Capital Punishment in 1966 Kenneth

Capital Punishment

In 1966 Kenneth McDuff was convicted of shooting two boys, then raping and strangling their 16-year-old female companion. He was convicted to death. Unfortunately, in 1972 the Supreme Court's ruling against the death penalty commuted his sentence. In 1989, because of prison overflow, he was released. After all, it had been twenty-two years... Within days he had raped and strangled one young woman, leaving her naked body dumped in a field. He was temporarily reincarcerated over a traffic violation, and rereleased again in 1990. By 1991, he had begun killing again. No one knows how many victims he took, though at least nine are on record. He was eventually re-sentenced to death in one on the cases, the abduction, rape, and murder of a pregnant woman. He was finally put to sleep in 1998 through lethal injection. The story of McDuff and his victims speaks to me of the vital importance of the death penalty. Here we have a perfect example of the way in which relaxing the death penalty works in real life. For all the horror stories about innocent people killed by the state, the most important stories are about innocent people killed by repeat offenders. It is my belief that most serious criminals cannot be reformed or sufficiently contained for, as McDuff's case illustrates, the majority of them are both genetically and psychologically conditioned towards crime and violence in a way that the prison system only makes worse. Unless we are to force them to spend their entire lives in solitary confinement, which is so cruel as to be unconstitutional, there is no other legitimate option to keep them from killing again. Even true life in prison cannot stop them from killing or raping other inmates who may not deserve such torture!

The argument regarding capital punishment is an emotional one, because both sides feel that they are arguing for justice and the greater good. Most abolitionist, who oppose the death penalty, believe that they are supporting the value of human life and that by opposing the death penalty they will create a better and more peaceful society. Most of those who support the death penalty, myself included, feel that it is the only way to create a better peaceful society. There seem to be three major arguments against the death penalty: that it devalues human life and thus encourages the same kind of mindset that provokes murder, or that it does not deter crime and is therefore just senseless killing, or that it is too expensive. For examples, in a speech to the National Law Day Panel, "Steven Hawkins, executive director of the National Coalition Against the Death Penalty, said capital punishment devalues human life." (Liebson) This argument functions by saying that if the state "murders" people that displease it, that this justifies the idea that individuals have a right to murder those who displease them, and justifies a culture of violence. The second argument is that the death penalty does not deter crime, and is therefore not valid. Former U.S. Attorney Janet Reno has been quoted as saying, "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point." (NCADP) the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty further cites research which shows a correlation (if not necessarily causation) between legalized death penalties and high crime fatalities. The final argument compares the cost of maximum security "death row" containment, the legal fees involved in appeals, and other such legal costs of killing one inmate to the cost of containing the average inmate for a 50-year "life" sentence. (Though this does not factor in geriatric care) Capital cases apparently cost between one million and seven million to prosecute, confine, and execute. Non-capital cases cost about $500,000 -- including imprisonment. "In 1991 New Jersey spent $16 million to impose the death penalty. The next year the state laid off 500 police officers because they could not afford to pay them..." (NCADP) the argument suggests this money would be better spent on patrolling and preventing crime. Any suggestion that the appeals process be shortened is, of course, met with outrage regarding the possible conviction of innocent people.