All my arguments supporting the abolition of death penalty have been grounded in strong convictions, unassailable evidence, and they were stated most forcefully. But, in this post, my argument, though no less grounded in evidence against death penalty, is not going to be satisfactorily anchored in my conviction.
I am not convinced, and I do not believe I would ever be, that the economic costs of carrying death penalty on the statute book should be considered in opposing death penalty. But, the ill-informed, dogmatic revenge-motivated proponents of death penalty who reject without reason the points based on morality leave me with no choice but bring in economics into the discourse.
It is not I, but the legal director of an outfit that supports death penalty who said that cost of death penalty “’is probably the only argument that has any chance [in the fight against death penalty]. The people have heard all the other arguments for years, and it has never gotten any traction.’” [1]
This is all in California, which tried to do “swift justice … get the criminals and murderers through the system quickly …” through Proposition 7 (a referendum type) that found its way on to the ballot. That was an effort to expand “the state’s death penalty law to make it among the toughest and most far-reaching in the country.” The people voted Yes! on the measure most enthusiastically; after all, it was not the voter’s life that was on the line!
Things may be changing. But before I get to that, some facts.
Now, what are the cost-based arguments? There were “300 on death row” when Proposition 7 came on stream, in 1978. Now, California prisons are bristling with 720 death row inmates. The cost for incarceration of the increasing population on the death row over the past 34 years? $ 4 billion and change. Takes your breath away, doesn’t it? That is, the death penalty is a state program that costs “$184 million a year on a cottage industry of lawyers, expert witnesses and supersecure prisons to deal with the death row populations created by Proposition 7.”
That must take the fiscal conservatives, whose arguments for maintaining capital punishment has been based solely on monetary considerations, sit up and notice. This is the class of voters the two guys who played the pivotal role in getting Proposition 7 through in 1978 are going to bank on, in arguing against death penalty and instituting mandatory life without parole now. This will be done via a sort of amending proposition. I think back to the 1920s when prohibition was brought on through a constitutional amendment in the US that was repealed soon after. Here, the “soon” has expanded to 34 years!
The article says, “[D]eath penalty has cost the state a fortune but produced only 13 executions in 34 years.” “The cost of our [the US] system of capital punishment is so enormous that any benefit that could be obtained from it … is so dollar-wasteful that it serves no effective purpose,” one of the two fellows who were behind Proposition 7 but are now battling in favor of repealing death penalty is quoted as saying. I would not know how to translate these numbers into Indian situations, but I strongly suspect that the cost of death penalty vis-à-vis lifetime incarceration in India would skew towards the former being more expensive (remember, life expectancy is much lower in India).
One point stares California voters in their face (I am glad I am not one of the techies in Silicon Valley!): “We’re laying off teachers, we’re laying off firefighters …” The unsaid statement, “We’re spending a fortune to murder our citizens!”
Towards the end of the article we read one of the supporters of Proposition 7 and who has vowed to vote against the current initiative saying,
“One guy said to me, ‘How do you know it works?’” … “’Well, I said, ‘I went to see Aaron Mitchell get executed, and I never read in the paper that he ever killed anybody again.’”
That is sort of gallows humor for you. If you like it as the best deterrence based argument, so be it.
To conclude, let me say that the highlighted portion above has convinced me that arguing through morality is doing no good to death penalty abolitionists. And, I am dead set against using the economic argument. Therefore, my arguments and I are in a limbo. This is my invitation to you to join me.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. Seeking an End to an Execution Law They Once Championed, Adam Nagourney, The New York Times, April 6, 2012
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/us/fighting-to-repeal-california-execution-law-they-championed.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=1.%09Seeking%20an%20End%20to%20an%20Execution%20Law%20They%20Once%20Championed&st=cse]
I am not convinced, and I do not believe I would ever be, that the economic costs of carrying death penalty on the statute book should be considered in opposing death penalty. But, the ill-informed, dogmatic revenge-motivated proponents of death penalty who reject without reason the points based on morality leave me with no choice but bring in economics into the discourse.
It is not I, but the legal director of an outfit that supports death penalty who said that cost of death penalty “’is probably the only argument that has any chance [in the fight against death penalty]. The people have heard all the other arguments for years, and it has never gotten any traction.’” [1]
This is all in California, which tried to do “swift justice … get the criminals and murderers through the system quickly …” through Proposition 7 (a referendum type) that found its way on to the ballot. That was an effort to expand “the state’s death penalty law to make it among the toughest and most far-reaching in the country.” The people voted Yes! on the measure most enthusiastically; after all, it was not the voter’s life that was on the line!
Things may be changing. But before I get to that, some facts.
Now, what are the cost-based arguments? There were “300 on death row” when Proposition 7 came on stream, in 1978. Now, California prisons are bristling with 720 death row inmates. The cost for incarceration of the increasing population on the death row over the past 34 years? $ 4 billion and change. Takes your breath away, doesn’t it? That is, the death penalty is a state program that costs “$184 million a year on a cottage industry of lawyers, expert witnesses and supersecure prisons to deal with the death row populations created by Proposition 7.”
That must take the fiscal conservatives, whose arguments for maintaining capital punishment has been based solely on monetary considerations, sit up and notice. This is the class of voters the two guys who played the pivotal role in getting Proposition 7 through in 1978 are going to bank on, in arguing against death penalty and instituting mandatory life without parole now. This will be done via a sort of amending proposition. I think back to the 1920s when prohibition was brought on through a constitutional amendment in the US that was repealed soon after. Here, the “soon” has expanded to 34 years!
The article says, “[D]eath penalty has cost the state a fortune but produced only 13 executions in 34 years.” “The cost of our [the US] system of capital punishment is so enormous that any benefit that could be obtained from it … is so dollar-wasteful that it serves no effective purpose,” one of the two fellows who were behind Proposition 7 but are now battling in favor of repealing death penalty is quoted as saying. I would not know how to translate these numbers into Indian situations, but I strongly suspect that the cost of death penalty vis-à-vis lifetime incarceration in India would skew towards the former being more expensive (remember, life expectancy is much lower in India).
One point stares California voters in their face (I am glad I am not one of the techies in Silicon Valley!): “We’re laying off teachers, we’re laying off firefighters …” The unsaid statement, “We’re spending a fortune to murder our citizens!”
Towards the end of the article we read one of the supporters of Proposition 7 and who has vowed to vote against the current initiative saying,
“One guy said to me, ‘How do you know it works?’” … “’Well, I said, ‘I went to see Aaron Mitchell get executed, and I never read in the paper that he ever killed anybody again.’”
That is sort of gallows humor for you. If you like it as the best deterrence based argument, so be it.
To conclude, let me say that the highlighted portion above has convinced me that arguing through morality is doing no good to death penalty abolitionists. And, I am dead set against using the economic argument. Therefore, my arguments and I are in a limbo. This is my invitation to you to join me.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. Seeking an End to an Execution Law They Once Championed, Adam Nagourney, The New York Times, April 6, 2012
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/07/us/fighting-to-repeal-california-execution-law-they-championed.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=1.%09Seeking%20an%20End%20to%20an%20Execution%20Law%20They%20Once%20Championed&st=cse]
4 comments:
I, me and myself accept that arguement, once you execute a killer, he cant kill any further
I admire the tenacity with which you hang on to this theme. I'm also amused by the economics behind executions.
But for all that, I don't care much about death penalty. One day if someone feels like putting me on the death row I think I'll say: yeah, go ahead.
Is life really important? Does it all matter?
I'm still trying to make sense of life. Never desperate, though. I'm happy, in fact. Even with death penalty!
I simply wish to see people who are transparent in spite of all their weaknesses... What else matters, I don't know really.
Matheikal, at the level you are talking, death penalty is not about the death of a person ... it is about death of humanity ... it is the dirtiest blot that can be visited on the species. I do not know whether any other species indulges in it. There may be many species in which there could be killing, but none in which a killing is organized against a member of the species. Correct me if I am wrong.
I am tenacious about a few things - being anti-religious (my next post, in all probability), the environment (going beyond candle lights), fairness among people that takes into cognizance the differences in the initial conditions and so on ... of course, death penalty also.
RE
Thanks Balu ... when I read that statement, I was left stupefied!
RE
Post a Comment