As a threshold matter, it seems to me that administration of the death penalty is only a small part of the California penal system. While banning the death penalty would promote judicial economy and reduce expenditures, other measures can be taken to greatly reduce the cost of California's prison system (such as eliminating or reducing incarceration for minor drug offenses).
But the real issue here is the inequality of the death penalty. An African American is four times more likely to receive the death penalty than his white counterpart. The disparity is even greater between rich and poor defendants. Further, a number of death row inmates are released due to new DNA evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and perjured testimony. How can we then tolerate the death of a single innocent person in favor of maintaining an inherently flawed punishment?
What is left is the satisfaction of perceived justice (which is too often defined by citizens entrenched in Old Testament values). If the death penalty is viewed critically, it becomes clear that the State should not be in the business of rote vengeance. State sponsored homicide simply does not promote any legitimate policy end. Many studies have shown that the death penalty does not does not act as a deterrent. The law must be above human emotion and irrationality.
The sophistication of a polity can best be measured by how it treats its worst elements. A life term in prison is not a pleasant thing. And while it may not satisfy plebeian cries for blood, at least it preserves our humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment