The Death Penalty Is One Of The World 's Oldest Criminal Punishments

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.

     One argument from death penalty supporters is that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to prevent other people from committing murders. It is the belief that people will think out the consequences of their actions before murdering, and consider the

In 1847, Michigan became the first State in America to outlaw the death penalty (Brunello, 17). However, in the years following the abolitionist movement slowed, specifically during the Civil War, but the

The death penalty has been around since the time of Jesus Christ. Executions have been recorded from the 1600s to present times. From about 1620, the executions by year increased in the US. It has been a steady increase up until the 1930s; later the death penalty dropped to zero in the 1970s and then again rose steadily. US citizens said that the death penalty was unconstitutional because it was believed that it was "cruel and unusual" punishment (Kurtis 67). In the 1970s, the executions by year dropped between zero and one then started to rise again in the 1980s. In the year 2000, there were nearly one hundred executions in the US (Biskupic 34). On June 29, 1972, the death penalty was suspended because the existing laws were no longer convincing. However, four years after this occurred, several cases came about in Georgia, Florida, and Texas where lawyers wanted the death penalty. This set new laws in these states and later the Supreme Court decided that the death penalty was constitutional under the Eighth Amendment (Biskupic 34).

Many criminals take the lives of or hurt many people around them. They are later released after doing time in prisons to go on the streets again where they will do the same things over again. "[W]e reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless murderers. To sentence killers like those described above to less than death would fail to do justice because the penalty – presumably a long period in prison – would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime. Prosecutors, jurors, and the loved ones of murder victims understand this essential point…” Death penalty does the justice right for seriously violent criminals instead of having them do time in prisons to be released.

The death penalty, as we know it today, didn’t exist in the United States until 1976. However, the American penal system has incorporated capital punishment since the earliest settlements were founded in the early 1600’s. The first recorded execution in the United States occurred in 1608 in Jamestown, Virginia when Captain George Kendall was executed just one year after the Jamestown settlement had been established after he had been convicted of being a spy for Spain (Part I: History of the Death Penalty). Over the next 250 years, several states moved toward abolishing capital punishment altogether. While there has been serious push towards ending capital punishment, more than half of state governments within the United States cling onto their right to execute criminals who perform truly heinous crimes.

The death penalty is under a theory call “Just Deserts” Radelet and Akers (1997) suggest that the citizens who commit cirimes should be put under an execution for tributive reasons. These citizens that commit crime should suffer, the effects of life imprisonment are not enough for murdering a person. Some views are worthy to go under a debate, but no research can tell us if an issue is right or wrong. No studies can answer the question of what these citizens or criminals deserve, nor settle debates surrounding the death penalty.

Britain continued to increase the number of capital offenses until the 1700’s. Many laws were passed and then swept away. “Through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, more and more capital punishments were abolished, not only in Britain, but also all across Europe, until today only a few countries retain the death penalty.” This shows how the value of a human life has been taken into serious consideration and discussion throughout history and even today. Many states in the US have changed their laws based on other state’s decisions. For example, in 1835, Maine stated that “all felons sentenced to death would have to remain in prison at hard labor and could not be executed until one year had passed, and on the governor’s order.” They called it the “Maine Law”. Then in 1907 Kansas took the “Maine Law” a step further and abolished all death penalties. After Kansas, eight more states abolished capital punishment in the year 1911 and 1917. By constantly changing the laws and regulations between states, it shows that as a country we are willing to continually reevaluate our decisions and make changes if we believe they are warranted. These changes may ultimately not be correct, but we the people are always compelled to do what we think is best for

Those in favor of the death penalty believe that it is effective in deterring crime.

For many years, there has been a debate of whether or not the death penalty is morally justified. This debate has centered on whether humans have the right to take the lives of other human beings and has long divided people politically and socially. People who are in favor of the death penalty believe that, “Intentionally taking the life of an innocent human being is so evil…the perpetrator forfeits his own right to life”(Pojman, 232). Pojman is unambiguous about murderers as evildoers who do not deserve to live. On the other hand, people who are against the death penalty believe that it is morally wrong to take anyone’s life even if that person committed a heinous crime. The consequences of each position may determine its feasibility.

Capital Punishment has been a part of the United States since 1622. In fact, at this point in time, there were no arguments over whether killing a person was immoral or unfair. Killing a person for committing murder or other serious crimes was simply required by law. Over the course of the next five centuries however, an

The Death Penalty has been used in the United States since the very foundation of our nation; the first recorded case was the execution of Captain George Kendall in 1608 in the Jamestown colony as it was believed Kendall was a spy (DPIC). Americans have seen executions throughout history and are somewhat exposed to the idea but the 21st century is a very different place than the 17th century. This century is a time of equality and rights for people of all

Proponents of the deterrence argument say that the death penalty prevents murders because the killers, like everyone else, have a fear of death (Nathanson, 1987). I do not believe that this is a valid statement. Everyone does things that are risks to his/her life. Driving a car, riding a bike, rock climbing, swimming, smoking; we do these things for the need to get places, for adventure, excitement,

The death penalty is an issue that began back from the 18th century in Europe. The Europeans brought it to America, and America continued the system for years, because they didn’t know how else to punish the wrongdoers. These executions were held in public areas for everyone to see. It wasn’t till 1846 that a state, Michigan, decided to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, except treason. Seeing Michigan as an example about three other states stopped the death penalty and also some countries in the Caribbean and South America, but it still was not considered an issue until the 1972 Supreme Court case of Furman v Georgia that we see a major shift in the death penalty.

Is the taking of an individual’s life a just punishment for the most heinous of crimes? Is it humane to kill another person to administer justice? How should society deal with the most dangerous members of our population? The answers to these critical questions are not easily derived. Capital punishment is a widely debated and sensitive subject, as it probes the judicial system and morality. Most individuals would argue that criminals who commit the most despicable of crimes deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. While this deduction is perfectly reasonable, capital punishment should not be the end to this mean. Executing prisoners for their crimes has several flaws: it does not deter crime more than life without parole, it is financially more burdensome than sentencing a person to life imprisonment, and is an inhumane and anachronistic method of attempting to serve justice.