Death penalty is not worth feeding our appetite for revenge




03/19/2009

THE DEATH penalty remains one of those select issues in our public 
conversation, along with guns and abortion, driven as much, if not 
more, by emotion than actual data.

Despite being a policy fraught with error, wasteful spending and 
unreliable convictions that prompted former Illinois Gov. George Ryan 
to declare a moratorium, the death penalty continues to enjoy high 
public approval.

There have been a number of recent articles that examine the cost 
effectiveness of the death penalty. Tough economic times may be the 
only way to rid the culture of a policy that has America in lock-step 
with the famed "axis of evil."

Given the economics, with more states examining the viability of 
lifetime imprisonment in lieu of the death penalty, the Alameda 
County Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty hosted a forum 
in Berkeley this week on the death penalty, featuring three family 
members of murder victims, a former prosecutor and a person 
wrongfully convicted in Alameda County.

Alameda County is one of the most aggressive death-penalty counties 
in the state. Each death penalty trial costs county taxpayers more 
than $1.1 million more than a traditional murder trial — resources 
that could go to other county needs.

The participants, who come to this issue from very different 
perspectives agree on one thing — the death penalty does not work! 
Each panelist offered an insight on the flaws with the death penalty 
based on personal experiences.

It may feed the public's momentary thirst for revenge, but the death 
penalty is not a deterrent. It does not save lives and it adds 
unnecessary cost to state and local coffers.
Panelist Aaron Owens spent 10 years on death row wrongfully convicted 
of murder. Ironically, Owens was freed after the district attorney 
who prosecuted him finally concluded that he was innocent.
The Owens example makes the case against those arguments to do away 
with the death penalty appeal process as it currently stands. 
Proponents of capital punishment contend the process is too lengthy, 
cumbersome and expensive.
Recently, there have numerous columns and talk show topics focused on 
the appeal process for Richard Allen Davis, the convicted murderer of 
Polly Klaas, which finally began after he spent 13 years in prison.
While I understand the reaction to Davis, given the heinous nature of 
the crime, the death penalty is a policy implemented in the macro 
that justifies its existence in the micro. The emotion that is 
attached to Davis blinds us to the imperfection of the policy, as 
Owens bears witness.
The sluggish appeal process that many death penalty advocates abhor 
must be the price if California is to resist being totally consumed 
by publicly-funded barbarism. There can be no short cuts if the state 
wishes to continue to be in the revenge business.
But appeals are costly and every issue in these economic times must 
fall under the microscope of scrutiny for its cost effectiveness.
Invariably, whenever I write in opposition to the death penalty, I 
receive e-mails that chronicle isolated cases that individuals 
believe warrant capital punishment.
Again, the thirst for revenge blinds us to certain realities. Those 
who are poor, who cannot afford adequate legal representation, people 
of color as well as those who suffer from mental illness or mental 
retardation comprise the majority of those who receive the death 
penalty.
Those who advocate for the death penalty seldom argue for the massive 
increase in resources required for the death penalty being considered 
equitable. Why not life in prison without parole? It's cheaper and 
Davis would never be freed.
The event held in Berkeley put a face on the death penalty. Victims 
who did not receive closure once it was implemented, prosecutors 
through their experience informs them of the futility of the policy 
and a potential death penalty victim who without a long appeal 
process would not be alive to tell his story.
But I suspect as long as it remains politically advantageous for 
candidates seeking elected office to support the death penalty and as 
long as it is administered the "nobodies" of our society we can 
afford to waste a few dollars, even in a tough economic climate, to 
feed our appetite for revenge.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and columnist for Bay Area News 
Group-East Bay. E-mail him at byron@byronspeaks.com or leave a 
message at 510-208-6417.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_11942051