LOWP Is More Inhumane Than Death Sentence

Capital punishment is an intolerable denial of civil liberties and is inconsistent with the fundamental values of our democratic system.  The death penalty is uncivilized in theory and unfair and inequitable in practice.  Through litigation, legislation, and advocacy against this barbaric and brutal institution, we strive to prevent executions and seek the abolition of capital punishment.

The death penalty is something many people face each day . There is approximately 1,188 people that were executed in the U.S from 1977 through 2009 . There are many ways on how to execute someone, but primarily we use the lethal injection. The way people are trailed and put on the death penalty, is because of the involvement with first degree of murder, or other crimes. Proponents say that the death penalty is an important tool for preserving law and order. They also argue a term “an eye for an eye” which means that it helps the families grieving, and ensure that they don’t release back to the public for future tragedy. The people against the death penalty say that it is wrong to take a human life, and has no effect on crime. Many of the death row inmates prefer death over life in prison. They say that many death row inmates have been volunteering for their executions. Over 75 inmates have volunteered for their death sentence. This is called a state-assisted suicide. Many inmates said that they would rather gamble on being executed than having life parole. Many inmates say that they spend over a decade awaiting execution. Some prisoners have been in death row for 20 years. They usually are isolated from other prisoners and spend as much as 23 hours alone in their cells. The two punishments they receive other than the death penalty is the living conditions they live in prison. They are usually in a state where they would be executed and,

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.

The death penalty is a more expensive than the alternative life without the possibility of parole option in monetary terms, time, and resources spent. It is acknowledged that there is no national figure for the exact cost of the death penalty but many states and researchers do have estimates. All of which concluding that the death penalty is the more expensive than life without parole. This option is gradually becoming more expensive with each passing years due to factors that will be discussed from an article from The Marshall Project. The death penalty is more than the physical execution of the accused, it includes money and time dedicated to having inmates on death row. Death row does automatically imply heightened security and extra expenses. Maurice Chammah in his article “Six Reasons the Death Penalty is Becoming More Expensive” states that, “Felons sentenced to life in prison may eventually be placed in the general population, but death row inmates are virtually always housed in administrative segregation, or solitary confinement…” which can mean double or more the cost than of housing general population inmates (Chammah, 2015). The time inmates can spend on death row varies from months to years with the longest being close to 40 years. People do not realize that majority of the death penalty’s cost is not a part of any budget. Instead, they are buried in thicket of legal proceedings and hours spent by judges, clerks, prosecutors, experts and law enforcement

Catherine Appleton is a senior research fellow at the University of Nottingham with expertise in criminal justice and it’s harshest penalties (Nottingham). Bent Grover hold a PhD in applied mathematics from the University of Cambridge. He worked as a strategy consultant in the U.K. before joining Cyviz as a board member (Cyviz). In the journal, Appleton and Grover discuss the rise of LWOP sentences in the late 20th century as death sentences began to decline and lose favor in the western world. While many consider the death penalty unusually cruel, many do not consider LWOP as a cruel punishment. Crimes that one warranted the death penalty, now generally result in a LWOP sentence, especially after the Supreme Court decided that LWOP was an acceptable sentence in Shick v Reed. While most Americans know the incarceration rate has gone up quadrupled in the past 30 years(or at the very least understand it has grown), many do not know that the LWOP sentences have increased 100 times in the past 30 years. This is in contrast with much of the western world where LWOP is a very rare sentence, if not completely outlawed in some countries. Back in America proponents of LWOP suggest if death is too harsh of a

The 8th amendment of the United States Constitution states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Specifically, the idea of cruel and unusual punishment has been a topic of dispute since its inception. Although the United States practiced execution as a punishment beforehand, “the Supreme Court did not address the death penalty issue until 1972.” It is often debated how we are to define cruel and unusual because of the vague nature of the terms. Because it is thought that the terms were kept vague in order to keep up with new forms of cruel and unusual punishment that would come into being after the constitution was written, the standards for determining what is cruel and unusual has been set by “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” meaning that it changes depending on what our society deems decent or indecent at the time. The problem is that our society has always been split on this issue. Whether it involves the death penalty or the quality of prisoner confinement, some hold the opinion that these people deserve to be treated as less than human because of the crimes they have committed. Others vehemently disagree saying that everyone, no matter what they’ve done, deserves to be treated as humanely as possible. Those of this opinion are generally opposed to the death penalty. For future interpretation of this facet of our constitution, the cruel and

The Declaration of Independence for the United States has done a good job at protecting its citizens from undue burdens; however there is one small subsection of the population in which the American legal system is failing. The American judicial system is failing those on death row in Texas. The state of Texas leads the nation in the amount of executions performed. (Amnesty International) Unfortunately, there are legal, moral, and racial issues with these sentences. Today, there are 260 inmates on death row. (Amnesty International) Additionally, since 1976, there have been 474 total executions. (DPIC) This is a problem because research states that nearly 4% of all death row inmates are actually innocent. (Rogers) This nation wide data is relevant for this policy brief because with such a high number of the states’ inmates on death row there is a

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

Funding a system that is so timely and costly is not helping the general population instead draining it. More money is spent on the people who are imprisoned especially those serving a death sentence than the American tax payers who pay for it. This public policy not only allow for the states’ to save money but if the money spent on this process was spent on systems that actually benefit the people such as education it can develop honorable citizens’ instead of expensive inmates. However, many in support of the death penalty may not see a problem with paying for the cost if it means keeping those of the convicted from committing any more crimes that can harm society. This policy proposes to get rid of the death penalty in place of having the prisoner serve life without parole, this in which could perhaps save millions. The policy still will keep the prisoner out of any ones harm and allowed them to still serve time for the law they have broken. Nevertheless, it would not have cost millions of dollars from tax payers in order to do

The death penalty also know as capital punishment can be argued as tool to get rid of future murders or an equal leveling filed to fit a just society. In, fact at the dawn of the 21st century, the death penalty has been considered by most nations as a cruel and inhuman punishment. (vaibhav,goel,2008). In a society that coins the saying every dollars counts; capital punishment divergently is very finically strenuous process that appropriates the American tax-payer pockets. A recent article in the Akron Law Review asks whether the Federal Death Penalty Act (FDPA) is in compliance with the Sixth Amendment 's right to confront witnesses because it allows hearsay evidence in determining whether a defendant is eligible for the death penalty.

Let me leave you with just a few thoughts. I know what you are thinking here; what if we execute wrongfully and we obviously could not correct the mistake. The thing is we would have the time, resources and most importantly the money to give fair trials and make sure there was no mistakes. I am not trying to sound heartless or callous here with no regard for human life. It is my regard for human life, why I feel this way. In reviewing the main arguments put forward by supporters of LWOP as an alternative to the death penalty, we can see that there are a number of reasons for its grass-roots popularity. Its appeal is based on the idea that LWOP provides certitude of punishment, incapacitates violent murderers, and eliminates the risk of wrongful

More discriminate use of the death penalty — reserving its use for only highly aggravated crimes, the ‘worst of the worst’ — will lessen the risk of flawed convictions and sentences and ensure that those who really deserve to be on death row will be executed. [There shouldn’t be restriction to the death penalty because] … the capital punishment system will remain flawed and it is more likely that less-deserving or innocent prisoners will be convicted and put on death row. (Robinson par. 7)

Upon examination, one finds capital punishment to be economically weak and deficient. A common misconception of the death penalty is that the cost to execute a convicted criminal is cheaper than to place a convict in prison for life without parole. Due to the United States judicial system, the process of appeals,

In Stephen Bright’s article, “The Death Penalty as the Answer to Crime: Costly, Counterproductive, and Corrupting” Bright asserts that capital punishment does not work because it is racially biased, the quality of the lawyers and attorneys supplied by the state to poor defendants is unfair, and that the law system currently in place does not accomplish its true goals. Bright defends his claim with logos and ethos by examining the opinions of judges and district attorneys, and by describing experience within the fields of human rights and law himself in order to persuade the reader to take up more cases for those on death row. Given the language used in this article Bright is writing to an audience with intermediate to professional experience within the field of law, and a willingness to adopt a new idea on the constitutionality behind the death penalty.

The death penalty is something few people love. Death penalty involves a myriad of bureaucratic processes given that the judiciary must use long and complicated sessions to ensure no citizen is wrongly executed for the crimes they have not done. However, there are cases where even the innocent persons are not protected from mischievous executions and end up being executed for crimes they did not commit. Most people argue that death penalty is cruel while life imprisonment is inhumane but less cruel. There is also the possibility of parole in case of a life sentence. Apparently, life imprisonment is a better than death penalty given that it costs less, and the money saved can be channeled to some other important programs that improve the life of the citizens. The detention also reduces the possibility of the accused to reverse the mistake. Millions of dollars saved are advantageous in improving schools, infrastructure, police forces, strengthening public programs, improving mental health services, enabling drug treatment, and preventing child abuse. This piece of writing will argue why life imprisonment is better than death penalty.