Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty

In this paper I will be discussing everything you need to know about the death penalty such as its pros and cons. While the innocent can be killed, the death penalty has its pros because it prevents them from killing again if they are released or have escaped from prison, it helps overpopulated prisons, and it can help victims’ families get justice and closure. Not only can the innocent be killed, but in the past the death penalty was very inhumane. To some its feels right but to others they feel like 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Most people think that the defendant deserves the death penalty, but what does the defendants’ family think?

It may have seemed like a clear verdict, but nine years later, he was found innocent and pardoned, the first man ever to be released from death row. Nine years later, he describes his time in prison as “Hell on Earth” (Bloodsworth). Nine years later, he faces a system in which his case is but one of the numerous wrongful convictions that take place or have taken place in this country. Ladies and gentlemen, nine years later, wrongful convictions are absolutely a problem in the United States, one that, every day, costs innocent people their freedom.

The death penalty is still in use in the united states. The state with the most executions is in Texas with a total of 545 from 2017 to the year 1976 (Number of Executions, 2017). The death penalty is a very big debate. There are many reasons why and why people do and don’t like the death penalty.

More than two centuries ago, the death penalty was commonplace in the United States, but today it is becoming increasingly rare. In the article “Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?”, Diann Rust-Tierney argues that it should be abolished, and Joshua Marquis argues that it should not be abolished. Although the death penalty is prone to error and discrimination, the death penalty should not be abolished because several studies show that the death penalty has a clear deterrent effect, and we need capital punishment for those certain cases in which a killer is beyond redemption.

) Moreover, the pattern of this kind of murderer, the killer, is almost by definition a person who takes his chances like the soldier of fortune he thinks he is. (37) Most killers do not engage in anything like a cost-benefit analysis. They are impulsive, and they kill impulsively. If capital punishment does deter criminals, it can do so only indirectly. Potential murderers must have some standard of right and wrong. They must acknowledge morals issues. They must be without mental illness and they know and have the capacity to think about what they are doing. This conception of general deterrence seems deeply flawed because it rests upon a doubtful conception of how this murderous population internalizes social norms. Although the perpetrator

The death penalty has been a controversial topic among society for ages. An issue often brought up when discussing the legality of capital punishment is wrongful convictions. Advocates of the death penalty say that, while wrongful convictions are an issue, those few cases do not outweigh the need for lawful execution of felons who are, without a doubt, guilty. On the other hand, the opponents argue that the death penalty is wrong from both a legal and moral standpoint, an ineffective form of punishment, and should, ultimately, be outlawed. With both advocates and challengers constantly debating on this topic, the death penalty and wrongful convictions continue to be hot buttons issues for Americans and people throughout the world.

“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

There are many injustices that plague the United States Justice System. The death penalty is a prime example of this. A major problem associated with the death penalty is the unavoidable fact that potentially innocent people are being executed. Researchers estimate that over 340 executed inmates, could have been exonerated; which means that over 340 people were wrongfully killed! With the arrival of DNA testing in the mid 80’s, by 1992, 17 death row inmates in the US where acquitted and released. The sad fact remains that all capital punishment cases don’t have DNA evidence, in fact many do not. It is terrifying to contemplate that whether a person lives or dies can be determined based on eyewitness testimony. The innocence Project researchers report that 73% of 239 convictions reversed because of DNA, were based on eyewitness testimony. The only effective way of using the death penalty is to ensure the certainty of guilt amongst the inmates on death row; which is inherently unrealistic or impossible. The injustice does not stop there. Approximately 3% of all executions are botched, meaning that the inmate was conscious, in excruciating pain, or the death was prolonged beyond the intended speed. In cases like Allen Lee Davis’ or Romell Broom, the death penalty is proven to be an inhumane way to punish inmates. The American Civil Liberties Union believes “the death penalty inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the

There are about 121 innocent people sitting on death row tonight. A study by the National Academy of Sciences reports that conservatively, 4.1 percent of defendants sentenced to death are indeed innocent. Capital punishment is abolished in many parts of the developed world, but is still carried out daily. In this day and age, its existence may seem questionable. After World War II, crime rates increased in the United States, peaking from the 1970s to the early 1990s. Violent crime nearly quadrupled between 1960 and its peak in 1991. Sure enough, thirty-two states, the federal civilian and military legal systems permit the death penalty. Its application is limited by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution to aggravated murders committed

Upon completing a forum post in a Sociology class this semester I was given the task to watch a documentary discussion the death penalty in the United States. After watching several short films that include testimonies of the death row exonerate 's, I learned of just how easily these innocent people were almost murdered by a system that you and I are funding. The victims go on not only to tell of their own suffering but also the horror that their families endured. Many of them had several execution dates and were only granted their freedom by a stroke of luck and good-hearted determined people. Imagine that you have been stripped of your freedom, given poor legal representation, and now you’re being subjected to band of jurors play Russian Roulette with your life. This is how Timothy Thibodaux[H1] describes his experience with life on death row. Due to the inconsistencies of our federal justice system, one could say that it is better to let one hundred go free than to kill one innocent man. It is my opinion that the death penalty is not only costing our nation unnecessary tax dollars but also our credibility for being a nation with a respectable justice system.

The jurisdiction of the death penalty in the United States for decades the death penalty has been an emotional and almost unmentionable controversial  issue that has affected people in a many of different ways. This Essay addresses head-on most of the common arguments that are used in favor of the death penalty and some that are opposed.

Jost presents the case involving Steven Hayes, it’s a triple murder trial and is used as an example to point out the different debates that come with a case involving a possible death sentence. Jost compares how opponents of the death penalty complain about the costs of capital trials, appeals and post-conviction challenges while supporters find that to be ironic because the people who are against the death penalty usually do everything they can to delay it which leads to higher costs. Jost points out that since the Revolutionary era many have tried to abolish the death penalty, and over time many states have moved to solely using the punishment for murder and some states have abolished it altogether. Jost contrasts both sides of the different debates that involve the death penalty all through his article, and he provides a background as well as the chronological order of what has taken place over the death penalties existence. I will use this article for background information and to provide an answer to the question, “What makes the death penalty right or

Burgess, Regehr & Roberts (2013), lamented “The Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, controlled the use of capital punishment by prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment” (p. 175). The justice system has valid alternatives to the death penalty, such as life imprisonment without parole, that constitute adequate punishment even for the most repugnant crimes. Moreover, it is dangerous to engage in ethical equivalencies and hierarchically rank human beings; the point should not be to judge whose life is more vulnerable, but rather to affirm that all human life must be valued. A system that ends a human existence cannot stand in a righteous and just society. The solution is for the justice system to provide remedy to victims, not vengeance. Moreover, this view fails to give due credence to the reality that the death penalty system has not been and cannot be proven to be a successful deterrent, is more expensive than relevant alternatives because of the appellate process, is subject to human error, and is often riddled with economic and racial bias in its application. The irrevocable nature of the death penalty renders it an unsustainable and indefensible remedy in an imperfect justice system. What should be done to the death penalty is not an intellectual exercise. The death penalty can divide and damage families, due to the fact that death is final and because individuals have deeply held feelings about the morality and utility of executions, unlike any other punishment the death penalty creates irreconcilable conflict amongst the surviving family members of murder

Murder, a common occurrence in American society, is thought of as a horrible, reprehensible atrocity. Why then, is it thought of differently when the state government arranges and executes a human being, the very definition of premeditated murder? Capital punishment has been reviewed and studied for many years, exposing several inequities and weaknesses, showing the need for the death penalty to be abolished.