Frank Baumgartner writes the OpEd, "Death penalty's vanishing point?" for the News & Observer of North Carolina. He's a political science prof at UNC-Chapel Hill.
In this time of fiscal stress, a new study by Duke economist Philip Cook suggests that the state could save $11 million per year if it stopped pursuing capital punishment. Is that a cost savings worth seeking, or would it be too radical a shift from current practices?
Recent trends suggest that in fact, juries and prosecutors across the state have already dramatically reduced their attachment to the death penalty. Going the final step might produce large savings with little actual change from current practice.
Consistently over the past decade, North Carolinians have suffered 500 to 600 homicides per year; the rate in 2008 (6.7 per 1,000 population) was a slight decline from 2007 and a larger decline from 1999 (7.2 per 1,000). In general these numbers have fluctuated but show no great trend. Thankfully, the numbers are slightly declining rather than increasing; we can all be pleased of that!
Whereas murders have been relatively flat, the number of capital punishment trials has declined sharply: From 1996 to 2000, there were 55 to 65 each year before starting a steep decline. From 51 trials in 2001, the numbers went down in a steady beat: 35 in 2002, 22 in 2003, and so on until there were just 12 capital trials in 2008 and nine in 2009.
So, prosecutors who once sought capital punishment in 10 percent to 12 percent of all murders statewide have moved to seeking it in less than 2 percent of the cases.
And:
Considering that prosecutors have been requesting death less and less, and that juries have been even more sparing in their willingness to impose it, Cook's estimate takes on additional meaning. If we can save that much money by making such a small change from current practices, why not?
Baumgartner was the lead author of "The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence," when he was at Penn State. More on the book, here. You can order the book from Amazon.
The Roman Catholic Bishop of Wichita Kansas, Michael Jackels writes, "State can protect safety without death penalty," for the Wichita Eagle. It also appeared in the Sunday edition.
The Catholic Church teaches that public authorities have the right and the duty to punish criminals in a way that matches the seriousness of their crime. They are morally justified in the most serious cases to impose even the death penalty. This is a self-defense based on the commandment to love oneself (Mark 12:31). The guilt of an unjust aggressor and the need to protect society make capital punishment morally different from the killing of an innocent child in elective abortion, which is never justified.
It is worth recalling, however, that Pope John Paul II often made public appeals for public authorities to show clemency and to refrain from using the death penalty. In this same vein, Pope Benedict XVI recently commended the Philippine government for outlawing the use of the death penalty.
These interventions were made because the Catholic Church also teaches that the death penalty should not be imposed if there are other ways to guarantee public order and the safety of citizens.
And:
Support for the abolishment of the death penalty in no way diminishes the condemnation of the evil deeds that brutally victimize innocent people, or the profound sympathy toward people who have been made a victim or who grieve the murder of a family member or friend. This righteous anger and compassion notwithstanding, recourse can and should be made to bloodless means to protect public order and the safety of people, instead of making use of the death penalty.
Earlier coverage from Kansas begins with this post.
Comments