The death penalty is an easy escape for convicts
Elise Hunter
Issue date: 11/20/09 Section: Ed-Op
Muhammad was placed in a correctional facility until his death sentence. His trial moved quickly, seven years after his offense, but many facing a similar sentence sit on death row for such an extended time that expiration from natural causes often comes first. For one who lacks a conscience, three meals a day, a roof over your head and some basic human rights, all courtesy of the state for the rest of their life, does not exactly scream misery. In fact, at the Greensville Correctional Center where Muhammad spent his time, the inmates are offered therapeutic community service programs, educational and vocational programs, medical services, psychological services, access to religious services and access to recreational programs. The Virginia Correctional Center even offers offenders institutional jobs with pay.
Some argue the cost of supporting an inmate far exceeds the cost of lethal injection. In the case of lethal injection, the cost includes not only the chemicals administered at death, but also the process leading up to the event, which can be incredibly expensive. During the costly Brian Nicholas case in Georgia where the state paid $2.3 million, a different accused killer awaited trial in a cell for four years because the almost bankrupt judicial system in Georgia was seeking the death penalty but could not afford the prisoner's defense. With an already exhausted monetary fund, the state had no means to pay defense lawyers, investigators, and expert witnesses, which can often also be pricey. Numerous similar trials also see lengthy delays. The system clearly has flaws. Let the man live, the state pays; let the man die, the state still pays.
Call me cynical, but with the severity of such heinous crimes, I almost wish to see a misfeasor suffer a long, slow, lonely death as opposed to either life in American "vacation" prison or a quick, painless death. In Japan, death row inmates live decades, isolated completely. Inmates can visit the restroom but otherwise must stay in a cell without light or fresh air. Rights in the Home of the Brave-that is all it really boils down to. The same reason it is unethical to hang the man is the same reason it is unethical to force him to waste away alone in a dark basement cell with minimal food for the rest of his breathing days, like a scene out of "The Count of Monte Cristo."
Rights, assuredly, are not going anywhere, so the argument of pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty can battle for eternity. People get so caught up in certain beliefs that the goal is lost in translation. The people must, instead, argue for an efficient judiciary system that no longer wastes excessive time or tax dollars, while still doing its intended job.
Elise Hunter is a freshman majoring in environmental engineering. She can be reached at op-ed@thetriangle.org.
Some argue the cost of supporting an inmate far exceeds the cost of lethal injection. In the case of lethal injection, the cost includes not only the chemicals administered at death, but also the process leading up to the event, which can be incredibly expensive. During the costly Brian Nicholas case in Georgia where the state paid $2.3 million, a different accused killer awaited trial in a cell for four years because the almost bankrupt judicial system in Georgia was seeking the death penalty but could not afford the prisoner's defense. With an already exhausted monetary fund, the state had no means to pay defense lawyers, investigators, and expert witnesses, which can often also be pricey. Numerous similar trials also see lengthy delays. The system clearly has flaws. Let the man live, the state pays; let the man die, the state still pays.
Call me cynical, but with the severity of such heinous crimes, I almost wish to see a misfeasor suffer a long, slow, lonely death as opposed to either life in American "vacation" prison or a quick, painless death. In Japan, death row inmates live decades, isolated completely. Inmates can visit the restroom but otherwise must stay in a cell without light or fresh air. Rights in the Home of the Brave-that is all it really boils down to. The same reason it is unethical to hang the man is the same reason it is unethical to force him to waste away alone in a dark basement cell with minimal food for the rest of his breathing days, like a scene out of "The Count of Monte Cristo."
Rights, assuredly, are not going anywhere, so the argument of pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty can battle for eternity. People get so caught up in certain beliefs that the goal is lost in translation. The people must, instead, argue for an efficient judiciary system that no longer wastes excessive time or tax dollars, while still doing its intended job.
Elise Hunter is a freshman majoring in environmental engineering. She can be reached at op-ed@thetriangle.org.
Be the first to comment on this story