Death Penalty shouldn’t be repealed, but amended
On Nov. 6 California voters will have the chance to vote on a new measure that will repeal the death penalty.
The death penalty was reinstated in 1976 and has since executed 13 prisoners. The measure, dubbed the SAFE California Act (Savings, Accountability, and Full Enforcement), would repeal of the death penalty and convert the sentences of the 725 inmates already on Death Row to life in prison without possibility of parole, which would then be considered capital punishment.
This however may cause a backlash from the families of the victims; of which may feel they’re being robbed of justice.
Supporters for the repeal, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, argue that the rarely used death penalty is poorly constructed and is not worth the cost of maintaining. By ridding of the death penalty, California will be able save an estimate of over $100 million from not having to maintain the death penalty and from layoffs of defense attorneys and prosecutors specializing in death penalty cases. The money would then be used to solve unsolved crimes and rape cases.
A price cannot be placed on justice. To take away that closure from the grieving families of the victims would be a grave injustice to morality. By abolishing the death penalty the integrity of the justice system is damaged.
The problem lies with the process of how the death penalty is carried out. Through lengthily trivial appeals by lawyers, the process is effectively stalled, increasing the cost of the procedure. While the process is delayed, the state is losing money and there’s no progression to be made with the case.
Appeals generally give time for the defense to gather up sufficient evidence to overturn a decision. In this sense, appeals are necessary to save those that are innocent from being sentenced to death. But this system can be abused with extensive appeals being granted– so extensive that the inmates will likely die of natural causes than by execution.
Keep in mind that these aren’t regular inmates. They’re far worse than just murders. These are ruthless criminals capable of unfathomable monstrous acts. To give these loathsome curs another opportunity to cause havoc is dangerously irresponsible.
A change needs to be made in the whole appeals process. Either shorten the lengths or grant them only on an overwhelming reasonable ground. Something needs to be done so that this system won’t be abuse and the state won’t lose money.
Additionally, in 2006 a federal judge ceased executions until new developments are made to the death chamber at San Quentin Prison and to delivering the lethal injections, as the previous method was deemed inhuman.
It’s understood that the country is in an economic crisis and finding ways to cut cost can be troublesome, but to let live those responsible of heinous and irreconcilable crimes is not the solution.