The death of Frank Smith at the age of 101, after spending 76 years in prison for the murder of a night watchman during an armed robbery, has reignited the debate over the legitimacy of the death penalty compared with life imprisonment. Smith spent 76 years in prison, perhaps the longest sentence in history. He was initially sentenced to death, but his persistent insistence on his innocence allowed him to escape execution eight times.
In most cases, this was thanks to the intervention of a member of the American Association Against the Death Penalty. The specter of execution by electric chair haunted Smith throughout his imprisonment, even after the state abolished the death penalty in 2012. Calls for its abolition grew, along with questions about the state’s right to end a human life in the name of justice and security. Proponents of the death penalty, especially for premeditated murder or extremely brutal crimes, argue that imprisonment may not achieve complete justice, while execution takes the life of the perpetrator as well as that of the victim.
These individuals argue that even if the death penalty does not deter others, it remains, in their view, a just punishment for a specific crime. They believe that execution will prevent the convicted person from killing others in prison, and that life imprisonment might reduce the risk of murder but does not eliminate it entirely, especially in systems that allow for pardons, reduced sentences, or escapes. They believe that the existence of the death penalty might deter some people from committing serious crimes, knowing the inevitable consequences they face.
They also believe that the state sometimes needs to demonstrate clear resolve so that criminals do not feel that punishments are negotiable. Some believe that the death penalty gives the victim’s family a sense of justice, especially when the perpetrator confesses. Opponents of the death penalty argue that life imprisonment without parole can achieve the same level of isolation without executing the convicted person. Scientifically, there is no evidence that the death penalty deters murder more effectively than long prison sentences. There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty reduces, increases, or has no effect on murder rates.
They also believe that one of the most serious and irreversible consequences of an execution is the emergence of new evidence, confessions, or evidence of misconduct by the police or prosecution. Recent data indicates that at least 4.1 percent of those sentenced to death were likely wrongfully convicted, according to an American study. This is a conservative estimate, especially given that the judicial system is not infallible.
Therefore, it is unwise to grant the judiciary the power to make irreversible decisions. They also argue that the death penalty is not always applied equally. The sentence may be influenced by several factors, including the defendant’s poverty, the quality of their legal representation, their ethnic, religious, or national affiliation, the location of the crime, and the positions of the prosecution and the judge.
Thus, opponents argue that the punishment may not only reflect the severity of the crime but also the defendant’s social standing and financial resources. From a human rights perspective, the right to life should not be forfeited even after a crime is committed, as long as society can be protected through other means. Ironically, in America specifically, death penalty cases are typically more expensive than life imprisonment because courts require special procedures, legal representation, appeals, and reviews to minimize the possibility of error. Therefore, opponents argue that the money spent on executions could be better directed towards crime prevention, improving police services, supporting victims’ families, and addressing addiction and mental health issues.
By Ahmad alsarraf
