Louisiana should reconsider immoral, costly death penalty
This is an opinion article and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Tulane Hullabaloo.
Louisiana residents are starting to truly feel the effects of painful budget cuts to healthcare and higher education. Meanwhile, racial tensions across the state and the country become more strained, and in the state with the highest rate of incarceration in the world, this climate provides an opportune time for Louisiana to consider abolishing the death penalty.
Debates surrounding the death penalty have resurfaced following the recent death sentence handed down to Dylan Roof, who killed nine members of a black church in Charleston, South Carolina in 2015. The primary defense of capital punishment, a practice often criticized as cruel and immoral, centers around the idea of crime deterrence. Supporters of the death penalty argue that this punishment discourages crime while reducing the cost of inmate housing and food.
There is little evidence that the death penalty discourages violent crimes. A recent study found that more than 88 percent of American criminologists believe the death penalty does not lower homicide rates, and the murder rate in states without the death penalty is, on average, lower than those with it.
Instead of saving money, capital punishment increases taxpayer cost. While executions are relatively inexpensive, a death penalty trial costs roughly $1 million more than a trial for life without parole. The high cost of these trials likely diverts resources away from effective crime prevention, like mental health and rehabilitation treatments, education, and victim services.
These trials are not only expensive—they are often flawed. Of the 155 death penalties that have been sentenced by the state of Louisiana since 1975, 82 percent have been reversed, most due to trial errors that include lawyer incompetence, errors in jury instructions and prosecutorial wrongdoing.
Research has shown that capital punishment is not only ineffective, but it also possesses a clear racial bias. In Louisiana, executions are 14 times more likely to occur when the victim is white, and a black man is 30 times more likely to receive the death penalty for the murder of a white woman than for that of a black man. Nationwide, when the victim is white, black defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants.
It is immoral to cut necessary programs such as healthcare and education while still supporting this expensive, ineffective and inhumane system. Eliminating the death penalty would not assist in solving the state’s financial crisis, but it would demonstrate the government’s dedication to cutting ineffective programs before more important ones. It would also serve as a much-needed gesture of governmental support for the black community.
Camille Frink is a sophomore at Newcomb-Tulane College. She can be reached at [email protected].
Leave a Comment
Your donation will support the student journalists of Tulane University. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.
Dudley Sharp • Apr 27, 2018 at 7:01 am
Just read your referenced article. In full rebuttal:
The death penalty, as all sanctions, center around justice, not deterrence.
For example, the jurors in the Dylan Roof case gave him the death penalty because they found that the crimes he committed were deserving of the death penalty. That is, also, the moral foundation for the death penalty – justice.
Deterrence is one of the expected and intended outcomes of sanction, but not the reason for it.
Deterrence cannot be measured by murder or crime rates, but by the fact that murders and other crimes are net fewer with sanction, than without them, regardless of the rates. Very few disagree that crime and murder rates would rise if there were no sanctions for them.
The easiest example is that if Iceland and its capital Reykjavík have the lowest crime rates does that mean that all other cities and countries have no deterrence from sanction? Of course not.
The criminology “study” that you cited, was not a “study” but a survey.
Within the Survey, the response to question 12 finds that 92% of the criminologists agree that the death penalty may deter some.
It is a rational conclusion. All prospects of a negative outcome/consequence deter the behavior of some. It is a truism.
The responses to question 8 found that 61% (or 46) of the criminologists found some support for the deterrent effects of the death penalty through the empirical, social science studies.
28 recent studies, since 1999, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence. These studies find executions deter from 1-28 murders per execution.
I’m guessing you didn’t read the survey. It’s best to fact check or vet, everything.
I have not seen that Louisiana death penalty trial vs life without parole trial costs. Can you direct me to it, if there is one?
It appears you used the discredited Baumgarner study in your review of race and overturning data.
Bauhgartner looked at all homicides in Louisiana, which is, totally, irrelevant to making any type of assessment about the death penalty, as Baumgartner and all death penalty experts, well know.
Capital, death penalty eligible murder cases are a totally different set of cases and are a much smaller set of cases than are all other non death eligible murders, as Baumgartner well knows.
I suspect that Baumgartner’s goals were to misinform and inflame. But, best that you ask him. [email protected], 919 962 3041.
Or ask any prosecutor or judge who deals with such cases.
From Baumgartner’s study, Section 1 Homicide Victimization Rates, which includes all homicides, Baumgartner, then, switches to only death penalty cases and executions, in Section II Death Sentences and Executions, a, totally, different data set, whereby he, then, interconnects the two different data sets.
It’s like comparing kangaroos to Rolls Royces.
It is simple, blatant academic perversion and should be denounced.
According to Baumgartner, the death penalty reversal rate in Louisiana is 82%. Well, no.
Baumgartner established that there has been 241 death sentences in Lousiana, since 1976, with 127 reversed on appeal, which is 53%, not 82%.
He seems to like convoluted math. I like it simple.
Furthermore, we have the 2013 Louisiana state data, from a trusted, neutral source, The Bureau of Justice Statistics report, wherein the data shows 245 death sentences with 119 overturned on appeals, which is 49% , not 82%.
The US average is 38%.
Dudley Sharp • Apr 26, 2018 at 1:05 pm
RE: Rebuttal: Louisiana should reconsider immoral, costly death penalty, Camille Frink, Staff Writer, Tulane Hullabaloo, January 18, 2017
Camille:
Just read your referenced article. In full rebuttal:
The death penalty, as all sanctions, center around justice, not deterrence.
For example, the jurors in the Dylan Roof case gave him the death penalty because they found that the crimes he committed were deserving of the death penalty. That is, also, the moral foundation for the death penalty – justice.
Deterrence is one of the expected and intended outcomes of sanction, but not the reason for it.
Deterrence cannot be measured by murder or crime rates, but by the fact that murders and other crimes are net fewer with sanction, than without them, regardless of the rates. Very few disagree that crime and murder rates would rise if there were no sanctions for them.
The easiest example is that if Iceland and its capital Reykjavík have the lowest crime rates does that mean that all other cities and countries have no deterrence from sanction? Of course not.
The criminology “study” that you cited, was not a “study” but a survey.
Within the Survey, the response to question 12 finds that 92% of the criminologists agree that the death penalty may deter some.
It is a rational conclusion. All prospects of a negative outcome/consequence deter the behavior of some. It is a truism.
The responses to question 8 found that 61% (or 46) of the criminologists found some support for the deterrent effects of the death penalty through the empirical, social science studies.
28 recent studies, since 1999, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence. These studies find executions deter from 1-28 murders per execution.
I’m guessing you didn’t read the survey. It’s best to fact check or vet, everything.
I have not seen that Louisiana death penalty trial vs life without parole trial costs. Can you direct me to it, if there is one?
It appears you used the discredited Baumgarner study in your review of race and overturning data.
Bauhgartner looked at all homicides in Louisiana, which is, totally, irrelevant to making any type of assessment about the death penalty, as Baumgartner and all death penalty experts, well know.
Capital, death penalty eligible murder cases are a totally different set of cases and are a much smaller set of cases than are all other non death eligible murders, as Baumgartner well knows.
I suspect that Baumgartner’s goals were to misinform and inflame. But, best that you ask him. [email protected], 919 962 3041.
Or ask any prosecutor or judge who deals with such cases.
From Baumgartner’s study, Section 1 Homicide Victimization Rates, which includes all homicides, Baumgartner, then, switches to only death penalty cases and executions, in Section II Death Sentences and Executions, a, totally, different data set, whereby he, then, interconnects the two different data sets.
It’s like comparing kangaroos to Rolls Royces.
It is simple, blatant academic perversion and should be denounced.
According to Baumgartner, the death penalty reversal rate in Louisiana is 82%. Well, no.
Baumgartner established that there has been 241 death sentences in Lousiana, since 1976, with 127 reversed on appeal, which is 53%, not 82%.
He seems to like convoluted math. I like it simple.
Furthermore, we have the 2013 Louisiana state data, from a trusted, neutral source, The Bureau of Justice Statistics report, wherein the data shows 245 death sentences with 119 overturned on appeals, which is 49% , not 82%.
The US average is 38%.
I have no idea why you did not fact check or vet. Do you?
Zoe Wyse • Jan 19, 2017 at 2:25 pm
Wonderful piece! Thank you for writing this!
These are tough issues that are hard for people to talk about sometimes. I hope that people will continue to talk about these issues, no matter what side of the issue they are on. It is possible for people to sincerely hold moral positions that are diametrically opposed to one another and still engage with issues in a respectful way. Anyone who is trying to live out their values and do the right thing is worthy of great respect. There are many people like that on both sides of this issue. So people should be able talk.
It is also useful to look at the larger picture and recognize that some of this may be very challenging for people to engage with emotionally. I oppose the death penalty categorically, and this position does not require any soul-searching for me. I believe every life is sacred and killing people in the name of justice is morally wrong.
However, I also do not expect victim’s families to forgive people who have killed their loved ones unless they are moved to do so. They are in an incredible amount of pain. That is completely reasonable. As a society, we can still take a broader view of the issue. I know that if I were killed in a hideous way, my loved ones would not quickly find forgiveness in their hearts. Their emotional reaction would be more along the lines of “I wish I could run that person over with a tank.”
It is a sense of overall balance and dedication to larger values that prevents any of us from needing to put our emotions into action. I am sure that if one of my loved ones were killed, I would have a similar amount of anger. These are feelings. There is a difference between how things make us feel and what we do with those feelings. As a society, we need to work towards building a compassionate, balanced, and humane way of treating people.
As far as deterrence–is is possible that somewhere in the history of people who have killed other people there is someone who would have been deterred by the possibility of death more than life imprisonment? Well, yes, obviously. Of course it is possible. Given the variety of people and personalities in the world, it is probably even likely. That doesn’t mean that overall the death penalty is a deterrent.
But for the hypothetical family of that loved one, if they realized that in this one case death would have been a deterrent even though for the vast majority of people it would not have added additional deterrence, they may well feel that it is worth having a death penalty is worth it. They might feel this in spite of the fact that the death penalty will also result in the execution of people who have done nothing wrong, and that it is part of a system plagued with racial bias and sometimes unmotivated defense lawyers and all manner of other problems. Could I say that I blame them? No, I really wouldn’t. They are in a blinding fog of pain. They are human just like everyone else. Do I think that rationale would make sense from a larger societal perspective? No, absolutely not.
Part of what we need to do is develop empathy and part of what we need to do is move beyond our own feelings and concerns about our loved ones or people who look like us and focus on the larger picture. I believe that people have real reasons for doing what they do. People who have killed others may have had hideous lives of abuse, violence, addictions, chaos and problems. I care about them just as much as I care about their victims. I don’t see them as “bad people.”
If someone killed someone I knew though, I sincerely doubt that would be my initial response. Getting to a level of forgiveness and acceptance might well take me years, not because the person didn’t deserve forgiveness and acceptance but because I would be dealing with my own feelings and pain. This is part of being human. But would I want them killed in the meantime? No. I would want to take the time to try to understand them and forgive. Killing people is not a good way of dealing with our feelings as a society. It doesn’t add to what is good or beautiful in the world. Or as Gandhi said “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
Thank you so much for this wonderful piece and I wish you the very, very best in your future, wherever your path takes you. Please continue to do wonderful things for our world.
Camille Frink • Jan 22, 2017 at 12:12 pm
Wow thank you for such an insightful, kind, wonderful comment! I totally agree with you, this is such a hard topic to discuss because of the urge to empathize only with the family. Thank you so much for this comment, it really made my day, and thank you for contributing to an important conversation like this–one we as a society should have more of.
Dudley Sharp • Apr 26, 2018 at 2:53 pm
Zoe:
I am a former opponent of the death penalty who shared some of your thoughts, at one time.
Neither forgiveness nor acceptance negate justice, the foundation for all sanctions.
Gandhi never made that quote, nor would he have.
“An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind”:
Zero evidence that Gandhi said it
http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/02/gandhi-eye-for-eye-leaves-everybody.html