An Evaluation of the Death Penalty

The debate on whether or not the death penalty should be abolished has been ongoing for quite a long period of time. While there are those who believe that the death penalty does not serve its intended purpose, proponents of the same are convinced that the relevance of the same cannot be overstated and hence it should not be abolished. In this text, I examine the arguments for and against the death penalty.

Death penalty is a constant source of controversy and divided opinion depending on who you ask. The punishment of death is given to criminals who commit severe crimes. The severity of crimes that attract the death penalty is debatable due to the severity of the crime. The justice system is based upon punishment for crimes committed by emphasizing the punishment fitting the crime committed. Countries such as China and Singapore, and United States, issue the death penalty to punish murderers or rapist, therefore fueling the already going debate on how to befit the punishment is in such cases. All the death penalty aims to achieve is the punishment to those who break the rules. The death penalty has well documented weaknesses as well as strengths. Not least of is brutality and finality, some of these frailties lead to the calls for its abolishment. The death penalty is inhumane. Wrongly applied as well as completely unjustifiable sometimes killing innocent people irrespective of the crime. Life sentence of imprisonment without parole or pardon achieves all that the death penalty seeks to achieve without costing the society its moral standing and families losing those they love.

In David M. Oshinsky’s book, Capital Punishment on Trial: Furman v. Georgia and the Death Penalty in Modern America, he discussed the case of Furman v. Georgia. He explores the controversy that capital punishment holds in the United States of America. The death penalty has been in practice for many centuries. For example, “In Massachusetts, where religion had played a key role in settlement, crimes like blasphemy, witchcraft, sodomy, adultery, and incest became capital offenses, through juries sometimes hesitated to convict” (Oshinsky, 2010). For the punishment of death these offenses do not fit the crime. However, capital punishment at this time was rarely criticized. The death penalty demanded many executions including public ones. Many of these were hangings and were public events. After the American Revolution the death penalty began to be questioned. For example, Benjamin Rush stated, “Capital punishments are the offspring of monarchial governments. Kings believe that they possess their crowns by a divine right. They assume the divine power of taking away human life” (Oshinsky, 2010). By the 1840’s there were organized groups opposing the death penalty such as the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment. Within the coming years, the support for capital punishment fluctuated. Throughout the book, Oshinsky explores the many cases leading up to the Furman v. Georgia decision.

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

Death Penalty should be allowed under circumstances also known as capital punishment, where congress or any state legislature recommend the death penalty for murder and other capital crimes. Majority of the states are favor in death penalty, roughly around 32 states are favor and 18 states are against death penalty. In most cases, many argue that death penalty has violated the 8th amendment, where it bans cruel and unusual punishment. Therefore, they would go against death penalty. However, without the sentence to death, the chances of prisoner escaping prison are really high. If they are able to escape prison and get away with it, then they can continue committing crimes. Although some may argue that death penalty is harsh because if you kill someone; and then you take another person’s life, then why should yours be freed? I personally do not agree with death penalty because taking away another person’s life is not going to regain the victim’s life back. However, the victim’s family would want the person to be sentence to death, so the victim can rest in peace. I think that death penalty should be only allowed under circumstances, but then how can you really determined if the case should be ruled with death penalty? And how would the justice system know that they have made the correct decision? Did the decision of sentence to death turn out to be wrong, where the person is later found innocent? There are multiple of questions that people will be more concern about. The

The death penalty was also used as a mean to deteriorate the rise of murders. A way to scare people from committing the act. This of course is not the case(Depauw). Marshall and Bedau saw the death penalty and retributivism through a similar microscope. Marshall who was against the thought of the death penalty as retribution stated in his dissenting opinion of the Gregg v. Georgia (1976) case: “ The notion that retribution can serve as a moral justification for the sanction of death... I find to be the most disturbing aspect of today's unfortunate decisions…”(ProCon). According to Marshall retribution was a form of revenge which is low as it can get in his opinion. To allow the death penalty to him was to allow revenge to occur and not the laws of the land to prevail. Thurgood Marshall wanted justice to be served in reactions to crime, not revenge or allowing the emotions which was in high demand to conquer the court system. This is what he suggests about the theory of retribution. This in itself is also a form of utilitarian because in order to please others they will give the murderer the death penalty. Utilitarianism is to maximize utility or to maximize happiness. In order to fulfill this, to maximise happiness, it would be at the expense of the convicted.

The use of capital punishment in the U.S. is a growing concern for most American citizens. According to statistics, seventy percent of Americans are in support of the death penalty, while only thirty percent are against it. These statistics show that few people are against capital punishment (“Fact” 1). With the use of the death penalty growing the controversy is becoming more heated. With only twelve states left not enforcing it the resistance is becoming futile (“Fact” 4). Many debates have been made and even clauses have been invoked, such as, the “Cruel and Unusual Clause” that was invoked by the Supreme Court in 1962 (Meltsner 179). The use of death as a punishment has been viewed as “cruel

In the article "The Case Against the Death Penalty," which shows up in Crime and Criminals: Opposing Viewpoints, Eric Freedman contends that capital punishment does not discourage fierce crime as well as conflicts with decreasing the crime rate. This essay will analyse Freedman 's article from the perspectives of a working man, a needy individual, and a government official.

“The use of the death penalty in the United States has been rapidly declining since the end of the 1990s” (Dieter, 2015). This is contrast to the believes of the Founding Fathers where “the death penalty was widely accepted at the time the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified” (Gardner & Anderson, 2014). While the crimes have not changed, aspects of capital punishment which were once viewed as constitutional, today are deemed cruel and unusual. The prevailing liberal view sees the death penalty as morally unjustified and a vengeful form retribution. “It is the most brutal form of state power, requires massive state administrations and it costs significantly more than life imprisonment which is both more humane and equally effective” (Davidson, 2015). They point to the lack of deterrence it provides and highlight the racial and gender biases of the criminal justice system and the potential for the execution of the innocent by the State. In contrast, those in favor of capital punishment see it as a valid, moral and constitutional punishment as punishments should be imposed in proportion to the crime. The death penalty is reserved for the most violent of crimes in society and without it, justice is not achieved for victims and their families. The death penalty must be viewed again as a valid, moral and legal

The death penalty is a serious punishment in the United States with many citizens being split on the idea of whether the practice is moral or not. American sociologist and social critic Ernest Van Den Haag, defends the death penalty by looking at the topic through consequentialist and retributivist perspectives. In this essay, I am going to argue that Ernest van den Haag is accurate in his belief in the morality of the death penalty.

Many people question the need for the death penalty, the execution of those who have committed certain crimes, as a capital punishment. For instance, the author of “Against the American System of Capital Punishment”, Jack Greenburg, who is a Professor of Law at Columbia University, argues that the death penalty does not benefit society and is not necessary. Likewise, Kevin Johnson, writer of “Study Finds No Evidence Death Penalty Deters Crime”, also argues against the use of the death penalty by pointing out the flaws in the common research of deterrence. On the other hand, some may also argue for the many aids the death penalty offers. Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy at Fordham University, Ernest Van den Haag, with his “The Ultimate Punishment: a Defense”, and authors James M. Reams and Charles T. Putnam, with their article, “Making a Case for the Deterrence Effect of Capital Punishment”, both give arguments for the grander justice the death penalty offers. While each of these articles give very well thought out claims for the necessity of the death penalty, using arguments including racism, and deterrence, Van den Haag’s claim gives the clearest and best arguments.

In this essay, I will argue that equal punishment and proportional retribution do not justify the use of the death penalty. First, I will argue that equal punishment is too specific and literal because it stems from the idea that one crime is deserving of that exact crime in the form of a legal punishment. In the case of murder, that belief would condone punishing murder with murder. We can’t justify some killings while condemning others. By giving permission to someone to execute another human being on the grounds of the death penalty, we are allowing him or her to kill another human being for killing. This creates a cycle of murder. Second, I will argue that proportional retribution does not leave the death penalty as the only option for punishment. However, it does give much room for interpretation and is not specific enough regarding alternative punishments. It would allow us to rank crimes according to severity and dole out punishments according to that scale. I will also bring up how retributive justice does not completely delve into the concept of who deserves to deliver the punishment to the murderer. Retributive justice is simply a means of attempting to legally inflict suffering upon another human being for their wrongful actions.

A brief history explaining the verdicts made by the Supreme Court regarding capital punishment in American history needs to be made to understand why capital punishment has become such a national issue in contemporary America. In the 1972 Supreme Court case Furman v. Georgia, the court ruled that the, “carrying out of the death penalty…constitutes cruel and unusual punishment,” (Hugo 1). Since the death penalty was considered at the time cruel and unusual, it made it in direct

Capital Punishment was adopted by America when the state of Virginia carried out the colonies’ first execution in 1608 (“History of the Death Penalty”). Since then, usage of the death penalty has been instituted by 36 states, making execution the ultimate form of punishment. Although in theory the death penalty seems like a viable method of punishment, in practice, it has serious flaws that damage the integrity of the state. Capital Punishment has been falsely idolized as a deterrent, applied unfairly for generations, used as a vehicle for revenge, and made people blind to the fact that life in prison without parole is an equally acceptable form of punishment. The death penalty is an

Bright, Stephen B.: "The death penalty as the answer to crime: costly, counterproductive and corrupting"; 35 Santa Clara Law Review 1211 (1995)