Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center
Statement on Capital Punishment by Julius L. Chambers, March 14, 1990
Source Database: Information Plus: Capital Punishment: Cruel and Unusual?
Table of Contents: Source Citation
Julius L. Chambers, Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, Inc., gave this statement on March 14, 1990, before the House Judiciary
Committee.
... [P]assage of the proposed death penalty bills would not advance--but
would instead retar--resolution of the vexing problems associated with
urban crime. While holding up the mirage of fighting and deterring crime,
these death penalty bills would surely result in furthering the historical
and well-documented racial disparities in the imposition of capital punishment
in the United States.
Our concern is squarely grounded in the stark reality, which Black people
have traditionally faced. For more than three centuries, the weight of
the death penalty in this country has been borne far more heavily by Blacks
than by Whites....
... There is no question that the financial cost of sentencing a single
person to death is astronomical.... For example, the GAO (General Accounting
Office) noted that one study done on "death penalty costs in New York estimated
it would cost at least $1.8 million to defend and prosecute a capital case."
By contrast, the cost of feeding and housing the defendant convicted in
that same case for a period of 40 years would only be $602,000. The proposed
statutes are absolutely silent as to where the millions of dollars would
come from to "foot the bill...."
Perhaps the true purpose of the bills is to divert the public's attention
away from considering measures which could truly serve to fight crime.
One commentator correctly observed that ... "the death penalty debate enables
public officials and legislators to falsely assert that they are being
tough on crime because they favor the death penalty." More emphasis should
be placed on the less glamorous side of fighting crime. Most major cities
in the country, for example, cannot afford to offer adequate treatment
to young offenders who have become ensnared with the drug world....
Source Citation: "Statement on Capital Punishment by Julius L. Chambers,
March 14, 1990." Capital Punishment: Cruel and Unusual? Mei Ling Rein.
Information Plus® Reference Series. Gale Group, 2004.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 13 March 2006
<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC>;
Document Number: X3011060311
..............................................................
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center
The Case Against the Death Penalty
Eric M. Freedman
Source Database: Contemporary Issues Companion: Death Penalty
Table of Contents: Further Readings | Source Citation
Paying the Price in Public Safety
Fact: The death penalty actually reduces public safety. The costs of the
death penalty go far beyond the tens of millions of dollars wasted in the
pursuit of a chimera. The reality is that, in a time of fixed or declining
budgets, those dollars are taken away from a range of programs that would
be beneficial. For example:
* New York State, due to financial constraints, can not provide bulletproof
vests for every peace officer--a project that, unlike the death penalty,
certainly would save law enforcement lives. * According to FBI statistics,
the rate at which murders are solved has dropped to an all-time low. Yet,
empirical studies consistently demonstrate that, as with other crimes,
the murder rate decreases as the probability of detection increases. Putting
money into investigative resources, rather than wasting it on the death
penalty, could have a significant effect on crime. * Despite the large
percentage of ordinary street crimes that are narcotics-related, the states
lack the funding to permit drug treatment on demand. The result is that
people who are motivated to cure their own addictions are relegated to
supporting themselves through crime, while the money that could fund treatment
programs is poured down the death penalty drain.
Source Citation: "The Case Against the Death Penalty" by Eric M. Freedman.
Death Penalty. Hayley R. Mitchell, Ed. Contemporary Issues Companion Series.
Greenhaven Press, 2001. Reprinted from "The Case Against the Death Penalty,"
by Eric M. Freedman, USA Today magazine, vol. 125, no. 2622, March 1997.
Copyright (c)1997 by the Society for the Advancement of Education. Reprinted
with permission from USA Today magazine.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 13 March 2006
<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC>;
Document Number: X3010074208
...............................................................
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center
The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime
Part I: Christine Notis and Part II: Edward Hunter
Source Database: Opposing Viewpoints: The Death Penalty
Table of Contents: Further Readings | Source Citation
The Death Penalty Is Expensive
If the death penalty was an effective deterrent, it would also be more
cost efficient than any other forms of punishment. The fact is that a single
execution costs more than two million dollars. This is $800,000 more than
incarcerating a person for life. Supporters of the death penalty argue
that the reason it is so expensive to execute someone is because of the
numerous frivolous appeals. Proponents say that if the death penalty was
applied properly, without so many appeals, it would be less expensive than
life in prison without parole.
The truth is that these costs are not the result of frivolous appeals,
but instead the result of necessary, Constitutionally mandated safeguards.
In order to ensure a just conviction, (1) juries must be given clear guidelines
on sentencing, (2) defendants have to have two trials, one to decide their
guilt or innocence, the other, if proven guilty, to decide whether or not
they should be sentenced to death, and (3) defendants that are sentenced
to death are granted oversight protection in an automatic appeal to the
Supreme Court. These safeguards result in a more drawn out jury selection
process, an increase in the number of motions filed, more investigators
and expert testimony, and more lawyers with specialization in death penalty
cases. All of this taken together means that the trial will be a lot longer,
thus, more expensive.
The economic impact has to be felt by someone, and it is usually not the
defendant. It is the counties that usually pay for the prosecution, and
because most defendants lack the needed funds, the counties usually pay
for the defense as well. Because of these bills, some counties have to
cut back on basic services, ironically including police protection, in
order to pay for one capital murder trial.
In other words, the death penalty is not more cost effective than life
in prison without parole. It seems to be almost hypocritical of our society
to keep spending so much money on the death penalty. Isn't this the same
society which strongly argues slight raises in taxes for good causes, like
education and/or health care? Yet the tax payers in the United States continue
to fork out their dough to see people fried or hanged.
The cost of the death penalty can be measured in more than just dollars
and cents. Capital cases take up tremendous amounts of court time, thereby
delaying the processing of other important cases. There is also a significant
burden on the United States Supreme Court. Furthermore, State Supreme Court
officials probably spend at least one-half of their time dealing with death
penalty appeals.
Source Citation: "The Death Penalty Does Not Deter Crime" by Part I: Christine
Notis and Part II: Edward Hunter. The Death Penalty. Mary E. Williams,
Ed. Opposing Viewpoints® Series. Greenhaven Press, 2002. Part I: Reprinted,
with permission, from Christine Notis, "Is the Death Penalty an Effective
Deterrent?" 1997 web article found at
www.public.iastate.edu/~cnotis/penalty.htm.
Endnotes and references in the original have been omitted in this reprint.
Part II: Reprinted, with permission, from Edward Hunter, "Experts Agree:
Death Penalty Not a Deterrent to Violent Crime," January 15, 1997, web
article found at www.napa.ufl.edu/oldnews/death1.htm.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 13 March 2006
<http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC>;
Document Number: X3010124256
--------------------
\m/ Spanksta \m/
"do you have the freedom to do with your nervous system what you want?"
"MolokoMilkPlus said:
I'll respect you if you let me give you a blow job"
"tactik said:
respect the can."
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
kilroy69 
eligal 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
TheShroomHermit
MOTH
TheCheat
toad857
KingOftheThing
ToTheSummit
TheCow