Essay on Capital Punishment in America

Keeping a prisoner in jail for life will be very expensive considering that it costs $80,000 a year; and the bad news is that the money comes from the taxpayer's pocket. Thousands of people will attack the death penalty. They will give emotional speeches about the one innocent man who might be executed. However, all of these people are forgetting one crucial element. They are forgetting the thousands of victims who die every year. This may sound awkward, but the death penalty saves lives. It saves lives because it stops those who murder from ever murdering again (Bryant). These opinions represent some of the strongest and most influential views that proponents hold. However, if our prison system could rehabilitate more effectively, perhaps those who murdered once, could change.

Since the earliest times, man has struggled with the concept of justice. The controversy of capital punishment has weighed on the minds of humans since the beginning. When we are wronged it is our natural instinct to demand compensation. This thirst for revenge can be seen in the earliest civilizations and societies. Ancient Hammurabi code states “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (History of the World). For many people this little axiom seems fair. Others however, think otherwise and warn of a blind and toothless community. What is it about capital punishment that divides so many Americans? Is it the possibility of an innocent man being executed too much of a risk? Should our current

There are many horrific crimes that are happening in the world and many people feel that a way to rid society of these said crimes would be through the use of capital punishment. In fact 31 out the 50 U.S. states have implemented the use of the death penalty. However, I think that the death penalty should not be allowed for the following reasons: My first reason is that it is expensive to keep people on death row and the funding comes out of the people's accounts through taxes. My second reason is that some people are convicted and determined guilty by the judge however they can actually be innocent, thus sending an innocent person to death. My last main reason is that even though it may be a part the executioners role to execute criminals, it may put mental pressure upon these people to take a life and no such individual should carry the burden of taking a life.

Is punishing a guilty murderer, by death, for murdering an innocent victim unjust, or fair? When you think of murder, or in other words homicide, you just think that the life of a person has been taken away, by someone else. But that is not the end of it, you have also taken a loved one, a family member, a friend, even a peer. You have ripped the very soul from a person and established their name onto the weekly news headlines for your crime. “The eyes of a psychopathic killer are a chilling sight. I have looked into the eyes of more than one cold blooded murderer - and wished them dead” (Coddington 23). Now coming back to the question, do you believe that the murderer should have the same outcome as their victim? But also, would capital punishment

Many people who support capital punishment are under the impression that it costs more to imprison a person than it does to kill them with lethal injection. What most people don’t take into consideration is how quickly expenses add up in the U.S. justice system. When a person is charged with capital murder, it is

Thesis Statement: Has been ongoing throughout the world as being both unconstitutional and inhumane or a just punishment for those who offend certain laws, eye for an eye. Capital Punishment should be legalized because it is ethical, safety for the public and to lower the cost of prisons. Capital punishment is appropriate because it provides a strong durance against future crime, it protects the rights of victims, and because everyone benefits from it.

The death penalty plays a controversial role in modern society. Many arguments against the death penalty are raised to question whether it is biased against race or violates the constitution. Reuben Greenberg, the first black police chief involved in innovative criminology and author of the article “Race, the Criminal Justice System, and Community-Oriented Policing,” openly shares his opinion on how race does not affect the death penalty. Reuben Greenberg also proves false accusations of the death penalty wrong. Jack Greenberg, American attorney and author of "Against the American System of Capital Punishment,” disagrees with Reuben Greenberg's statement, and claims that race does hold a high position within the death penalty. Aside from

The current state of the law regarding capital punishment is that each state is allowed to create its own death penalty statutes and implement the death penalty basically as it chooses. The Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia did limit the implementation of the death penalty to only apply to the crime of murder and not any other offense such as rape. Currently, 15 American states have partially or completely outlawed the death penalty including Michigan, Alaska, Hawaii, Wisconsin, Maine, California, North Dakota, Minnesota, West Virginia, Iowa, New York, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont. Capital punishment was briefly abolished from 1972-1976 after the Court ruled, in a very fractured opinion, in the case of Furman v. Georgia

Statistics of murder rates in states without the death penalty compared to statistics in states that support the death penalty prove the lack of deterrence. For example, "the average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 3.6" (Death Penalty Infomation Center). This lack of deterrence may exist in part, from the fact that executions occur in private, and society remains sheltered from its horrors. On the other hand, perhaps the repeated execution of prisoners by the state makes society gradually become more and more immune to the horror that should accompany the forfeiture of life.

Capital Punishment is regarded by most as a successful deterrent to murder, but that is because these people don’t look at it as it is applied. According to retributivists such as Kant and Van Den Haag the guilty deserves to be punished. On the other hand, people against the death penalty like Bedau think that the death penalty is just as much an effective deterrent as life in prison.

Hundreds of murderers are put into jail and then let out several years later. They say they have learned their lesson, but yet when they do get out they commit more crimes. Thus, sending them back into jail. The only way to make sure these ruthless murderers don’t commit these crimes again is by capital punishment. As the Bible says, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. " If someone commits a capital offense, they should receive a capital punishment, because the state won’t have to pay for the criminal’s lifetime in jail, it provides the most complete retribution and condemnation, and crime rates will begin to drop.

The same DNA test that cleared Earl, implicated a known serial rapist, yet law enforcement and prosecution continue to claim Earl guilty, apparently believing that Earl raped the victim leaving another man’s sperm. Nationwide over 100 condemned Americans have been exonerated since 1976 and walked off death row as free men (Ballard). Even though we have come a long way with DNA there will always be police officers who are pressured to solve cases too fast. Some may use whatever tools are necessary including planting evidence or falsifying documents to establish guilt. As with the case above most police officers, as well as district attorneys, do not want to admit when they are wrong, even if it spares the life of an innocent human.

In my opinion the Retributivist approach to Capital Punishment is the more appropriate view. The Retributivist believes that evil done with a vengeance should be repaid with punishment in-kind. In order to protect society and prevent crime, the death penalty has to be the most severe form of punishment with the biggest impact on society. Persons who commit murder should suffer and be punished for their inexcusable action(s). The principles of retributivism suggest that a convicted murderer should be executed because they “deserve” and “have earned” the death sentence. The right of retaliation can only be made equal by balancing of the crime with the punishment even if it is the death penalty. Those opposed to the death penalty argue that

Many people live by the motto, “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” but does the quote imply that every state believes this also? According to the Death Penalty Information Center only thirty-four states, the government, and the military actually carryout the death penalty sentence, and the use of the sentence has been on the decline since 1997. There is a serious opposition when it comes to society today. The crime rates are not being evaluated enough, the country is in recession, and many families are desperate for any form of income. In order to maintain a healthy and safe environment for the following generations capital punishment should be mandatory for every state.

Capital punishment is an age-old practice. It has been used in civilizations for millennia, and will continue to be used for millennia to come. Whether used for the right or wrong reasons, capital punishment is unmistakable in its various forms. From hangings, to firing squads, to lethal injections, capital punishment and the associated proceeding have evolved over time. There have been many arguments against capital punishment, many of which still hold true. As capital punishment has evolved over time, however, many of the most valid arguments have been proven all but null. Capital punishment still has its ethical and moral concerns, but as it has evolved over time these concerns have not necessarily become less valid, but fewer in