Capital punishment debate

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is often the subject of controversy. Opponents of the death penalty argue that it has led to irreversible miscarriages of justice, that life imprisonment is an effective substitute, and that it violates the criminal's right to life. Supporters believe that the penalty is justified for murderers by the principle of retribution, that life imprisonment is not an equally effective deterrent, and that the death penalty affirms the right to life by punishing those who violate it in the most strict form. While some arguments are about moral judgments, others are disagreements about empirical trends, such as whether the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment.

Ethical and philosophical discussions on capital punishment

Ethical debate of the death penalty can be split into two main philosophical contexts, a deontological (a priori) context and a utilitarian/consequentialist context. A priori argument can be further subcategorised into a right argument and a virtue argument. Legal debate also generally falls into prior argument based on legal text. (See, #Law, judiciary and the death penalty section) Consequentialist argument can be largely reduced to utilitarian formula through what amount to costs or benefits of the death penalty in terms of human lives and welfare.

The deontological objection to the death penalty asserts that the death penalty is "wrong" by its nature, mostly due to the fact that it amounts to the violation of the right to life, which should be universal. In philosophical debate, however, the virtue school tends to argue that the death penalty is also "wrong" on the ground that the process is cruel and inhumane. It brutalizes the society at large and desensitizes and dehumanizes participants of the judicial process. In particular, it extinguishes the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption of the perpetrator.

Deontic justification to the death penalty, on the other hand, argues that the death penalty is "right" by nature, mostly on the ground that retribution against the violator of another life or liberty is "just". It naturally follows that not applying death penalty to heinous murder would be unjust. In the context of virtue, they believe that without proper retribution, the judicial system further brutalises the victim or victim's family and friends, which amounts to secondary victimisation. Moreover, the judicial process which applies the death penalty reinforces the sense of justice among participants as well as the citizens as a whole, and might even provide incentive for the perpetrator to own up to their crime. Opponents to the death family argue that imposing the death penalty in fact creates more secondary victims, specifically the family and friends of the executed.

In the context of deontology, life imprisonment cannot be a substitute for the death penalty. This is because life imprisonment or any other length of incarceration is a direct violation of right to liberty. Moreover, the possibility of irreversible miscarriage of justice exists in both the death penalty and incarceration. In deontological term, one cannot substitute violation of one type of right (right to life) with another (right to liberty). Therefore deontological argument against death penalty in principle is argument against retribution and punishment in general. If any restriction is placed on the perpetrator, then it must be on the ground of prevention rather than retribution. Proponents of the death penalty in turn assert that a deontological objection is absurd from moral perspective and that it is also problematic from a consequential perspective. They point out that if there is indeed no penalty for murder or other heinous crimes, then there is no effective barrier against initial crime, barring one of a psychological nature. Moreover, the victim and his/her family and friends are free to take law into their own hand and face no consequence because the justice system no longer functions as deterrent.

At least in the judicial procedure for juveniles, the retribution aspect is explicitly removed and any restriction placed on the perpetrator is essentially for rehabilitation. Moreover, the principle of rehabilitation is increasingly applied to other areas, such as the parole system and various psychological, vocational and educational programs offered within the prison system. So the deontological opposition argue that it is possible to replace the purpose of justice system from retribution to prevention.

Those who argue for the death penalty on deontological (retribution) ground argue that rehabilitation is justified only when the victim survives. In case of murder, they point out that possible rehabilitation of one life cannot redeem another life taken. Alternatively, some concede that the merit of rehabilitation may prevail over the merit of retribution in some circumstances, such as manslaughter, negligent homicide, crime of passion or juvenile crime. However, some argue that in the case of planned multiple homicide committed by an adult who shows no sign of remorse at the time of crime, the death penalty is the only just course of action.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarian arguments for the death penalty generally focus on its deterrence effect; that is, people commit fewer murders because they fear being punished with the death penalty (See #Deterrence, prevention, and economics section in this article). If more than one life is saved because of deterrence for every execution, all else equal the death penalty is justified. Utilitarians need not agree with the death penalty, however; they may argue that the evidence does not support the existence of a deterrent effect, or that there is another negative effect which balances out the deterrent effect. For example, the brutalizing effect (see #Brutalizing effect on this page) might make people in general less respectful of life or cause life in the society less pleasant. This is a negative effect which might outweigh any deterrent effect in a utilitarian calculation, especially if the latter is relatively small.

Many argue that there are advantages of looking at capital punishment from a utilitarian perspective, that is, one which looks at costs and benefits for human welfare. The deontological debate helps to clarify the respective positions of the debate, but offers no way to reach consensus because each argument stands on different a priori ground. Similarly, legal argument can clarify a priori legal or constitutional grounds of the death penalty. However, it offers no insight over whether such law or constitutional clause can be justified on its merit. A utilitarian approach is attractive because the issue is more easily resolved through the examination of empirical evidence, such as evidence about the penalty's effectiveness as a deterrent. Opponents of the utilitarian approach argue that it is flawed for the very reason that it does not take into consideration the complicating ideas which deontology considers, such as the right to life or just retribution.

Human rights

The concept of human rights originated from the natural rights formulated by the classical liberals of the Enlightenment period. However, over the centuries the concept has grown to become the dominant political, philosophical and legal principle in the world. Most anti-death penalty organizations, most notably Amnesty International, base their stance on human rights arguments.

Wrongful convictions

The death penalty is often opposed on the grounds that, because every criminal justice system is fallible, innocent people will inevitably be executed by mistake , and the death penalty is both irreversible and more severe than lesser punishments. The supporters of the death penalty point out that lesser punishments, including life imprisonment, can also be imposed in error and incarceration is also irreversible if the innocent dies in prison. Moreover, whether money is an acceptable compensation for long period of incarceration is a matter of subjective opinion. They also point out that, given significantly large number of people who are incarcerated rather than executed, it is more common for miscarriages of justice to occur in non-death penalty cases, though each individual execution is undoubtedly more severe, except arguably for a case where the innocent were incarcerated for his or her natural life. For supporters of the death penalty, failure for death penalty opponents to oppose life imprisonment (and sometimes incarceration) invalidates their argument.

Opponents of the death penalty would point out that the equation of death with life imprisonment makes the assumption that there is no redemption or continued human development of those that have been wrongly or rightly convicted of crimes while in prison. One could point to the writings of death row inmates such as Mumia Abu-Jamal or Stanley Williams which in the view of social justice activists inspire a more humane society and discourage acts of violence. By engaging in capital punishment positive human social developments for the most extreme sectors of society are made impossible. The proponents counter by pointing out that there is strong motive for death row inmates to make false claim of wrongful conviction or rehabilitation. They point to cases such as Roger Keith Coleman where his claim of innocence was widely supported by the death penalty opponents, but after the execution, DNA examination proved that he was actually guilty. It is further pointed out that violent behavior, including murder, is rife in maximum security jail. Minority cases of genuine rehabilitation is overshadowed by the behavior of the majority. Furthermore, the death penalty might encourage the convicted to own up and some do make sincere apology to the crime they committed. Lastly, the proponent, especially the family and the friends of the victim argue that rehabilitation of the perpetrator does not redeem the life being destroyed, and without the execution, the families of the victims cannot have closure.

Opponents of the death penalty often argue that even a single case of an innocent person being executed is unacceptable. Most arguments about wrongful convictions proceed on the basis of empirical evidence and statistics. Opponents of the death penalty in the United States, for example, point to the fact that between 1973 and 2005, 123 people in 25 US states were released from death row when new evidence of their innocence emerged . However, statistics are not necessarily a reliable measure of the actual problem of wrongful convictions. It is possible that many cases of innocent people being executed have gone undiscovered, as once an execution has occurred there is often insufficient motivation and finance to keep a case in the public eye. On the other hand, because in liberal democracies a suspect is considered innocent until proven guilty, the fact that a convict is exonerated and released from death row means merely that there is insufficient evidence to prove their guilt, rather than that they are necessarily innocent.

Some opponents of the death penalty believe that, while it is unacceptable as currently practiced, it would be permissible if criminal justice systems could be improved. However more staunch opponents insist that, as far as capital punishment is concerned, criminal justice is irredeemable. The US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, for example, famously wrote that it is futile to "tinker with the machinery of death". In addition to simple human fallibility, there are numerous more specific causes of wrongful convictions; for example:

• Convictions may rely solely on witness statements, which are vulnerable to being countered by forensic evidence. New forensic methods, such as DNA testing, have brought to light previously unavailable evidence and revealed errors in many old convictions, though such technology undoubtedly makes the current conviction more secure and certain.
• Suspects may receive poor legal representation. The ACLU argues that "the quality of legal representation [in the USA] is a better predictor of whether or not someone will be sentenced to death than the facts of the crime".
• Improper procedure may be followed. For example, Amnesty International argues that, in Singapore, "the Misuse of Drugs Act contains a series of presumptions which shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused. This conflicts with the universally guaranteed right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty" . However, this refers to a situation when someone is being caught with drugs. In this situation, in almost any jurisdiction, the prosecution has a prima facie case. It may be possible to argue that the standard of proof should be raised to higher standard in case of the death penalty trial. However, many dispute the assertion that this fall into the definition of "improper procedure".

Proponents of the death penalty argue that all these criticisms apply equally to life imprisonment, which imply that some innocents might have spent their entire life being incarcerated. Therefore, this would make the argument of substituting the death penalty with life imprisonment moot. Opponents will often counter that while both forms of punishment are eternal in nature, capital punishment is irreversible and does not allow for the opportunity to free someone of his or her punishment.

Executions of innocent people

Main article: Wrongful execution

There are numerous persons who have been heralded as innocent victims of the death penalty[1], persons who, if their cases were able to be reopened, may be declared innocent or at least not guilty due to lack of solid evidence. Of the many cases, one of the most trumpeted is the execution of Jesse Tafero. Tafero was convicted along with an accomplice, Sonia Jacobs, of murdering 2 people in 1976 and were both sentenced to death based primarily on the testimony of a 3rd person, Walter Rhodes, who was an accessory to the crime and testified against the pair in exchange for a lighter sentence. Jacobs got help from a friend who worked to release her and in 1981 her sentence was commuted. In 1982, Rhodes recanted his testimony and claimed full responsibility for the crime. Despite this admission and his own his protestations, Tafero was executed in 1990, but in 1992, the conviction against Jacobs was thrown out and the state didn't have enough evidence to retry her. It has been presumed that the same evidence was used against Tafero, who presumably would have been released as well.[2]

Wayne Felker is another individual cited as an innocent victim of execution. Felker was a suspect in the disappearance of a woman in 1981 and was under police surveillance for 2 weeks prior to the body being found. The autopsy was conducted by an unqualified technician, and the results were changed to show the death occurring before the surveillance began. After Felker's conviction, his lawyers presented testimony by forensics experts that that the body couldn't have been dead more than 3 days when found, a stack of evidence was found hidden by the prosecution that wasn't presented in court including DNA evidence that might have exonerated Felker or cast doubt on his guilt, and there was even the signed confession of another suspect in the paperwork, but despite all this, Felker was executed in 1996.[3] In 2000, his case was reopened as the 1st executed person to have DNA testing used to prove innocence after execution. Although the tests were ruled inconclusive as to innocence or guilt, this alone might have been enough to exonerate him, and coupled with the other testimony and mishandling of evidence would have at least surely led to a new trial.[4]

Brutalizing effect

The brutalizing effect, also known as the brutalization hypothesis, argues that the death penalty has a brutalizing or coarsening effect either upon society or those officials and jurors involved in a criminal justice system which imposes it. It is usually argued that this is because it sends out a message that it is acceptable to kill in some circumstances, or due to the societal disregard for the 'sanctity of life'. An extension of this argument is that the brutalizing effect of the death penalty may even be responsible for increasing the number of murders in jurisdictions in which it is practiced.

The counter argument is that the death penalty enforces the sense of justice upon society or those officials and jurors involved in the criminal justice system by imposing the ultimate punishment on those who violate the lives of others. By showing how the criminal justice system take the right to life seriously, it reduces the number of murders in jurisdictions in which it is practiced. Some further argue that not applying the death penalty further brutalizes the family, and friends of murder victims as well as the society at large, because the wrong is not avenged properly.

Discrimination

It is argued that the race of the person to be executed can affect the likelihood that they receive a death sentence. A recent study showed that 44% of African Americans support the death penalty. Death-penalty proponents counter this by pointing out that most murders where the killer and victim are of the same race tend to be "crimes of passion" while inter-racial murders are usually "felony murders"; that is, murders which were perpetrated during the commission of some other felony (most commonly either armed robbery or rape). They argue that juries are more likely to impose the death penalty in cases where the offender has killed a total stranger than in those where some deep-seated, personal revenge motive may be present.

There are also concerns that the race of the victim may place a role in whether or not prosecutors seek the death penalty. In Georgia, over the last decade, prosecutors have been more than twice as likely to seek the death penalty when the victim was white than when the victim was black.

The opponents of the death penalty also point out that capital punishment has also been used politically to silence dissidents, minority religions and activists. A major example of this is the People's Republic of China from which there are many reports of the death penalty being used for politically motivated ends. Proponents of the death penalty point out that some political prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment or long incarceration die in prison as well, often after long period of torture. Given that life imprisonment is proposed as substitute for death penalty, the proponents argue, this fact makes analogy irrelevant. They also point out that the debate could easily turn into more equitable application of the death penalty or democratic reform of political system, which may increase the support for death penalty. The proponents argue that the problem of racism or political system is falsely attributed to the validity of capital punishment itself.

Arguments from democracy

An argument used both in support of and against the death penalty is that one should follow the majority opinion in the country concerned. For example, if a majority of Americans support the death penalty, while in other countries, the public opinion is against, then whatever choice democratic process produce may be considered as the "right" policy for that country. There are two possible objections to this argument. Firstly, voters make up their minds on the basis of ethical arguments offered to them and not the other way round - i.e. ethical arguments should not be decided on the basis of uninformed voting, either for or against death penalty. Secondly, democracy in the United States is not direct democracy but representative democracy. This means that representatives have difficulty understanding the collective wishes of their constituents, such as whether the votes find life sentences as an acceptable alternative or how much priority they place on the issue of the death penalty itself. No representative can be elected if they base their action in direct opposition to the wishes of the voters.

Law, judiciary and the death penalty

Some argue, from the perspective of a simplified version of legal positivism, that whatever law passed through legislative process is "legal" and moral and ethical debate is futile. This leads to a consequentialist conclusion that whatever collective consensus achieved through the democratic process is "better" if not "just."

Critics of the death penalty commonly argue that the death penalty specifically and explicitly violates the right to life clause stated in most modern constitutions and human right treaties. It violates sections 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While it is not a legally binding document, the declaration served as the foundation for the legally-binding International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which most of countries signed (with some legal reservation).

Supporters of the death penalty point out that section 3 of the declaration proclaims the right to liberty to be universal, which is violated by incarceration. Deprivation of liberty can also be seen as "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" as specified by section 5. Therefore, the supporters argue that the critics are taking the declaration out of context. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifically allows implementation of the death penalty and incarceration as a part of a criminal justice system.

Similarly, most modern constitutions contain right to life as a fundamental constitutional right, with varying degrees of exemption ranging from the explicit exemption of "except in case of serious crime or national emergency" to the vague exemption of "without due process" or "except in defence of public interest." Consequently this makes the legal debate essentially an a priori argument based on legal text.

Rules of legislative construction

When the constitution does not explicitly exempt the death penalty from the right to life clause, the judiciary are required to interpret the meaning of the clause based on rules of construction. The most common method is plain meaning rule or Golden rule. This is based on strict constructionism or textualism, which dictate that laws are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute. In this sense, right to life clauses establish a priori grounds for the prohibition of capital punishment except when it is used as a deterrent to murder. In jurisdictions which practice the death penalty, deterrence is the most common justification cited in the highest court. However, some jurists argue that this may not be the correct legal interpretation, because the plain meaning rule applies only to the extent that they do not produce an absurd or totally obnoxious result, such as removing any a priori justification of punishment. These jurists often advocate social purpose rule, mischief rule or purposive approach which is loosely based on Originalism. Under this criterion, it is possible to go back to the sources outside of legal texts, such as the intention of the law makers or the meaning of the term during the original formation of the concept, which in this case often means 18th to 19th century Europe and America. The proponents of the death penalty may claim, citing such sources as Locke, or more appropriately Thomas Jefferson in the case of the US, that the original argument was that people form implicit social contracts, ceding their right to the government to protect natural rights from being abused. Therefore, protection from abuse is the basis of such rights and those who violate such rights automatically forfeit them. Therefore, an a priori case against punishment does not exist. Critics from legal formalism argue that such an approach might cause judges to inadvertently take sides in legislative or political issues which amount to "legislating from the bench", and that the question is for the legislature to address, not the judiciary. On the other hand, advocates of this approach assert that, unlike modern judicial activism which does not follow precedent, the limit is clearly set in terms of originalism and precedent. Therefore, the approach allows middle ground between possible absurdity of textualism and the danger of judicial activism.

Protection from discrimination, persecution, and cruel and inhumane treatment

The death penalty or a particular sentence of death may still be declared to be in breach of the constitution if it violates equal protection clauses or clauses prohibiting cruel and inhumane treatment. This covers cases where the judicial process is used to prosecute particular minorities, political opponents or individuals. In the US the most commonly cited example is the disproportionate number of racial and economic minorities on death row. In legal terms, mere prevalence of certain minorities in death row or in the general prison population does not amount to the violation of equal protection, because it may simply be a result of these minorities committing more capital crimes. Rather, it must be shown that there is inherent fault in the system, that there was an implicit or explicit policy to persecute minorities or political opponents, or that the jury or judge's decision was shown to be slanted by their prejudice for "individual cases". In the US it is generally considered among jurists that race does not fall into this category except for jury bias which would result in the reversal of conviction. Similarly, incompetent defence by court appointed public defenders is also a valid case for retrial and stay of execution. Similarly, killing, pain or psychological fear of killing cannot be a valid argument under the prohibition of cruel and inhumane treatment if the death penalty is declared constitutional. It must be shown that pain is inflicted for the purpose other than execution, such as torture. Then the court can declare that particular method of execution to be unconstitutional, but not the death penalty itself.

Right to fair trial and miscarriage of justice

Most often cited examples of miscarriage of Justice is the US, which probably reflects both the high crime rate as well as the vigorous nature of its judicial process to correct its mistake. Between 1973 and 2005, 123 people in 25 US states were released from death row when their conviction was declared unsafe or clear new evidence of their innocence emerged . Recent progress in forensic science, particularly DNA testing, has brought to light previously unavailable evidence and revealed errors in many old convictions based on circumstantial evidence such as witness testimony . Opponents of the death penalty also point out that certain procedures may be at fault, such as quality of public defender, which "is a better predictor of whether or not someone will be sentenced to death than the facts of the crime". Most unusual to the US is the frequent use of plea bargaining. Because of the large case loads of public prosecutors, it is often commented that the American criminal justice system would cease to function without plea bargaining. In a majority of common law and almost all civil law countries, the prosecutor is not allowed to offer a reduced sentence in exchange for a guilty plea or hostile testimony in serious criminal cases. Plea bargains are considered unjust because it is inherent in the process of plea bargaining to induce the innocent to plead guilty, false testimony against the innocent and overcharging by prosecutors.

In legal terms, advances in forensic sciences, the existence of possible miscarriage of justice or some fault in the procedure cannot be an a priori argument for the unconstitutionality of capital punishment. Such arguments would lead to the absurd conclusion that the death penalty as well as any form of incarceration is unconstitutional, given that the innocents could be falsely incarcerated or worse, die in prison before being exonerated. However, particular fault in procedure or evidence can be used to overturn individual case of conviction, including a death penalty case. A particular system of judiciary process such as plea bargaining or the system of public defenders can be declared unconstitutional. However, these do not provide legal argument to declare the death penalty as constitutionally invalid.

Another potential miscarriage of justice associated with capital punishment is the role that judicial elections play in the sentencing process. If a death penalty verdict is appealed, some researchers believe that appellate judges who are up for re-election will be less likely to overturn a death penalty sentence because of the potential harm to their campaign. There is both evidence supporting and negating this theory as it continues to be an issue debated by legal scholars and theorists.

Deterrence, prevention and the economics of the death penalty

Some of the most prominent debates surrounding the morality of the death penalty deal with its consequences for individuals and society. Two central issues are first the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent (or prevention) and the economic costs of its imposition. Many proponents of the death penalty argue that the death penalty is justified because, according to them, it deters future crime, especially murders. While the death penalty does take life, they argue, this is outweighed by the many lives they claim it saves. This is generally considered a utilitarian argument because it is based on consequences for human welfare instead of deontological considerations such as rights or just retribution. Utilitarians need not agree with the death penalty, however (see #Utilitarianism section of this article).

The deterrence argument in favor of the death penalty is objected to on the a priori grounds that it does not even have retributional justification of a specific individual. In other words, critics argue that it implies that mistaken execution of innocents is regrettable but still justified if the overall effect of the death penalty still saves more lives. Some proponents of the deterrence argument do not dispute this, but some do on the grounds that if people know they might be executed for crimes they did not commit they might live in a state of fear; therefore, significant steps should be taken to avoid the execution of innocents.

Evidence for prevention and deterrence

Arguably, the most easily measured criterion of analysis is the number of lives being saved or lost as a rjesult of the death penalty. The most specific case under this criterion is incapacitation. That is, the death penalty prevents the perpetrator from committing further murders in the future. Several cases have been noted where convicts serving life such as Clarence Ray Allen, have succeeded in directing other murders on their behalf. More commonly debated and cited is the deterrence effect. The argument is that the threat of the death penalty deters potential murders or other serious crimes such as drug trafficking. In the pre-modern period, when authorities had neither the resources nor the inclination to detain criminals indefinitely, the death penalty or other punishments such as caning or hand decapitation were probably the only available means of prevention and deterrent. Opponents commonly argue that today's incapacitation or deterrent is equally well served by incarceration including life imprisonment. The proponents, in turn, argue that life imprisonment does not prevent murder within prison and that life imprisonment is a less effective deterrent than the death penalty.

The question of whether or not the death penalty deters murder usually revolves around the statistical analysis. Studies have produced disputed results with disputed significance. Some studies have shown a positive correlation between the death penalty and murder rates - in other words, they show that where the death penalty applies, murder rates are also high. This correlation can be interpreted in either that the death penalty increases murder rates by brutalizing society (see brutalizing effect) or that higher murder rates cause the state to retain or reintroduce the death penalty. However, supporters and opponents of the various statistical studies, on both sides of the issue, argue that correlation does not equal causation.

It is difficult to conclusively demonstrate the existence of a deterrence effect. The opponent would invariably point to the death row inmate and argue that they are the "proof" that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. However, the proponent can easily counter by pointing to a far larger number of murderers (many of them repeat offenders) who are serving life imprisonment or long sentences and argue that life imprisonment or long incarceration does not work as a substitute. This can be considered the result of a sampling problem, where those who refrain from committing crimes due to the deterrent effect of the death penalty or incarceration automatically rule themselves out from the statistics. This means that it is almost impossible to prove the deterrent effect of the death penalty or incarceration by empirical demonstration.

This further invites debate as to which side has the burden of proof. The opponents of the death penalty argue that the burden of proof is on the retentionists to prove that the death penalty works better than life imprisonment, and that, given the lack of statistical evidence, the death penalty ought to be abolished. The proponents argue that, given that existence of a deterrent effect of punishment is already accepted, the burden of proof is on the abolitionists to prove that the life imprisonment works equally well as a deterrent, and given the lack of statistical evidence that life imprisonment works as equal deterrent, the death penalty ought to be retained.

In addition, proponents of the death penalty argue that capital punishments serve justice. They claim that more attention should be paid toward the victim rather than the murderer. And to fully restore justice, the taker of life must have his life taken. Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City describes his concept of the need for capital punishment in order for justice to be served, in one case: “In 1991 a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was brutally murdered. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.”.......

Economic arguments

Economic arguments are usually not the central issues in death penalty debates, but there is an economic side of almost any issue, and the death penalty is no exception. The issue was initially raised by the opponents who proposed an anecdotal argument that the death penalty is more expensive and time consuming than life imprisonment. The proponents countered that the death penalty actually has more economic benefit. However, they did not argue that the death penalty should be retained for this reason. Arguments have been produced from both opponents and supporters of the death penalty based on economics. The term "economic" in the context of the death penalty is sometimes used in the wider sense of any utilitarian argument, not merely financial arguments.

Opponents of the death penalty point out that capital cases usually cost more than life imprisonment due to the extra court costs, such as appeals and extra supervisions. Proponents counter this argument by stating that the severity and finality of death as punishment demands that the extra resources be expended. In the US in particular, the accused is allowed to plead guilty so as to avoid the death penalty. This plea requires the accused to forfeit any appeal arguing innocence on material or procedural grounds. Furthermore, by waiving the threat of the death penalty, individuals can be encouraged to plead guilty, accomplices can be encouraged to testify against other defendants, and criminals can be encouraged to lead investigators to the bodies of victims. Proponents of the death penalty, therefore, argue that the death penalty significantly reduces the cost of the judicial process and criminal investigation. Quite a few opponents of the death penalty concede that the economic argument may be in favor of the death penalty, especially in terms of plea bargaining. However, they point out that plea bargaining increases the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice which should be counted as a cost. Moreover, had plea bargaining been abolished, the economic link between the death penalty and life imprisonment would have disappeared. The proponents point out that in such a case, those sentenced to life imprisonment would appeal indefinitely, making the cost comparison irrelevant.

External links

• Debate capital punishment on wikireason.org.
• Debate capital punishment on Debatepedia.org.