How to Fix the Death Penalty
Does the Death Penalty need to be fixed? With all of the controversy surrounding it, capital punishment is certainly within the scope of criminal justice reform. Many people find it abhorrent that the state kills anyone, no matter their crime. On the other hand, some feel that the only reasonable punishment for the worst crimes is death. For those most horrible of cases, where our prior laws have specified that the punishment is execution by the state, a “life sentence” just does not seem to connote the same satisfaction as a "death sentence" when an offended public demands justice.
How do we fix our problems with the death penalty? The solution may be as simple as a change in terminology. Instead of abandoning executions in favor of a “life sentence,” let’s instead institute the concept of a sentence of “Death in Prison.” A life sentence, even "life without the possibility of parole," does not suggest that the maximum penalty available to the state is being undertaken. But specifying a sentence of “Death in Prison” conveys the intent very well. A life sentence and a death sentence are, of course, the same thing, but here we are talking not only of providing safety for society, but also meeting the needs of an offended public. There are many well-known reasons not to execute. Costs of prosecuting death penalty appeals are three times the costs of keeping a person on death row until his life expires naturally (although that is also very expensive). Constitutional challenges are chipping away at carrying out previously accepted execution methods. Difficulty of obtaining the drug cocktails used in lethal injection hampers states’ ability to perform execution. The ethical standards of a portion of society are changing away from the state ever being able to execute. However, there remains a portion of the public who feel that the death penalty is, in the most serious of crimes, the reasonable and preferred form of justice. So could criminal justice professionals skirt the wrath of the public by providing for Death in Prison instead of executions? They very likely could. Death in Prison conveys the attitude of years and years of a hellish existence, out of contact with society, followed by an ignominious termination of life. That’s the very thing for which death penalty advocates cheer. It’s essentially a slow execution. But it is certainly not cruel or unusual. It is the very thing that we do to thousands of inmates who live their lives in prison on a life sentence. Unfortunately this brings up the conundrum: If the Death in Prison sentence is reserved for only the very most horrible crimes, how can we then use the very same punishment for the upper limit of dozens of lesser crimes? But Wait! Dual Mode Sentencing comes to the rescue in this dilemma. As usual, if we separate our motivations as is taught by Dual Mode Sentencing, we get a much clearer view of the picture. Dual Mode Sentencing requires that we separate Retribution (Debt to Society) from Incapacitation (Risk of Recidivism). For the very worst crimes retribution is sufficient justification to keep an offender in prison until he dies. On the other hand, other inmates may be incapacitated for life because of the Risk of Recidivism they pose, even though the Debt to Society is satisfied. So a “Life Sentence” really is fundamentally different than a “Death Sentence.” But we only see the difference if we separate our motivations. Thank you, Dual Mode Sentencing. Read more about Dual Mode Sentencing at http://DualModeSentencing.org. |
Lethal Injection
Firing Squad
Gas Chamber
Electric Chair
Hanging
Death in Prison
|