CHAPTER 2
Argument 15 (17)
Alternative sanctions to the Death Penalty afflicts more "innocent" ones
The fact that innocent are afflicted is part of a necessary evil in every state governed by law. No judicial system can avoid it. But a judicial system that includes the death penalty will have less "innocent" ones afflicted. Indeed even innocent persons may come to be executed. But everything points to that this happens very rarely in democratic States today. And even if one assumes that this happens it is difficult to find more than a few evidence of this.
It is on the other hand an indisputable fact that the death penalty and the execution means that new crimes by the convict that will afflict innocent persons are impossible. And the pleasant conclusion that follows is that many "innocent" ones will be spared suffering, anxiety and death because of the death penalty. It has namely not yet happened that one who has been executed has come back to life and committed new crimes.
But what do these alternatives to the death penalty mean when it comes to the number of "innocent" ones who are afflicted? The alternatives to the death penalty are two: prison or custody. (For the alternative lifetime without parole and leaves, see Chapter 4, point 7.)
When it comes to the alternative of custody a Swedish survey made by the Karolinska Institutet showed that 70% of the patients within the forensic psychiatry had committed new crimes within five years. 40% of them had relapsed into severe crime.(1)
These are frightening facts. Of course there are insane people who commit very brutal crimes and who also need care. In these cases the death penalty is not an alternative. But we assert that many are sentenced to care too lightly or on unhealthy or arbitrary grounds. And they are often commit new crimes. This would not be the case if the rules and regulations for which people should be sentencing to care would be sharpened and the death penalty introduced. Then considerably fewer crimes would be committed and innocent lives would be saved.
Of those in Sweden who during the period 1973-89 were convicted of murder or manslaughter, 25% relapsed into new crimes within three years after a sentencing, and of those who during the same time period where convicted of assault or severe assault 45% relapsed into new crimes within three years after a sentencing (according to The National Council for Crime Prevention-report, 1994). Of these who were convicted of e.g. murder the most were imprisoned during this three-year period the survey covered. It would of course have been a higher percentage if the survey would have covered 3 years after release. And yet higher if the survey would have covered 6 years after release, or 9 years, or 12 years, or 15 years ...
In three other researches by the National Swedish Prisons and Probation Administration it has been revealed that ca. 38 % of felons relapsed into new crimes after release.(2)
In the USA a large survey showed that of the murderers and killers who were released in 1983 43% were rearrested within three years. Of these 26% were reconvicted. Of abusers 60% were rearrested after their release, and 40% were reconvicted.(3)
It is horrible to take part of facts which show that in the USA 8% (285 criminals) of all inmates under a death sentence Dec 31, 2000 also earlier had at last one previous homicide conviction.(4)
Click here and here to read some frightened examples of murderer who have murder again.
On top of this we need to place what is called hidden statistics. Since far from all crimes are solved, we know that the real relapse into crime among the convicted violent criminals is greater than what the statistics and numbers give account of.
The alternatives to the death penalty therefore means that some violent criminals and murderers will torture, rape, assault and murder again. This will take part within the prison walls, or during an escape, or during a leave or after release. Taken together the conclusion is that many "innocent" people will be afflicted.
When it comes to the argument of "deterring" we can never know for sure how many are deterred and thereby we can never know how many "innocent" are saved. But this argument is on the other hand verifiable. We know that there are relapses. We know that "innocent" persons then are afflicted. There are statistics that show us the top of the iceberg of what happens when violent criminals and murderers is permitted to live among us others.
But in a country where the death penalty is used all the violent criminals and murderers who are executed are unable to commit further crimes. Many "innocent" will then be spared suffering and death. Even in this sense the death penalty is somewhat safer and more humane for the society than other alternatives. The brutality is somewhat less.
One who does not like that "innocent" ones are afflicted by violent deeds should be strong opponent against especially the alternative of prison, which in the long run is a much more brutal alternative compared to the death penalty.
Enemies of the death penalty meet a difficult problem here. They themselves often and readily speak of how "innocent" persons are afflicted when the death penalty is used. It cannot be denied that there is some truth in this. But if the "innocent afflicted" argument instead is turned against themselves, based on the different judicial systems that they themselves are a part of, the argument strikes back at them with great force. One does not have to be too bright to understand that in general a lot more "innocent" ones will be afflicted in countries with a judicial system that excluded the death penalty. The abolitionists "strongest" argument is in other words becoming like a deadly poisonous arrow when it is directed and shoot against themselves and their alternatives to the death penalty.
The reality and the truth is that however we choose to punish the most violent criminals, "innocent" persons will unavoidably be afflicted in some way.
But from a utility point of view and pragmatically, a judicial system that uses the capital punishment would mean that a lesser number of "innocent" persons would be afflicted. (This is of course dependent on how consequently the death penalty is applied.) And it would be good for society. A modern, civilized society must strive to avoid unnecessary suffering and instead strive to give safety for as many as possible in a society.
(Also see the answers in Chapter 3, part 1, point 1.)
Footnote 1. DN 99-09-29. Another survey (SVD 99-0103) showed that out of 222 criminals who were sentenced to custody and who were released in 1996 42% committed new crimes, a total of 337 crimes. And sometimes even very heinous violent crimes. Back.
Footnote 2. The National Swedish Prisons and Probation Administration - report Återfall och långtidsdömda, 1999. And the report Åter avsändaren, 1999, and the report Uppföljningsperiod 1994-1999. Back.
Footnote 3. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report 1989, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983. On page 6 they write: "Released prisoners were often rearrested for the same type of crime for which they had served time in prison …Thus, released murderers were more likely than other prisoners to be rearrested for a new homicide." Back.
Footnote 4. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment 2000. Back.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17
© David Anderson 1998, 2002
http://w1.155.telia.com/~u15509119