture, brutality, or killing.