Accelerate Executions or Stay the Course
Criminals on death row are there to die, but who decides when? Can a convict volunteer to be sentenced quickly or should they be subjected to due process and further delays? Currently, the debate concerning death rowers’ who want expedite their sentence has been gaining recognition. Years ago this situation was inconceivable, but recently the long arm of the law has become outdated. Many claim that convicts should be denied the right to choose since they are in the custody and mercy of the state. Yet, America’s prisons are overcrowded, and too many death row inmates walk their halls waiting for their sentences to be carried out.
If an inmate is sentenced to death why delay it and squander government money? It seems obvious that if an inmate wants to die that their sentences should be accelerated. This doesn’t show that the inmate is in charge, but rather that the state is not wasting time seeing that justice is done. In Tennessee it costs $82.75 per day to house a death row inmate--a waste of money if the inmate wishes to circumvent appeals and accept their fate. Furthermore, inmates on death row who remain there for years cause unnecessary stress and frustration for the families. The convict’s and victim’s families must wait idly while riding an emotional rollercoaster as execution abortions and delays occur. However, economics and family hardships are not enough to deter some from wanting to withhold the power of choice from a convict.
If keeping the inmate on death row causes a financial deficit, the deficit demonstrates that the state can afford it and is in charge. A chief complaint of speeding up executions on the inmates request is that the state is giving into their will. Thus, the commonwealth is no longer in command and taking orders from a felon in its custody. Essentially, this person lost their right to choose when they killed another. This voice calls for due process and the state to follow through but at its own pace. Proponents of due process assert that the interest of the prisoner is also considered. Because occasionally a case is re-opened and results in an overturned verdict. However, the inmates involved in this discourse agree with their sentence and are not trying to delay the inevitable making due process a hindrance.
Another critique of volunteer executions is that it brings death to areas that were previously against the practice. The primary example of reinstituting capitol punishment revolves around Michael Ross. Ross wants to be the first, and maybe the last, to be executed in Connecticut. He was sentenced to die twenty years ago but is still waiting for the sentence to be carried out. If the state were to grant his request it would re-establish a practice that has been absent for the last forty-five years. Opponents claim that the New England area is not known for the death penalty and bringing it back, because one inmate wants it to be, symbolizes the states lack of authority. However, Connecticut’s lack of authority is ultimately being expressed by its failure to decisively serve a sentence that it handed down.
While it is important for states to remain dominant over their imprisoned, there is no need to prolong life if a death row inmate volunteers to accelerate the process. The convict is essentially accepting his fate and wants to see the state follow through with his sentence. Of course giving into the convicts wishes may represent a lack of definitiveness, but justice still prevails and the sentence is still carried out. With the overcrowding in jails, financial stresses, and acceptance of wrongdoing, convicts that desire a swift execution should be accommodated and righteousness should prevail without obstruction.
