Should capital punishment be allowed in the United States?

Victoria Fisher, a jurisprudence major, is in her second year as a columnist for The Montclarion.

Ever since around 1907, the struggle between ethics and the judicial system has been ongoing.

The struggle derives from the death penalty, a topic that has two very strongly held arguments. The first belief is most commonly known as “eye for an eye;” that those who commit the most heinous crimes should pay the ultimate price to society.

The other side of the spectrum believes that suffering through life is the highest price to pay. Both sides have excellent points and reasoning, but who is to say which is right or wrong?

When looking at this argument from a strictly financial perspective, sentencing someone to death is one of the most costly processes the judicial system offers. Once ordered to death, an inmate is automatically entered into the court system of appeals.

The paperwork processing of this can take anywhere between 15-25 years. The financial end of the death penalty is also very serious.

The California death penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million per year beyond the costs of keeping convicts locked up for life. Taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each of the state’s executions (L.A. Times, March 6, 2005). Bear in mind this lengthy and extremely costly process also has no guarantee whatsoever of a turnover of the sentence.

The surroundings of death rowhave all the cumulative ingredients to destroy someone mentally. Almost always held in solitary confinement, prisoners are usually alone 23 hours a day.

Those who experience solitary confinement may become delusional, irrational and threatened by anyone, sometimes even themselves (at the very least, more so than when they entered the prison system).

But the other side of the argument strongly contests that the prisoner or wrong-doer must suffer. People believe that to die or be put to death is simply escaping your wrongs instead of facing them.

To have to live day in and day out in miserable and dangerous surroundings, you are forced to think of and comprehend what action you committed in order to put yourself there. This side is also defended by the belief that the death penalty is medieval and archaic.

The first establishment of the death penalty dates to the 18th century B.C.E.

Connecting to recent events, the Troy Davis case has been one that has caused quite a stir nationally. Davis was convicted in 1989 for killing a police officer, went through his trial and then was sentenced to death.

Over the past few years, after his death sentence had already been established and not changed through the appeal process, several people who had testified against Davis came forward completely changing their stories.

They claimed they were coerced into testifying and that they were scared into telling the courts what they had. This caused the judge and jury to dismiss all information given to them from said people, but Davis was to be killed anyway.

On Sept. 21 of this year, he was executed. Since then over one million protesters have made their presence known all over the country, claiming, “No justice, no peace!” on Wall Street late last week.

There are also a significant number of people who refuse to take a single side, stating that it “depends on the circumstances and the situation.”

I am not one of those people because I believe that the death penalty should not be a fluctuating consequence. There are crimes that may carry a different sentence for a different trial, but the death penalty should stand as a strong warning to the sick-minded individuals who may try to commit such atrocious crimes.

If it is eliminated, people will eventually stop fearing prison. This is because prison has become a breeding ground for criminals from all and any walks of life.

If someone is placed into prison for major drug trafficking, they may become cell mates with someone who killed a young child. Prison is a place where drugs, gangs and violent crimes thrive because it is the court system placing all the people that are too dangerous for society in the same place.

When prison and jails were first established, they carried a remarkable concept that rehabilitation would occur. Inmates would be taught a craft, be it plumbing or electrical work or something of that nature; they were taught some sort of skill that could help progress and maintain their lives once they were released.

This concept, however, was short-lived. Over time it was found that many prisoners, once released, relapsed into old bad habits and the rehabilitation process was not only failing but eventually was done away with altogether.

This has led prisoners to make use of their incarcerations as they see fit. Instead of learning how to fix leaky pipes, prisoners can learn how to make crystal meth at home and make a small fortune.

The death penalty argument is truly one of great debate that is sure to stir up a conversation amongst anyone that brings it up. Just the other day I saw a bumper sticker that said, “We kill people to show people that killing people is wrong.” Next time you are with your fellow classmates, bring it up and just watch as the differing view points become crystal clear.