een proved. Second of all, as exhibited in the Miller case, the death penalty scares innocent people into confessing to the crimes of others. The fear that is being cast into our society preys upon the innocent, not the guilty. In Radelet's book, many other instances in which the death penalty resulted in false confessions are identified. In Commonwealth v. Ellison, two of the defendants, acting as eyewitnesses to convict another, "felt compelled to plea bargain and testify against the defendant out of fear of the death penalty". Likewise, in Hampton v. Allgood, Mary Kay Hampton "was frightened into pleading guilty to a crime she did not commit because someone told her she would 'fry in the electric chair' unless she did so." And in Carmen v. State, a mentally retarded boy was arrested for kidnapping, rape and murder, and pleads guilty to the murder charge. "Fear of the death penalty, according to later information had played a role in his client's decision." So, does capital punishment act as a deterrent? Upon comparing murder rates during abolitionist and retentionist years, the answer becomes clear. In California, "researchers concluded that, 'the average annual increase in homicides was twice as high during years in which the death penalty was being carried out than in years during which no one was executed" (Kappeler, 277). The answer is blatantly 'no'. There is no way that such a system even comes close to acting as a deterrent. If anything it simply allows the innocent, as well as the guilty to be murdered by those who are supposed to be protecting them. We are placing too much power in the hands of the state.False physical evidence, perjured testimony, and coercive threats of imposing the death penalty are just a few of the causes that lead to the conviction of the innocent. Beyond these factors, police have, in many instances, found individuals to 'fit the crime'. In other words, police rush to close a case ...
