The Public Supports the Application of the Death Penalty

 Gallup conducted a poll on May 5-7, 2003, which found that 74% of Americans favor and 24% oppose the "death penalty for person convicted of murder." The majority support remains even if there is an option of a "'life without parole" sentence. When asked to indicate the appropriate punishment for murder - the death penalty or "life imprisonment, with absolutely no possibility of parole" - 53% still opts for the former, the death penalty. These poll results are not new; the numbers have not changed significantly in the past 6 years. An August 1997 poll found 61% of Americans favoring the death penalty and only 29% favoring life imprisonment.

In addition, over the past several years,, the polls show more people believe that the death penalty is applied fairly in the United States even though there have been numerous reports of wrongful convictions. Sixty percent say the death penalty is applied fairly while in a 2000 poll, only 51% agreed that it was applied fairly. Americans apparently are aware of the risks of the wrongful application of the death penalty and yet still choose to support its application. Americans' support for the death penalty exists despite the belief of 73% of Americans that "an innocent person has been executed under the death penalty in the last five years." More than half of these respondents think that an innocent person has been executed no more than 5% of the time.

The Death Penalty Provides Safety and Security, and Protects the Rights of the Victims' Loved Ones
Another often cited argument is premised on the fear that a murderer, if ever released, may murder again.

"Those who would prevent the States from enforcing the death penalty must also account for why society should forego the incapacitation effect of the death penalty. An executed murderer will never kill a prison guard, will never escape, and will never be paroled into society, no matter who is elected governor. In 1984, this nation's prisons held 810 inmates serving sentences for murder who, once before in their lives, had been convicted on murder."

Had these killers been executed for their first murder convictions, 821 innocent men, women and children would have lived.

According to the latest 2002 Department of Justice Bulletin on Capital Punishment, for those death row inmates with available criminal history information, 64% had prior felony convictions, including 8% with prior homicide convictions. Forty percent of those inmates under a death sentence on December 31, 2002, had active criminal justice status at the time of the capital offense. Less than half were on parole; a quarter were on probation; and the remainder had charges pending, were incarcerated, had escaped or had some other criminal justice status.

Advocates for the death penalty also direct attention to the rights of the victims, by arguing that imposing the death penalty on the perpetrator provides a permanent, final resolution of the crime and provides the victims' loved ones with the most visible closure of the crime. "In our understandable desire to be fair and to protect the rights of offenders in our criminal justice system, let us never ignore or minimize the rights of their victims. The death penalty is a necessary tool that reaffirms the sanctity of human life while assuring that convicted killers will never again prey upon others." (However, there is a national organization, Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation (MVFR), whose members believe that execution of the murderer is not the answer, and that an execution does not bring closure for the victim's family. George White, MVFR member, says, "What began with a horrible act of violence should not be memorialized by an act of vengeance. Not in our name; our hearts have bled enough." About 35 members of the organization toured Ohio in the fall of 2003, spreading the message.)

Federal and State Statutory Safeguards Are Sufficient to Insure Justice
Finally, the system of appeals, including multiple levels of review at the State and Federal levels, ending at the United States Supreme Court, is cited as sufficient to safeguard any concerns over the imposition of the death penalty. Proponents argue that additional safeguards are being added to address new concerns. In addition, Ohio has there is already a provision for (DNA) testing in Ohio through the State Attorney General's (AG) office. The Capital Justice Initiative is a voluntary program for death row inmates that which allows the petitioner to apply make an application to the Ohio AG's office for DNA testing if: the DNA was not subjected to previous testing and the expected results must be exonerative in nature and outcome determinative.

Additional protections are being considered at the federal level. Currently winding its way through the federal legislative process is the Innocence Protection Act of 2001 (S.486, H.R. 912), a bill that represents a bi-partisan effort to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions and wrongful executions. The stated purpose of the bill is to "reduce the risk that innocent persons may be executed." The bill is part of a comprehensive package of programs known as the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003 (H.R. 3214, S. 1700) which provides more than $1 billion over the next five years to assist federal and state authorities in solving crimes and protecting the innocent. The full House of Representatives passed the bill on November 5, 2003. As of April 29, 2004, the bill is pending before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The broad bi-partisan support of this legislation is reflected by the 11 Democrats, 67 Republicans, and one Independent who signed on as co-sponsors. The Senate bill has 30 co-sponsors including 24 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and one Independent. The bill is part of a comprehensive package of programs known as the Advancing Justice Through DNA Technology Act of 2003 which provides more than $1 billion over the next five years to assist federal and state authorities in solving crimes and protecting the innocent. The full House of Representatives passed the bill on November 5, 2003. The broad bi-partisan support of this legislation is reflected by the 11 Democrats, 67 Republicans and 1 Independent who signed on as co-sponsors. The Senate bill has 30 co-sponsors including 24 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 1 Independent.

Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)