You are here:   America > The Penalty that Degrades America
 

Now that prisoners in Florida can choose between lethal injection and electrocution, the electric chair has not been used since 1999. Anonymous men in black robes and hoods are paid $150 to administer the injection after careful selection and training. 

Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year, which is more than it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. The reason is that  death row inmates in the US usually spend more than a decade awaiting execution: some serve 20 years or more. Oscar Bolin is a case in point. Three previous convictions and two death sentences for the murder of Natalie Holley did not survive appeals. He was recently found guilty in a fourth trial of her second-degree murder and remains on death row for the murders of two other young women. A 2009 poll commissioned by the Death Penalty Information Centre found that police chiefs considered the death penalty the least efficient use of taxpayers' money.

When I raise the question of time spent on death row with one law enforcement officer he was clear on the solution. "We need swift justice. These endless appeals are no good. If your dog pees on the carpet and you punish him two days later, does he know what he is being punished for? No. We have to go back to early times when justice was carried out swiftly." 

While they wait, conditions for death row prisoners in Florida State are grim. They are isolated from other inmates and excluded from any educational and rehabilitation programmes. They are allowed barely any exercise or visits and often spend 23 hours a day alone in their cells. Inmates are given three meals a day at a total cost of $4.50 each.

"My husband has serious health problems because he gets no fresh food or sunlight," says Janice, whom I met outside the prison one day before visiting time. Her husband has been inside for several years awaiting execution for a drugs-related murder. "Whatever they have done, they should not be treated like animals."

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Emmet
August 1st, 2012
3:08 PM
The only facts you can take from this article are that the vast majority of people in the USA support the death penalty, especially those who have been the victim of crime. Justice should be swift however, with all appeals cleared within a year of the conviction.

Anonymous
July 5th, 2012
4:07 PM
Murdering another human being requires the strongest possible punishment. In any just system of law it requires that the murderer's own life be forfeit.

BeadyEye
July 3rd, 2012
9:07 PM
Police chiefs are just another species of politician, and should never be presumed to speak for rank-and-file cops.

BeadyEye
July 3rd, 2012
9:07 PM
It is disingenuous to erect every sort of barrier to implementation, and then complain that implementation is too expensive.

Rose P
July 3rd, 2012
6:07 PM
I agree with Ms. Bindel that the death penalty is wrong for many reasons. I have for a long time thought that we should abolish the death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole but with the possibility of assisted suicide.

BlueStrikes
July 3rd, 2012
4:07 PM
PresidentD, just because the constitution recognises it does not make it right - at the end of the day, the U.S. Constitution is just a piece of paper, as are human rights conventions. And a piece of paper, no matter how fancy, cannot determine the morality of the death penalty. Ms. Bindel is not taking issue with the legal aspect of the death penalty; she objects against the morality of it. Therefore, it is incorrect to rebut her using the constitution. Her reference to human rights conventions is founded on the implicit assumption that those conventions are an accurate depiction of actual morality. Whether this is the case or not may be debated. Indeed, reconsidering this article, Ms. Bindel does not focus on moral arguments against the death penalty but rather focuses on practical considerations: efficiency and effectiveness. These are issues that should be responded to, not dismissed with a handwaved 'specious arguments'.

PresidentD
June 27th, 2012
10:06 PM
Ms. Bindel, we've heard all of your specious arguments against the death penalty countless times before. And no, it does not "contravene every human rights convention", whatever that means. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law America recognizes, and it permits the death penalty. The handwringing clowns at the U.N., Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch can take a hike.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.