Lethal Injection or Life?

I have to agree that the concept of an “eye for an eye” is outdated, but it is the way many people think here in Texas. I think that the death penalty is an outdated form of enforcement for this principle, but in some situations it is necessary. For example, the recent execution of Humberto Leal Garcia here in Texas was a huge controversy for its international implications. Leal was convicted of the rape and murder of 16 year old girl. Leal was born in Mexico but raised in America since the age of 2. He tried to appeal his conviction by arguing that he was not provided with the proper avenues to contact the Mexican consulate while in prison. This is a right granted to all people convicted of a crime outside of their country under the Vienna Convention, and opponents argued that this execution could have devastating effects on American prisoners and travellers abroad. This appeal was overturned by the Supreme Court before the execution was carried out. While I do believe that executions are an outdated form of enforcement, in cases such as this, I believe they are the only just form of punishment. Leal was a man who was raised in America and was raised knowing the laws of the land so to speak. In America and Mexico murder is an illegal crime, the punishments may be different, but murder is still illegal. Leal was attempting to try and find a loophole in his conviction to escape death by lethal injection, for the brutal crime which he committed. I think it would have been unfair for a convicted rapist and murder to get life in prison without parole for the heinous crimes committed.

While I think that lethal injection is a punishment that should be reserved for the worst criminals, there are other options. As stated in the blog post  “Should the Death Penalty be a Time of the Past?" on From Bills to Bluebonnets, life without parole is another viable option. I think this is a great alternative to lethal injection, in cases where there is some question of whether the accused is the actual criminal. According to the Six Main Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty Website, in Texas “the death penalty costs an average of $2.3 million per execution, three times more expensive than imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.” So life in prison is also a cost effective alternative to lethal injection. The only problem that could arise is Texas prisons becoming overcrowded. California and other states are dealing with the growing problem of overcrowded prisons every day. The problem has gotten so out of control that some prisons are forced to place misdemeanor offenders in communal rooms without the option of individual cells. This has led to an increase in gang violence, as inmates no longer have the option or protection of an isolated cell. All in all, I think that the death penalty has been around for long enough without revision, and it is time that this conviction is revised.

The Quick Fix

One of the most intriguing ideas on how to fix the current Texas budget problem is to legalize marijuana. While this is considered a taboo subject today, there are other legal drugs that were once just as taboo. Alcohol, for example had its fair share of harsh light. Prohibition was a failed effort to try and stop its consumption; eventually government gave in to a changing society and once again legalized the sale of alcohol.  As long as there is demand, supply is bound to show up so why not make it a legal and regulated supply. Legalizing marijuana would be a good alternative to raising taxes or cutting funding to other programs. A $27 billion budget shortfall is hard to make up for, with cuts that are difficult to make and raising taxes politically taboo in Texas, the gap seems impossible to fill. Marijuana would offer a steady source of income, being subject to a sin tax just like alcohol and tobacco; we could raise revenues without raising taxes. If the state controlled every stage of the process from growth to the sale of the drug, it could lead to a much safer state overall. The production and sale of the drug would be heavily regulated, just as tobacco and alcohol are regulated, and would be much safer than it is today.  Texas would essentially have more control over the market, virtually eliminating foreign supply. When Prohibition ended and alcohol was once again legal, violence surrounding the smuggled commodity also disappeared.  The current market for marijuana mimics that of the market and demand for alcohol in the 1920s. In the 20s getting a drink was a dangerous and illegal act. With the market dominated by mob bosses like Al Capone, it was a very unstable and dangerous system.  If marijuana was made legal, these same changes could be expected. No longer would illegal drugs need to be smuggled across the border and controlled by dangerous organizations; we could expect to see gang and drug related violence slow in Texas.

Legalization of marijuana has worked in other areas. Amsterdam is famous for its coffee shops, places where marijuana can be purchased and smoked. However, Dutch laws make it illegal to sell alcohol and marijuana in the same location; I think a good thing to remember when working out problems with implementation.  If marijuana were legally treated just as alcohol is treated, it would make the transition much easier. There are many more difficult decisions that would need to be made to make the sale and regulation of legal marijuana much safer. But overall I think this is an “out of the box” approach to solving the budget crisis and it is one solution that deserves some serious consideration.