The Death Penalty Is Justified

In “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives”, written and published by David B. Mulhausen on September 29, 2014, Mulhausen speaks of the reasons why the death penalty is a proper way to bring murderers to justice. He believes that “some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties” (Mulhausen). Not only does he believe that the death penalty is useful to set criminals to justice, but he also believes that the enforcement of the death penalty deters crime rates.

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.

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

On the other hand, Greenberg, Reiman, and Gray argue against deterrence and how it is not a leading factor for justifying the administration the death penalty. “Because of the goals that our criminal justice system must satisfy - deterring crime, punishing the guilty, acquitting the innocent, avoiding needless cruelty, treating citizens equally, and prohibiting oppression by the state - America simply does not have the kind of capital punishment system contemplated by death penalty partisans” (Greenberg 1670). Greenberg argues how due to the American system of capital punishment, deterrence is not a factor due to the “infrequent, random, and erratic executions” of this system

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment. There is no harsher punishment than death itself. This nation, the United States of America, is currently one of fifty-eight nations that practice the death penalty, if one commits first-degree murder as of 2012. People that believe in the death penalty also believe that it will deter murders. In this paper I will argue that the death penalty does not deter criminals and that this nation should outlaw the practice.

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

“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

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.

Against the Death Penalty: An Annotated Bibliography While the Death Penalty has been historically used as a deterrent of crime, it is barbarity, is economically costly, and racially bias in the United States of America. With this research paper, I will explain how the death penalty should be abolish from our judicial system. Death Penalty Information Center. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org./ This is a website that gives lots of information about the death penalty from the history, current inmates and trials that could lead to death row.

1) In the letter that the Associate Editor of The Police Times wrote to the Editor of the New York Times, he makes several claims about the death penalty. First, he claims that the justification of the use of death penalty in the current societal context is without dispute. Secondly, the Associate Editor asserts that convicts many times do not carry weapons during time of criminal activity for fear of the death penalty. Thirdly, he bring out the moral aspect of the death penalty, saying that when one rapes or murders a child, that person deserves death penalty as retribution. Lastly, the author claims that when we are threatened, like in war, we have the right to kill.

17). Most murderers, in Greenburg’s opinion, are ruled by their whims and therefore will not consider the possibility of being put to death for their actions (Greenburg, par. 18). Moreover, Greenburg points out that the majority of killers are not very smart or disturbed whether by their own doing or with the help of drugs or alcohol (par. 18) Using the reality that so few people are actually executed Greenburg creates an interesting case against the death penalty: if virtually no one dies, how can criminals be deterred by such a unlikely consequence? Greenburg realizes we can never know the exact thoughts of a would be killer, but looking at his interpretation of the reality of our legal system, it not hard to understand his prediction of its ineffectiveness. While Greenburg provides practical reasons to combat deterrence, Michael L. Radelet and Traci L. Lacock in the article “Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates?: The Views of Leading Criminologists,” give expert opinions by summarizing the opinions of leading behavioral scientists. This valuable and insightful resource shows how criminologists have recently shifted away from the belief that death is an effective deterrent. Why? Earlier research showed that execution directly paralleled with lowered homicide and removal of criminals from death row resulted in increased homicides. (Radelet & Lacock 494) But later search found these major studies to be skewed and largely unconnected to murder

If there is a desire by the American people to maintain the death penalty, let us at least be spared the hypocrisy of a justification by example.  The death penalty is a penalty, to be sure, a frightful torture, both physical and moral, but it provides no sure example except a demoralizing one. It punishes, but it forestalls nothing; indeed, it may even arouse the impulse to murder. It hardly seems to exist, except for the man who suffers it-- in his soul for months and years, in his body during the desperate and violent hour when he is cut in two without suppressing his life. Let us call it by the name which, for lack of any other nobility, will at least give the nobility of truth, and let us

Edgar Hoover’s statement also stands controversial in its conclusion. In addition to these experience-based evidences, the author also presents the 1975 L.A.P.D. study that showed “that 4 out of 5 convicts did not carry a gun when engaged in a criminal activity for fear of the death penalty.” Despite the studies’ statistical support, specific details and variables are not addressed for the study nor is the time frame completely relevant to the current society.

Since the foundation of our nation the Death Penalty has been a way to punish prisoners that have committed heinous crimes, however since the turn of the 20th century the practice of Capital Punishment has been questioned on its usage in America and the world as a whole. The Death Penalty is used in America to punish criminals who have committed murders, or taken the life of an innocent person, and while the death penalty seems like it is doing justice to those who have killed others it is actually being used improperly in most situations, while also hindering our economy and is a means of ending more lives than necessary. The Death Penalty can be a valid source of punishment for criminals in the US however due to the misuse of this power by the government it is a huge detriment to our nation and the people that inhabit it. Because of the fact that Capital Punishment is used unfairly, and ineffectively in our nation it is an obsolete form of punishment and should have no place in the United States justice department.