sentenced and executed inmates who had unfair trials, resulting from defense lawyers who fell asleep during the trial or were open bigots. Defendants with mental incompetence have still been tried and executed, due to the zealous nature and incompetence of prosecutors and court appointed lawyers. All of these examples serve to undermine the judicial process. When faced with these statistics, how can anyone say that it is acceptable to let the innocent die, because in the end justice is being served? Dr. van den Haag’s own argument, that it is immoral to let the innocent die, only serves to strengthen the case for the abolition of the death penalty.Retentionists like van den Haag would have us believe that keeping this law on the books acts as a deterrent to crime, when statistically speaking it has been proven that there is no direct relationship between homicide rates and the death penalty. For example, the south, which has the highest homicide rate in the nation, accounts for over 80% of all executions. Whereas the northeast has the lowest murder rate in the nation, and yet it accounts for less than 1% of the nation’s executions. Van den Haag insists that statistical evidence is not needed, because no matter what the statistics say, harsher penalties, namely the death penalty, are more effective than milder ones. In fact it is as Professor Conrad says: “Under the circumstances, how can the criminal justice system deter any man or woman desperate enough to gamble on engaging in a criminal career” (200). It is evident that van den Haag’s argument is flawed and lacking in common sense. Even more ridiculous is his comparison of penalizing our family and friends to the lawful killing of an inmate. Perhaps van den Haag discredits statistics because he knows that they explicitly prove the ineffectiveness of the death penalty. Another argument clung to by the retentionists is that the death penalty is...
