To Kill or Not to Kill

Term paper | To Kill or not to Kill | LEN 203 | | Jessa Bogema | 11/11/2011 |

A pro’s and con’s look at the death penalty both here in Michigan as well as in the United States as a whole. |

To kill or not to kill
The concept of the death penalty was first brought to America with the British settlers(*1), and the first execution was carried out in 1608 in Jamestown where Cpt. George Kendall was executed for being a spy. Since its origin in 1608, the death penalty has been used 15,269 times (as of 2002).With the favored method of death being hanging at 61.3% and Electrocution being second at 29%.(*2)Since 1976 22 defendants have been executed for crimes they committed as a juvenile.(*3) The state that has executed the most people since origination has been Virginia; whereas, Michigan has only put 13th people to death ever, all of which were before it’s statehood in 1846. Michigan was the first of all English speaking jurisdictions in the world to abolish its death penalty; they did so after not one but two different cases which caused uproar to the people of the state. The first was in 1828, Patrick Fitzpatrick, a man who lived in Detroit, was living at an inn across the river in Sandwich (now Windsor), Ontario. One day, the daughter of the innkeeper was found raped and murdered. Fitzpatrick was arrested and accused of committing the crime. After a brief trial, and based on circumstantial evidence, Fitzpatrick was found guilty and shortly after that hanged to death…
Seven years later, Fitzpatrick’s former roommate at the inn in Sandwich lay on his deathbed. Wanting to clear his conscience before dying, he confessed to raping and killing the innkeeper’s daughter. The residents of Detroit and the rest of Michigan were very angry at the idea that an innocent man had been executed. But this rage was not isolated to one case .Two years after Fitzpatrick was executed, Stephen Simmons was put on trial and convicted of killing his pregnant wife while in a drunken rage. The local sheriff, who was appointed after his predecessor resigned (because he did not believe that Simmons should be executed), made the execution into a spectator event. The execution took on the air of a carnival, with bleachers built around the execution site (where the Downtown Branch of the Detroit Public Library sits today), formal invitations issued, hotels and inns filled to capacity, brass bands, and local businesses sold food and other items relating to the execution itself. It’s no wonder after a literal circus why people in this state pushed for the abolishment of the death penalty here. Many other states as well have been trying to push for the abolishment of the death penalty although currently only 12 states do not use it. No matter what side you fall on there are defiantly many things to consider. First thing to consider would be the cost. Currently the average cost of housing someone for a natural life sentence runs approximately $20,758.00/yr. but to execute that same person would cost $163,000.00 more.(*4) Some would argue that the onetime cost to execute would pay for itself in 8 yrs, while others would say it would be better just to allow them to stay in prison and face their life without parole or ever being free again. To allow them to stay incarcerated would save each state the money they pay for the timely/costly appeals process which each person sentenced to death is legally entitled to. They would also save the original money spent(millions each year) that is spent on capital trials themselves, and with the current economic struggle this whole country is facing does it not seem wiser to save those millions spent yearly and just incarcerate someone for natural life? The next thing to consider would be the likelihood of killing someone who is indeed innocent as professed. Though there is no way to know an actual and accurate number of people who are imprisoned and later put to death who are innocent, there have been since over 130 people released from death row since 1976 who were sentenced to death and set free when new evidence exonerated them of the crimes to which they were convicted, and since once someone is dead their innocence stops the real number will never be known. However, with new sciences becoming available and different types of testing and crime scene reenactments, it is clear that more and more of the innocents will have the ability to prove just that. Though I am certain that the some of the people that claim they are innocent really are not, is it truly Justice to kill someone when their guilt is unclear?? We as a nation have become so desensitized that killing someone; even if their innocent, is acceptable as long as the justice system said so. What happened to every life having value? What happened to two wrongs don’t make a right? I mean it does seem very hypocritical of a system to kill someone who isn’t even guilty, when they are being punished for that very same thing to begin with. A side issue or debate which goes with this is who is representing these criminals. Most defendants are indigent and are stuck receiving a defense from someone who is usually just out of law school with no experience in death penalty cases and who have no interest or knowledge of how to handle a person’s defense properly whether they are guilty or innocent. Which causes a whole other issue which is if they are only entitled to so many appeals and they are stuck with a defense attorney who doesn’t know how or what to do then did then really receive an adequate defense? Are they then not being punished even further by the fact that they are poor and cannot afford a experienced and knowledgeable attorney? Another argument both for and against the death penalty would be justice for the victim and their families. While it is clear that every victim deserves justice as does their family, what is not clear is what that means, to each and every person that could and does mean something entirely different. Even to some victims themselves or their parents or loved ones. In more than one instance the victims’ family has asked that the accused not be put to death that they too are a soul and they at least deserve to live out their natural life.(*5) Many people do not feel it is our place to play god or to decide when a man/women should live or die. I personally am conflicted on the death penalty for many reasons this being one of them. I cannot in good faith/conscience decide when someone should live/die. The only exception to that being if I or my family was in direct and immediate danger at which point their survival would trump all other emotions. Another argument for the death penalty would be that it is the only way to make certain that the person is never able to re-offend again. Which is accurate, you can’t commit any act bad or good if you are dead. However, a person could be placed in solitary confinement which would not allow him to even hurt other prisoners or have much access to even the guards or prison officials. Some people may even be better served in some sort of a mental type hospital where they could be watched more closely and given the types of therapy required to at least stop them from committing any further crimes. Others may indeed be mentally unaware of what they’ve done or where they even are and being locked down in a medically secure facility would be the best way to treat them. Though death is more severe and more certain is it always the better choice?? It makes you wonder even further if the right choice is the death penalty when 68% of all death penalty verdicts are overturned on appeal resulting in a life in prison sentences anyway.(*6) A side argument to that point is what crimes are so heinous that they deserve nothing short of the death penalty?? To me the ultimate crimes are the ones that seem to be so depraved and sick and just so absolutely wrong that I would even consider the death penalty would be crimes that involved torture, rape, sodomy, any type of sexual act on a child, or premeditated murder. In all of the above I feel as though the person has put a lot of time and energy into the crime and that they have proven that they have no care or thought of the victim or the legal system either. I personally believe that any person who can hurt a child in any way deserves to be locked up for life and depending on the severity of what they did to the child they may even deserve to be put to death. To me a child is much more innocent then any grown adult and it should therefore be treated as a more severe case. However, even if a person should receive life sentence instead of death that isn’t always what they receive. Even if they receive life in prison without the possibility of parole that does not always mean a criminal will truly remain in prison until the day they die. Stacey Lannert, convicted for the 1990 murder of her sexually-abusive father, served 18 years of a life without parole sentence before receiving a full pardon by outbound Missouri governor Matt Blunt in January 2009. Lisa Connelly, one of the seven responsible for the 1993 Florida murder of Bobby Kent, was able to reduce her sentence of life in prison to 22 years upon appeal. In 2004, Connelly was released, despite being one of the primary planners of the Bobby Kent slaying.(*7) Through time, law changes, politics change, and points of view on the death penalty change. Given enough time, yesterday’s child-killer may become today’s “lifer”, then tomorrow’s parolee. Which to me is the scariest part, as I mentioned I have the personal belief that should you hurt a child you at least deserve to rot in prison for the rest of your life. There should never be any reason to let them out.
Another of the great debates in this is does having the death penalty actually deter crime? Will continuing to have it on the books in various states actually help with that states crime rates? I would say that the inability of convicted criminals to commit crimes as a result of their punishment would defiantly make it a specific deterrent, and once a criminal has been executed then they never will offend again so it is also a specific deterrent. However, recent studies have shown the exact opposite to be true before the crimes have been committed, meaning that the states without the death penalty on the books actually have lower crime rates. In 10 of the 12 states without the death penalty homicide rates have lowered whereas, in the states with the death penalty homicide rates have gone up 48-101%.(*8)Which would indicate that knowing the death penalty could be given is not causing people to commit less crimes. I mean if you know you can kill 1 person and get death or kill 50 and get death what’s going to stop you from just killing the 50? There is no further deterrence in that, death is the final outcome and they can’t kill you more than once. So it’s really no more severe then locking you in a cage for the rest of your natural life, either way your life as you know it over. You get no out, and to a lot of criminals they would rather be put to death then spend their entire lives in prison. It’s almost like death now is a faster way to the same destination. For most people the concept of the death penalty is cut and dried. They either believe its ok or they don’t. For me it’s not that simple. I believe there is nothing more valuable than a human’s life and because of such I find it nearly impossible to say that any person should die for any reason other than it was that persons time to die. To me though the line does get fuzzy when I think of things like child victims, and the children left behind without their loved one, people who never get a chance to say goodbye, or the use of such brutality and hatred that it makes you nauseated just to hear about the crime, let alone see pictures or hear eyewitness accounts of it. This world is full of people that for whatever reason have decided to turn to a life of crime, and they have no remorse or care for anyone but themselves, as is evident by their actions/crimes. I have been lucky in my life to never have been a victim of any type of crime other then identity theft, and I am glad for that. I can’t imagine what some victims families must endure to go to the trials and hear about what the criminal did to their loved one or how they ended up dying. To be honest personally I do not believe that any person should be allowed in the court room at these sorts of trials other than the attorneys, direct witnesses, and the defendant. All the rest of the people just feed into the emotional feel of the court process and I’m sure in many cases jury’s’/judges can’t help but be moved by that emotion. Which brings up another debate is there any room for emotion or circumstance/situation in a death penalty case? To each defendant there is a reason for the crime, a set of circumstances or personal beliefs that caused them to make the decisions they made. Should any of that matter? Or is it just a bottom line kind of thing. Like you did these various crimes, and that’s all the matters. Should it matter if the defendant had a troubled past, or was abused as a child or was taught that things like rape or sodomy or brutality were acceptable. Especially in cases where the defendant is a juvenile at the time the crime was committed. Does all their life circumstance and experience not make them who they are? If they have been shown since they were a toddler that all these things are acceptable and normal then why would they have any reason to believe any different? To supporters of the death penalty it doesn’t matter what life has dealt at the criminal or what they may/may not have grown up with or around, all that matters is they did this crime which is against both the laws of the state and natural laws of humankind and therefore must pay the ultimate price. But to me that seems very naïve, and closed minded. We as people grow up and emulate what we see/hear. We usually follow what we are shown as right/wrong. We do not begin to even form our own opinions on things or dare to have a varying opinion until well into our teen years and for most even later than that. So if we are not given the proper upbringing, the proper exposure to positive life experience, if we are not taught that every human life is worth something then how are we expected to know that? How can we just say “John Doe you are a drain on society, you aren’t worth anything, and you deserve to die, when we ourselves use excuses and circumstantial evidence to cover our own mistakes or give reason for our bad choices, only difference being the extreme nature of their crimes versus our choices? To me when making the decision of whether or not to kill someone for their crimes we need to consider all facts, not just the facts of the crime. We need to balance out the need for justice with the defendants’ true nature and decide at that point if the person truly deserves to die.
In closing I would challenge anyone who believes they are 100% made up on this to defiantly do research. Read about the truly innocent people who sat on death row for many years trying everything they could to save their own lives. Read about the victims of all these various crimes, and their families and put a face with the stories you heard about or seen on t.v. and finally truly put yourself in the victims’ shoes, think about how they would look at the case. What would they truly want if they were alive to say so? Is another human loss truly what they want, or is that vengeance and hurt and anger speaking for you and not the victim? As I mentioned I have very mixed feelings about the death penalty, though I have not ruled it out completely as an option I do believe that it should only be used in severe instances.

These are all people who have been exonerated after being on death row. As you can see there are no class/race/age biases. These gentlemen are all ages, races, and from different states and have all been wrongly convicted.
1.Upper Left- Alan Gell
2. Upper Right- Curtis McCarty
3. Middle Left- Feddie Pitts
4.Bottom Right-Juan Melendez
5. Bottom Left- Randy Steidl