An analysis of Dirk Johnson’s article Foes of Death Penalty See New Hope.
This paper reviews Dirk Johnson’s article “Foes of Death Penalty See New Hope” which appeared in the New York Times and came out strongly against the death penalty. Besides the points brought up in Johnson’s article, the paper also provides arguments against the death penalty. It shows, for example, that opponents of the death penalty contend that the costs of implementing death sentences are much more than the costs of life imprisonment. They argue that the extra funds needed to investigate, prosecute, and appeal capital cases should be spent on crime reduction efforts, such as additional police officers and more prison cells.
One of the main reasons that the people in law enforcement do not support the death penalty is because they do not believe it is a deterrent to crime (Leone 24). The change that would have the largest effect on reducing violent crime is strengthening families and neighborhoods, along with swift and sure punishment. Even when it comes to killing police officers the death penalty is not a deterrent. Texas, by far the leading death penalty state, for the past six years has been the leading state in the number of police officers killed (Leone 24). By comparison, in 1994, New York, with no death penalty, had about one-third as many police officers killed as Texas. Over two-thirds of the police chiefs do not believe that the death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides (Leone 24). Well over 80% of the respondents believe that murderers do not think of the consequences before committing homicide. The death penalty fails as a law enforcement tool because the most violent portion of the population is least likely to be deterred by prospective punishment (Leone 24). Many of the people who might face the death penalty live in a culture of violence. They are most likely to be killed by a rival gang member than by the state.