Death Penalty: Unjust, Ineffective, and Racially Biased

Introduction

Capital punishment has a history in the United States that goes back to the colonial era. It remains one of the most controversial issues in American society. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, 1,151 executions have taken place in the United States (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 1). Thirty-eight of those executions occurred in 2008 alone (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 1).

The following research examines capital punishment in the United States through the lens of fairness as it applies to several special populations. It then evaluates the death penalty's ability to fulfill its primary stated objective: the deterrence of violent crime. By the end of this analysis, it will be clear that the death penalty does not accomplish its originally intended purpose and that it is administered in an unjust fashion.

Racial and Demographic Inequities in Capital Punishment

One of the key arguments against the death penalty is that in 96% of states where reviews of capital punishment have been conducted, a pattern of racial discrimination became apparent (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 2). In states that have the death penalty, 98% of chief district attorneys are white, while only 1% are Black (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 2). This racial inequality in the justice system may significantly affect the administration of the death penalty and a defendant's likelihood of facing the ultimate punishment.

In North Carolina, Black defendants were found to be three and a half times more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants who committed similar crimes under similar circumstances (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 2). In California, crimes in which the victim was white were three times more likely to result in a death sentence than cases in which the victim was Black or Hispanic (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 2). Whether these statistics are fully representative of national trends remains uncertain, but the available evidence suggests that these racial disparities are widespread. Such patterns cause the death penalty to echo the racially motivated injustices of America's not-so-distant past.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ended the death penalty for juvenile offenders. However, since the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976, 22 juvenile defendants had already been executed (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 3). These individuals were not old enough to vote for the laws that governed them. They were not afforded the full rights of adults. They were never given the opportunity to turn their lives around or to become contributing members of society. They lived in a period of life typically marked by hormonal volatility and impulsive decision-making. We will never know what those young people might have become, or what contributions they might have made, because they were never given the chance.

The execution of persons with mental illness is another central point of contention among capital punishment opponents. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that executing defendants with intellectual disabilities is unconstitutional (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 3). The American Psychiatric Association has proposed extending this protection to all individuals with serious mental illness (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 3). These concerns are fundamental to any effort to ensure that the death penalty does not unfairly target the most vulnerable members of society.

Supporters of the death penalty, however, fear that mental illness claims could be exploited as an excuse to avoid punishment by those who genuinely deserve it. One must ask which outcome is worse: executing an innocent person who had no understanding of their actions and was in need of treatment, or allowing someone to receive proper psychiatric care rather than face death for a condition they did not choose. If a person is deemed too dangerous to live freely in society, incarceration can address that reality — but at least the state would not be executing someone for a disability. This concern leads directly to the next issue: wrongful executions.

Wrongful Executions: Murder by the State

The U.S. Constitution contains safeguards intended to prevent the punishment of innocent people. In capital cases, the importance of these protections is magnified, since wrongful prosecution can mean the difference between punishment and state-sanctioned murder. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is a noble ideal, but in practice it is frequently inverted — a suspect is often treated as guilty until proven innocent.

When a heinous crime occurs, district attorneys, judges, and juries are under enormous pressure to identify and convict a perpetrator. In their haste, the innocent sometimes suffer for crimes they did not commit. History contains numerous documented examples where mistakes led to the punishment of innocent individuals while the actual perpetrators went free (Gumbel).

The case of Cameron Todd Willingham is one stark example. In 1991, a house fire broke out in the Willingham home. Todd desperately attempted to save his three children but was unable to do so; they perished in the fire. His conviction rested on inaccurate conclusions from an arson investigator — evidence that was later demonstrated to be scientifically flawed. The only other significant evidence against him was testimony from a neighbor who held a personal grudge. The question of bias was never raised at trial. In February 2004, Willingham was executed by lethal injection, still maintaining his innocence to the end (Gumbel). Subsequent analysis confirmed that the "scientific" evidence used to convict him was entirely faulty (Gumbel). Willingham, a grieving father, was killed by the state for a crime he did not commit.

The United States has a troubling history of wrongful executions. The precise number of innocent people who have been put to death remains unknown, but a review of the historical record suggests it happens more often than society is willing to acknowledge. Cases from before the age of modern forensic technology are easier to understand, as those trials depended heavily on testimony and eyewitness accounts (Radelet, Bedau, and Putnam, 1992). But the continued occurrence of wrongful executions in the era of advanced forensic science is far more troubling.

What is most alarming is that faulty science is not always the primary cause of wrongful execution. In documented cases where a person was posthumously exonerated, the failure of the justice system itself was often to blame. Valid scientific evidence was ignored while opinion and hearsay were accepted in its place. This is not merely a theoretical concern — it is a documented reality.

When evidence is disregarded and the innocent are executed, the outcome is irreversible (Amnesty International). Even if a person is later proven innocent through valid forensic evidence — even if the actual perpetrator is identified and convicted — for the innocent individual who was executed, it is too late. The state has committed murder. Yet in no documented case has a district attorney or judge been held criminally responsible for the willful prosecution and execution of an innocent person. When exculpatory evidence is suppressed and false evidence leads to execution, the injustice is arguably more egregious than the original crime — yet those within the criminal justice system appear to remain exempt from the very penalty they impose on others.

Conclusion

This analysis has examined capital punishment through the lens of fairness, accuracy, effectiveness, and humanity. The death penalty was found to carry significant and documented flaws in the equitability of its administration. Racial biases permeate the system. The number of wrongful executions is deeply troubling, yet little has been done systematically to prevent them. It appears that as a society, we are willing to look the other way unless the issue touches someone we know personally — or ourselves.

The argument that capital punishment deters crime fails on every front. In a recent survey, police chiefs ranked the death penalty last among strategies for reducing violent crime (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 4). The death penalty is also a costly endeavor: in Texas, executing a person costs three times more than imprisoning that same individual for the next forty years (Death Penalty Information Center, p. 4).

In conclusion, the evidence presented here supports the position that the death penalty is an archaic practice whose time has passed. It does not fulfill the purpose for which it was intended. It costs taxpayers more than alternative and more effective means of crime prevention. It targets certain segments of the population unjustly. Even animals are afforded greater legal protections at the moment of death than some human beings who are executed by the state — including, in documented cases, individuals who were innocent of the crimes for which they were killed. These arguments constitute a compelling case for the complete abolition of the death penalty in the United States, in favor of more humane and more effective approaches to public safety.

References

Amnesty International. Death Penalty. 2008. www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/page.do?id=1011005.

Death Penalty Information Center. Facts About the Death Penalty. March 1, 2009. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf (Accessed March 10, 2009).

Gumbel, A. "The Innocence Project: Guilty Until Proven Innocent." Common Dreams, May 4, 2006. (Accessed March 10, 2009).

Horisch, H. and Strassmair, C. "An Experimental Test of the Deterrence Hypothesis." Discussion Papers in Economics. February 27, 2008. University of Munich. http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2139/2/crime_Munich_DP.pdf (Accessed March 10, 2009).

Radelet, M., Bedau, H., and Putnam, C. In Spite of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1992; and Bedau and Radelet, "Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases." Stanford Law Review 40 (1987): 21–179.

Religious Tolerance. "Does Execution by Lethal Injection Violate the U.S. Constitution?" http://www.religioustolerance.org/executm.htm (Accessed March 10, 2009).

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Fact Sheets: Key Facts — Humane Slaughter. June 22, 2001. Food Safety and Inspection Service. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Key_Facts_Humane_Slaughter/index.asp (Accessed March 10, 2009).