Capital punishment’s validity in the legal system continues to be questioned but has been a huge

Capital Punishment has been a hot topic in the public eye for some time. The question on many minds is whether it is acceptable for the state to end one’s life for the crime they have committed. I believe that everyone deserves a second chance. Another issue that we should address is, that in the justice system on daily basis we will encounter mistakes being made. With that said, if an innocent was executed, there is no way for the system to redeem itself, there is no way for that person to be brought back. As I began to research more into this issue, I became aware that there are plenty of people who actually agree with the idea of capital punishment being endorsed; however, I believe that capital punishment is a wrongful doing by the state.

Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Why do some view the taking of a life morally correct? These questions are discussed and debated upon in every state and national legislature throughout the country. Advantages and disadvantages for the death penalty exist, and many members of the United States, and individual State governments, have differing opinions. Yet it seems that the stronger arguments, and evidence such as cost effectiveness, should lead the common citizen to the opposition of Capital Punishment.

The moral and ethical debate on the sentencing and enforcement of capital punishment has long baffled the citizens and governing powers of the United States. Throughout time, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and the vast majority beliefs of Americans, have been in a constant state of perplexity. Before the 1960s, the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were interpreted as permitting the death penalty. However, in the early 1960s, it was suggested that the death penalty was a "cruel and unusual" punishment and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Many argue that capital punishment is an absolute necessity, in order to deter crime, and to ‘make things right’ following a heinous crime of murder. Despite the belief that capital punishment may seem to be the only tangible, permanent solution to ending future capital offenses, the United States should remove this cruel and unnecessary form of punishment from our current judicial systems.

Capital punishment has been a hot topic for quite some time now. In earlier times it was merely a way to punish as well as an attempt to deter members of society from committing heinous crimes. In the last century we have actively monitored the effects of capital punishment, and this has revealed the truth. It is for these reasons capital punishment is not morally acceptable.

Capital punishment has been used for many centuries to kill murderers or anyone who has committed a heinous crime. Although this may sound like a good thing, the trial errors are catastrophic. A judge and a jury are the ones to decide if a defendant gets the death penalty or a noncapital punishment. A defendant on trial for this certain punishment, does not get most of their rights of an American citizen. Congress should reconsider capital punishment as unconstitutional because of the amount of money used (1), the racial biases (2), the methods of death (3), and the people who are not being given the freedom of cruel and unusual punishment (4).

Does taking another’s life actually avenge that of another? The disciplinary act of capital punishment, punishment through death, has been a major debate in the United States for years. Those in support of capital punishment believe that it is an end to the reoccurrence of a repeat murderer. The public has, for many years, been in favor of this few and pro-death penalty. Yet as time goes on, records show a decrease in the public and the state’s support of the continuation of capital punishment. Those against capital punishment believe it is an immoral, spends taxpayers’ money improperly, and does not enforce a way to rehabilitate criminals and/or warn off future crimes.

Many people often debate over the legitimacy over capital punishment, whether or not a person can receive the death penalty as a punishment if he or she commits an act of murder. Some argue that the death penalty is a justly act against dangerous criminals while others argue that the penalty is immoral, playing the role of God, and does not even lower the crime rate one bit. In fact, the death penalty is a severe punishment with some negative outcomes at times, but overall, it was placed in this world to serve the sole purpose of protecting our people from violent and dangerous deviants. When used properly, just for cases in which the murder or crime was so heinous, justice is being served for the

The death penalty is a controversial issue that has caused some confrontational debates between opponents and supporters of this long existing sentence. In legal term, the death penalty is defined as a sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes. In support of death penalty, Koch, Edward, Ex- mayor of New York argues in his article “Death and Justice: How capital Punishment affirms Life” that “Life is indeed precious, and I believe the death penalty helps to affirm this fact. Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of these murderers, they might well have stayed their hand” (Koch, 484). On the other hand, Bruck, David, clinical professor of law and a stanish opponent of capital punishment asserts in his article “ Death Penalty” that “neither justice nor self-preservation demands that we kill men whom we have already imprisoned” (Bruck, 493).

From an early age, children are taught that murder is morally wrong. In today’s complex society that is impeded by unsettling periods of civil unrest, it is an expectation for everyone to acknowledge and accept that murder is one of the worst crimes individuals can commit. Perhaps it can be said that the death penalty is one of our legal system’s biggest contradictions of itself, as, if someone commits murder (or another heinous crime of that caliber), such ‘murderers’ will, in states that have capital punishment laws, be sent to Death Row and ultimately murdered in order to prevent potential future crimes by such perpetrators. I believe that the death penalty is wrong not only as it is immoral to take a life, but also, such ineffective laws waste money and do not deter crime.

In 1879, the United States Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 9-0, that execution by firing squad was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. This began a long debate on whether or not a government reserves the right to punish those who have taken a life by taking their lives. There are many reasons as to why someone would be against capital punishment: it is not our right as humans to play God, it is against the constitution, the threat of capital punishment is not a valid deterrent, it is morally corrupt to take a life. All of these points are valid, and they represent the mindset of millions of Americans; however, capital punishment is a valuable asset to be reserved for only “the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers” (Alice).

Capital punishment have been a main debate on whether it is a cruel and unusual punishment and what it actually consist of. Even though the death penalty has been abolished in most of the western nation, the United States remain to practice the activity. The death penalty is perceived by an abolitionist as a form of cruel, unusual punishment. The idea comes from the fact that the death penalty deny the criminal their right to life. The judgment to execute criminals comes from government officials that generally claim to “speak for God.” In addition, this act violates the Eighth Amendment; prohibiting the government from imposing cruel and unusual punishment. To receive this type of punishment, the individual have to commit an extremely murderous crime that strongly affects humanity. Before any action of executions occurs, the criminal is put on death row for random extents of time. This such procedure for most absolutely “evil” criminals is thought to be the humane form of showing other individuals not to commit extreme crimes such as murder.

The debate over the death penalty bounces on many different problems: “the efficacy of capital punishment as a crime deterrent, the ethical and moral issues associated with government-sanctioned execution, and the potential for errors in the legal system that may allow for the misapplication or prejudicial application of capital punishment.” (Death Penalty: An Overview) The debate focuses on those who see the death penalty as a religious or moral issue and those who view the problem as a primarily guided by ethical and utilitarian values. Legislative issues include legalizing capital punishment within the regime of national laws, and the question of whether state and national agencies should be allowed

This paper uses the many accounts found from various sources to enlighten the reader on the destructive and unhelpful nature of the death penalty also referred to as capital punishment. The death penalty is both useless and harmful to not only criminals but also their potential victims. This paper uses these horrific facts to try and convince the reader that the death penalty should be done away with before it is too late, although that time may have already come. With supporting evidence to support my cause, I hope that the following information sways at least one reader to see the harm of keeping the death penalty an active punishment. The time has come to come out of the dark ages and develop a new and more effective punishment for those criminals who would commit such heinous crimes as mass murder and other outlandish things.

For years, there has been much debate on capital punishment, and whether or not it should continue on through history--or be abolished (Review, 2013). Although some may agree that the death penalty is a reasonable punishment for acting upon a violent crime, there are still questions being raised about this type of retribution. The purpose of the death penalty is to act as a deterrent to crime, but there is no logical evidence proving or supporting that it is effective in preventing violent crime (Facts, 2017). In all honesty, I, along with many others, believe that capital punishment only causes more potential damage. In example, what if one man found guilty during his trial was truly innocent all along--but he was executed anyways? Only for the state to realize later on that he, in fact, was telling the truth in his testimony. With the death penalty on the table, there may be innocent lives at risk. This is not always the case, but it is certainly possible, and has happened before. I am a firm believer that the death penalty is not the solution to preventing violent crime from happening, nor will it ever be. Is a life for a life a fair trade in the world of justice? Capital punishment is not the solution to preventing homicides from reoccurring or to mending broken families grieving the loss of a loved one due to callous murder (Facts, 2017).

In this paper I will be arguing why capital punishment is still necessary. The topics I will be discussing are: is capital punishment constitutional. Should there be a standard what types of execution should be administered. Is capital punishment an actual deterrent? How the death penalty may actually save the lives of those on death row. The perpetrators of the most egregious crimes left alive belittle the life or lives that they have taken and offer no sense of justice in the legal system. Capital punishment has acquired a stigma due to how it is applied and how death row inmates are executed. Capital punishment has been in the United States since it’s founding. It has been a tool of the judiciary for giving a sense of justice to those families that have had to lose loved ones. It serves to remove criminals that have violated the most sacred law of the social contract, permanently. The reason for capital punishment is to invoke justice against those who commit the most heinous crime, murder.