Be practical about the death penalty

Policy decisions made hastily in the wake of the tragic or dramatic are often ill-conceived. Promoting the institution of capital punishment in response to the recent crime spree of Christopher E. Rogers Jr. is one such decision. Anger, shock and outrage at his behavior is understandable. Basing far-reaching policy decisions while under the influence of such emotion is unwise.

Capital punishment is a divisive issue in our society. While it is true the idea of capital punishment has enjoyed the support of a majority of Americans, that support has waned as stories of wrongly convicted people have flourished. In practice, fewer death sentences have been handed down by juries more reluctant to impose the ultimate punishment. People who oppose the death penalty on principal are not eligible to serve on juries that decide death penalty cases. This means that those juries are made up entirely of those who support the death penalty.

Yet, those juries have become ever more reluctant to impose death as a sanction. In response, more states are removing death as a sentencing option than those imposing it. Some states have declared a moratorium on death sentences while issues such as procedures used in lethal injection or wrongful convictions (are debated). In New York, the Legislature refused to reinstate the death penalty after the state’s highest court ruled it unconstitutional under the New York Constitution. New Jersey has just passed legislation abolishing the death penalty, the first state to do so since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. And the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether lethal injection as it is practiced constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

There are many arguments to be made against the death penalty. Some are based on humanitarian concerns such as the method and manner of the execution. Others are more pragmatic. It costs considerably more to execute a convicted killer than it does to house him for life in prison. Alaska already faces economic pressure to provide needed services to its residents. Wasting valuable funds to soothe a lust for vengeance does not seem an appropriate use of government resources. If Alaska wishes to buck the trend away from the death penalty, it should do so with cool, calm logic and not judgment clouded by rage.

Paul Maslakowski

Palmer