Stasis -- Death Penalty

The death penalty should be abolished in Washington State. Even supporters would have to agree that it is unjustly applied; for example, of the five worst serial killers in the state's history, none have received the death penalty. Supporters then point out the fact that most of these killers ended up making plea deals with prosecutors in order to avoid the death penalty. While this is true, the question remains: How can Washington, a state with a death penalty statute in effect, not impose it on its most horrific murderers? If Washington is not going to sentence the worst of the worst to death, then I would argue that nobody deserves to die.

Supporters also point to the fact that the death penalty provides justice for the victim and his or her family members. However, I would argue that justice is something that varies from one person to the next. Some people may feel a sense of justice when their loved one's murderer is put to death; others, though, may never feel like justice was served. Furthermore, if the death penalty provides justice, why are there so many groups (including Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation) that advocate against the death penalty, and virtually none that support it?

In addition to these points, the argument against the death penalty is supported by a significant amount of data (which I do not know off the top of my head). Research has proven that the death penalty is imposed more often on minorities and the economically disadvantaged than it is on wealthy white people. Also, the death penalty deters crime in only six states (Washington is not one of them). It costs the tax payers significantly more money to try death penalty cases than non-death penalty cases; the cost of actually imposing the death penalty is also high. With these facts, how can one justify keeping the death penalty on Washington's books?