In Silvia’s recent commentary on the death penalty, she exploits the fallacies of capital punishment, and the negative effect it has on the country. Through its costly means, occasional innocent victims, inhumane form, and lack of positive behavioral improvement, the death penalty needs to be absolved. I tend to disagree, however. Strongly.
While implementing the death penalty is expensive, keeping them locked away in maximum security is no better. A heavy load of tax dollars is utilized to fund the survival of the criminals that we refuse to kill. Fifty years of food and water for a convicted murdered is fifty years too many. Water is running out, so much so that it will be a limiting resource for populations in major countries, and eventually be depleted within the next hundred years at our rate of consumption. So how can we afford to give our criminals water, when suffering children are dying of dehydration? That’s inhumane.
Innocent people die. It happens. This is a casualty that society will have to bare. Convicted felons are tried by their peers, tried by regular individuals, and if convicted, it is because they have been deemed hazardous to society. The enforcement of the death penalty is astonishingly low as is, and the number of innocent victims in negligible. Unlike the death penalty, drunk driving kills innocent people daily, yet we don’t abolish alcohol? That’s because most individuals like the occasional drink, so an innocent death is worth it. The nation’s comfort and enjoyment suddenly displaces logic and humanity. The death penalty does not make the average individual’s life a little better, so it is harshly advocated against. But what if it did benefit me? Would I still find it inhumane?
I can easily argue that the enforcement of the death penalty is not racist. White people, black people, yellow people, green people, red people.... they all are people, and thus are tried as such. We are not tried for the color, we are tried for the crime. The DC Sniper recently completed his walk of death row. Was he sentenced to die because he was black, or because he killed ten people? If we would like to talk about racism, why don’t we discuss standardized tests that have a checkbox that offers special scholarships to black individuals. Where is there a white scholarship? There isn’t, that would be just plain racist.
Lastly, Silvia is right that there is no effective deterrent produced by capital punishment. That is because we, as a country, are weak. In the Middle East, thieves loose their right hands. In the United States, thieves pay a few dollars for their misdemeanor and walk away. A three hundred dollar fine is unfortunate, this is true, but loosing a body part is a whole lot more permanent. That’s an effective deterrent. Lethal injection was developed by some humanitarian pansy. As a full-blood Texan, I completely disagree with lethal injection. It’s not harsh enough. But if we are concerned with felons suffering a little pain for their crimes, then why don’t we find an alternative that will be cheaper for tax payers. A military execution by firing squad is effective. Fifteen dollars for the ammunition. Easy fix.
Humanity isn’t what’s at question. It’s survival. The general survival of the greater good. Every day that a mass murderer sits in prison, he occupies a cell. That’s one cell that cannot be filled by a rapist, an extortionist, or a substance abuser. We’re running out of resources, we can’t afford to get softer in our punishment. I could do my civil duty, work for the next sixty years desperately attempting to contribute to society, yet barely surviving beneath the poverty line. Or I could get a little anger out, kill my ex for cheating, and then go to prison where I get a free roof, a bed, three meals a day, no utility bill, and cable television. With a lack of the death penalty, murder is looking pretty good.