
For many years, there has been a strong debate over the death penalty in our country and in recent years a winner has emerged. The death penalty has taken a steep decline with the number of total executions per year dropping rapidly. There are many causes for this decline, whether it be botched executions, like the case of Clayton Lockett or inmates who were falsely convicted, such as Madison Hobley, or even just the cost of keeping inmates on death row. Juries and judges are giving out fewer death penalties every year. The heated debate has taken place for many years in our country and is never ending.  “In 2016, the United States handed out the fewest amount of death sentences since capital punishment was reinstated in 1972,” (Sanburn). This statistic is one of many that supports the argument that the death penalty is declining and becoming closer to obsolete.  Many Americans believe the death penalty is a good thing for America, it keeps the crime rate down, costs less than keeping inmates in jail, and that the death penalty is in the constitution. However, in recent years studies and research have come out proving that these statements made by pro death penalty people wrong. This is the first time in decades that less than half of Americans support capital punishment. With the death penalty declining steeply in recent years, it allows American citizens to begin to understand the negative effects that have split the country since the start of capital punishment and how this is a positive thing for America.

Over the course of the year in 2016, there was a total of thirty death sentences handed out in America. This number is a drop of 39% from the year before. Both years were record breaking low for the number of death penalties. In 1996 the number was 315 and that was considered the norm for many years before and after that. As one can see this number is decreasing drastically. One reason that this is happening is due to the fact that states are using different drugs that have not been tested yet. Sometimes, “states have had problems obtaining the drugs to carry out lethal injections,” (Sanburn).  Since the states are having trouble getting a hold of the drugs this means they have to find other ways to carry out the death which leads to experimental drugs. The shortage of legal drugs has led to “several botched executions in Ohio, Oklahoma, and Arizona,”. (Sanburn). These botched executions come from the fact that these states are using experimental drugs, drugs that have not been tested before or used, and they aren’t working causing problems in the execution. There have been many reported cases where the execution used “drug cocktails” or experimental drugs and the executions are getting messed up. The American public is becoming more aware of the messed-up executions and is sending less people to death. 

An example of a botched execution is a man of the name Clayton Lockett. Lockett was convicted of murder, rape, and kidnapping, he was later sentenced to death. During his execution, the doctors had trouble getting the IV into any vein finally finding one in the groin.  After the first drug was inserted, the needle dislodged from the vein. The doctors continued to administer the drugs, some of which were paralytics and heart stoppers, even though the needle was dislodged from the vein. “Lockett died of a heart attack, the execution was botched,” (Lyon). When pronounced unconscious from the drugs, Lockett was still alive. The execution team was unprepared, “they didn’t have the right needles they needed, they had trouble finding cooperating needles, and the drugs did not start taking effect when they wanted them too,” (De Vogue). Lockett, 3 minutes after being declared unconscious rose from the table “writhing” “groaning” and “convulsing” in pain. Eventually Lockett died of a heart attack and the IV falling out affected the drugs being administered.  He was pronounced dead to early and the execution was stopped. The execution was botched and a man suffered torture that was meant to kill him only to wake up three minutes after. The case of Clayton Lockett is an example of a botched execution that is helping Americans see why the decline in the death penalty is good. 

In the United States, more than 4.1% of people sentenced to death are innocent. That number may be low but looking at in the big picture it should be zero. A new study done by the National Academy of Sciences shows that, “since 1973, 144  people on death row have been exonerated,” (Levy). That means that 144 innocent people could have been murdered for a crime they did not commit. The 4.1% is low but that is still 4.1% of innocent people. No innocent person should be sentenced to death. The decline in the death penalty is helping the wrongfully accused not be killed. By slowing down convictions and changing sentences it gives a person a higher chance of being acquitted. Once someone is dead there is no bring them back and telling them they’re not guilty. Research has shown that many times going into a trial where the death penalty is being sought a juror’s mind is already made up. If a person is innocent, then a juror is going to send an innocent person to their death.  Dead is dead and by decreasing the amount of death penalty convictions we decrease the likelihood of murdering an innocent person. 

Another problem relating to innocent people being convicted is innocent people being forced into confessions. Twenty-six-year-old Madison Hobley was sentenced to death in 1994 for “setting his apartment on fire and killing his wife and child”. Hobley was arrested and forced into a confession. The arresting officers beat and tortured Hobley into a false confession. At one point “Detective Daniel McWeeny suffocated him with a plastic typewriter cover until he blacked out,” (Warden). Hobley lived a nightmare, his case has examples of many things that are wrong with the death penalty. The officers planted evidence, a gas can, to help the jury convict Hobley. Eventually, after nine years, Hobley was granted a pardon in January 2003. After many appeals, it was found that there was not sufficient evidence and Madison Hobley was found innocent. After nine years of being on death row, after suffering endless torture, and endless hate from his peers Hobley was released. Madison Hobley’s case is a perfect example of why the number of death penalties handed out needs to be decreased. If we decrease the number of penalties than the number of innocent people being convicted will go down. 

In addition, another major problem with a high number of death penalties is the corruption in our judicial system. In states, such as Illinois, Texas, and Wisconsin the death penalty is not always given out fairly. There have been cases of defendants who were given lawyers that had been on suspension. In Illinois, “At least thirty-three times a defendant was sentenced to death but was represented by an attorney who had been disbarred or suspended,” (Armstrong). This means that in over thirty cases the defendant was represented by someone who was in trouble for not following the rules, was dishonest, unethical, or had their license taken away. By not giving as many death penalties then there will be a chance for defendants to be given lawyers that have the proper credentials to help them. Another example of the corruption in our judicial system is the issue of race. Many studies have been done and have found that minorities are most likely to be given the death penalty than a white person. Even more research has found that, “Killers of whites are more likely to be sentenced to death than are killers of blacks,” (Nice).  In many death penalty cases race is an issue. There a lot of cases where a jury will not have a single minority but the person being accused is a minority. Or there are times when the jury does not represent the population correctly and is overwhelmingly if not all white. It has also been found that more black people are handed the death penalty than white people. These facts prove that race effects the result of a death penalty sentence and that is corruption within the system. Americans are promised the right to a fair trial yet these trials do not seem fair. If the death penalty rate declines, then less corruption will occur in the judicial system and people sentenced to death will be given the fair trial they are promised. 

Another major problem with having many death penalties is the cost. It costs more to keep an inmate on death row than it would to give them a life sentence. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) a case without the death penalty costs $740,000. A case where the death penalty is involved costs about $1.26 million. That means a death penalty case costs $520,000 more. If the number of death penalty cases keeps declining, then Americans will continue to save money. Also, each year an inmate on death row is kept alive it costs Americans $90,000 per year in taxes. In the most expensive state, New York, it costs tax payers an average of $60,000 per year to keep an inmate in prison. That is $30,000 less than keeping an inmate on death row. American citizens complain taxes are high enough as it is but they could save at least $30,000 a year if the number of inmates on death row decreases. Some of the reasons it is so expensive to keep an inmate on death row are due to the expenses. A study done by the Kansas Judicial Council found that “defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered,” (Erb). The expenses for keeping the inmates on death row such as court, prison, and execution all cost over $1 million also. All of these expense could be avoided if inmates were given life sentences instead of death sentences. Another expense that adds to the total cost is the life span an inmate spends on death row. In 2010 the DPIC found that the average inmate spent an average of 190 months on death row which is 15 years. That is 15 years’ tax payers are spending extra money on a death sentences versus a life in prison. An exorbitant amount of tax payer’s money will be saved if the number of death penalty trials and convictions decrease by just sending a person to jail for life instead.  

Looking at the death penalty from the other side, people who are pro death penalty like to make the argument that the death penalty is cheaper, it’s in the constitution, and it deters crime. People who support the death penalty may believe these statements however, they are not true. Many people like to argue that the death penalty is in the constitution so therefore it should be legal. While the death penalty is not directly addressed in the constitution people like to argue that the eighth amendment does address it, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” (US Const. amend VIII, sec. 3).  Many people argue that the death penalty is not a cruel or unusual punishment and therefore the constitution allows for it.  In order for a punishment to not be cruel or unfair the U.S. Supreme court determines if the sentence matches the crime. The supreme court looks at three things to make this decision, “A consideration of the offense and penalty, how the jury punishes other criminals, and how other juries would punish the same crime,” (Cornell).  By using this logic then the death penalty should only be used for capital crimes and not for every murderer and rapist. This being said the Constitution does not directly support the death penalty, it only supports fair punishment and in death is not a fair punishment in every case. Another argument that is made is that the death penalty deters crime. There is no actual hard evidence supporting this theory. The argument is, “Executions save lives and act as a deterrent to crime,” (Anderson). According to the DPIC this is false. There are no studies or research that can clearly prove this fact. In fact, “87% of expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates,” (Radelet). It was also found that 75% of Americans believe that debates involving the death penalty distract Congress from finding real solutions to the crimes and crime rate. These statistics show that the experts do not believe the death penalty is a deterrent to crime, so instead of handing out many death penalties, the number should decrease to only those cases severe enough to deserve it. One last argument death penalty supporters make is that it is cheaper to execute and inmate than keeping them in jail. As proved above this argument is completely inaccurate. Every study shows that the expenses of keeping an inmate on death row cost more than keeping them in prison for life. Furthermore, the inmates spend more time on death row trying to get repeals and going back to court which is a longer time that the extra expenses are needed. As proven, the arguments supporting the death penalty are either invalid or only partially true.

In conclusion, it is important for American citizens to understand that the decline in the death penalty is good for the country and the individual. There will be a major increase in savings in tax money due to less money being spent on the death penalty. There will also be less corruption in the judicial system which will help innocent people not be sentenced to death. With less death penalties also decreases the amount of botched executions. Overall it is important to understand that this recent decline in death penalties is helping America and should continue, save the death penalty for the most extreme cases.
