Apodaca: Death penalty should die

In the commentary written by Rudy Apodaca, the issue of the death penalty was addressed.  In this issue, he argues that the death penalty system is a flawed and random system.  The author, “a practicing criminal attorney for 22 years and a former judge on the New Mexico Court of Appeals for almost 14 years” believes that under our current system, many innocent individuals have been convicted through trials and were either put to death or on death row for years.  The author also presented the fact that in many cases, doubts have arisen long after the innocent were convicted.  He states that “since 1973, at least 138 people from 26 states have been released from death row based on evidence of their wrongful convictions.  DNA testing can’t solve these problems alone, for DNA evidence exists in only 10 percent of criminal cases.”  The author argues that because the system is flawed with its inability to absolutely guarantee that the innocent are protected, the death penalty should not be banned.  He states that “for those who fear that doing so would permit criminals to be set free to commit another capital offense, it is important to note that alternative sentencing options already exist, including life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.”  Of course, his argument does not take into account the capital it would take to jail convicted prisoners for life.  On average, it has been said that the cost to imprison a person each year in Texas is around $50,000, but each death penalty case costs about $2.5 million.  This makes even 40 years in prison cheaper than the cost it would be for a death penalty case.  Therefore, even in the argument that it would cost too much not to have the death penalty, the author's argument is valid.  So, do we ban the death penalty to guarantee the safety of the innocent under our flawed system?