Nebraska's legislature recently made headlines when it ended the state's
death penalty. Many found it odd that a conservatives-dominated legislature
would support ending capital punishment, since conservative politicians have
traditionally supported the death penalty. However, an increasing number of
conservatives are realizing that the death penalty is inconsistent with both
fiscal and social conservatism. These conservatives are joining with
libertarians and liberals in a growing anti-death penalty coalition.
It is hard to find a more wasteful and inefficient government program than
the death penalty. New Hampshire recently spent over $4 million dollars prosecuting
just two death penalty cases, while Jasper County in Texas raised property
taxes by seven percent in order to pay for one death penalty case! A Duke
University study found that replacing North Carolina's death penalty would
save taxpayers approximately $22 million dollars in just two years.
Death penalty cases are expensive because sentencing someone to death
requires two trials. The first trial determines the accused person's guilt,
while the second trial determines if the convicted individual "deserves"
the death penalty. A death sentence is typically followed by years of
appeals, and sometimes the entire case is retried.
Despite all the time and money spent to ensure that no one is wrongly
executed, the system is hardly foolproof. Since 1973, one out of every ten
individuals sentenced to death has been released from death row because of
evidence discovered after conviction.
The increased use of DNA evidence has made it easier to clear the innocent
and identify the guilty. However, DNA evidence is not a 100 percent guarantee
of an accurate verdict. DNA evidence is often mishandled or even falsified.
Furthermore, DNA evidence is available in only five to 10 percent of criminal
cases.
It is not surprising that the government wastes so much time and money on
such a flawed system. After all, corruption, waste, and incompetence are
common features of government programs ranging from Obamacare to the TSA to
public schools to the post office. Given the long history of government
failures, why should anyone, especially conservatives who claim to be the
biggest skeptics of government, think it is a good idea to entrust government
with the power over life and death?
Death penalty supporters try to claim the moral high ground by claiming
that the death penalty deters crime. But, if the death penalty is an
effective deterrent, why do jurisdictions without the death penalty have a
lower crime rate than jurisdictions with the death penalty? And why did a
2009 survey find that the majority of American police chiefs consider the
death penalty the least effective way to reduce violent crime?
As strong as the practical arguments against the death penalty are, the
moral case is much stronger. Since it is impossible to develop an error-free
death penalty system, those who support the death penalty are embracing the
idea that the government should be able to execute innocent people for the
"greater good." The idea that the government should be able to
force individuals to sacrifice their right to life for imaginary gains in personal
safety is even more dangerous to liberty than the idea that the government
should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their property rights for
imaginary gains in economic security.
Opposition to allowing the government to take life is also part of a
consistent pro-life position. Thus, those of any ideology who oppose abortion
or preemptive war should also oppose the death penalty. Until the death
penalty is abolished, we will have neither a free nor a moral society.