The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

The first established death penalty laws date back to Ancient Babylon. Their tyrannical ruler Hammurabi established The code of Hammurabi most known to the laws an “eye for an eye and “tooth for a tooth”. Throughout the past this was the correct way of life, on the other hand the question is risen today, is the death penalty still reasonable? Coming to the question of bringing what makes our system better if we kill those who kill? The very idea of the state putting individuals to death is too much to endure. Capital punishment brings no benefits, undermining the constitution for reasons such as flawed executions, racism, innocents being framed, bias, revenge cost, and other critical reasoning. It is not only impractical, but it also does not prevent crime. Death row fails to recognize that people who are found guilty throughout the system have the potential to change, but how can they do that if they are denied the right to regain redemption in society. Nevertheless, the Death penalty should be eradicated based on the unlawful justice and its incapability to serve as a deterrent.

From the statistics used by Mulhausen in the article, “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives”, it seems that the goals of the death penalty were achieved to begin with, but since then it looks as if the death penalty threat is no longer a threat at all. In observing statistics provided to us by the Death Penalty Information Center, since 1990, murder rates have steadily declined; a very good sign for the nation as a whole. What interests me about the statistics is that even when the numbers were just beginning to be taken in 1990, the murder rates in states that do not enforce the death penalty are lower than those in states that do. This observation is very significant in correspondence to the debate regarding the effectiveness and need, or lack thereof, of the death penalty. The numbers back up my claim that the death penalty is not the best method. You cannot make the case that the death penalty itself is destroying crime because the states without the penalty have a declining crime rate, or the case that it destroys crime at a higher or faster rate because the numbers tell a different story. It cannot conclusively or confidently be said that the death penalty does not destroy crime whatsoever, but the facts of the matter do inspire doubt in my mind. Criminals who know they are likely to face death, if caught, are more willing to commit crimes than criminals who know for a fact that the death penalty is not, and cannot be invoked upon them if caught and convicted. This tells me one of two things: the criminals committing these crimes in death penalty states are so good at what they do, they do not fear getting caught, or that these criminals know even if they do get convicted and sentenced to death they are getting the easy way out. These death row convicts do not have to go to prison and suffer

Many contend that the death penalty is morally impermissible due to some irreversible miscarriages of justices . However, capital punishment can be defended in both consequentialist and deontological terms. Kantian ethics claims that, for exceptionally heinous crimes committed with malice aforethought, the penalty of death is not only morally justifiable but is morally obligatory. Consequentialists can substantiate the use of capital punishment through the claim that the death penalty is more effective than other more moderate punishments in averting the murder of innocents through inducing the fear of consequences in

Elliot Spitzer states, “Our criminal justice system is fallible. We know it, even though we don 't like to admit it. It is fallible despite the best efforts of most within it to do justice. And this fallibility is, at the end of the day, the most compelling, persuasive, and winning argument against a death penalty.” Although the Death Penalty is meant to kill the ones that have murdered, many innocent people have been executed due to the ignorance of facts during trial. Since this has come to me and my partner’s attention, we are resolved that The United States should change its penal code to abolish the death penalty. The Death Penalty is execution following someone’s conviction of murder or any other serious crime. Abolish is to end the observance or effect of. The Penal Code is a set of criminal laws of a particular country, society, etc. Our courts are not steady, which is why we need to abolish the death penalty.

The death penalty is proven to not deter criminals from committing a crime punishable by death. There are many arguments on whether the death penalty should be legal, but the debate boils down to personal morals. The death penalty is immoral. Criminals will act on their drive, with no thoughts about future consequences. The death penalty not only hurts the criminal, but it affects the criminal's family. The family already had to experience what it felt like to see a loved one take an innocent person's life. This causes emotional unnecessary emotional distress for the family and those close to the person on death row. Murdering the criminal will only put the family through even more unnecessary trauma. Furthermore, humans are not pets. The human race should not be able to put others down in the sense of death. It is dehumanizing for the person sentenced to death and the executioner. There should not be a job in the United States where, in the job description, it states that you will kill someone.

Only the most dangerous criminals in the world are faced with society’s ultimate penalty, or at least that is the theory. Capital punishment, commonly referred to as the Death Penalty has been debated for many decades regarding if such a method is ethical. While there are large amounts of supporters for the death penalty as a form of retribution, the process is avoidable financially as taxing for all parties involved. The financial expenses may be better off saved for life imprisonment with an emphasis in restorative justice for victims. Overall, there is unreasonable inefficiency with the capital punishment to justify the taking of another person’s life.

Ernest Van den Haag strongly contends the need for capital punishment in our society in his article. Van den Haag provides a substantial amount of convincing facts and information to support “The Ultimate Punishment”. Van den Haag discusses such topics as maldistribution, deterrence to society, miscarriages of the penalty, and incidental and political issues (cost, relative suffering, and brutalization). The death penalty is indeed the harshest/ultimate punishment a convicted criminal can receive in our society. I agree with Van den Haag’s article. I am in favor of the death penalty system in the United States. Through capital punishment’s determent process, I feel it is a

America’s strategy of capital punishment believes that killing someone actually solves the problem of reducing crime rates, when in reality it is more of a method to avoid the real issue with the criminal justice system. We are killing all these prisoners and not really getting the answers we need. For instance, are we really stopping crime? Also, the death penalty puts innocent lives at risk because of how flawed it is. Since the introduction of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, 138 innocent men and women have been released from Death Row, including some who came within minutes of execution with the death penalty. Therefore, I am against the death penalty and wish for it to be terminated due to the fact that it is morally wrong and has little to no impact when it comes to reducing crimes rates. This makes it practically useless and straight-up stupid; it also distracts us to a point of making us avoid the true ways to actually reduce crime in America.

In addition to eliminating overcrowded jails, Capital punishment is also the best way to keep tax payers content. The death penalty satisfies tax payers because it is a very cost

“The effects of murder cannot be erased by more killing, and the death system prolongs the suffering of victims’ families. It inflicts more pain on families of those on death row, and it is inefficient as it has never shown that it deters

While criminals must be punished for their criminal actions, “legalized murder”, as author Coretta Scott King put it, is immoral. The death penalty is legalizing the very thing that many on death row are charged for, murder. There is a multitude of lawful alternatives, to the death penalty, of reestablishing a better reputation for the criminals. The Constitution has no true right to allow such a felonious form of rehabilitation.

Capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty, is a controversial subject which has been argued for decades due to the ethical decisions involved. People believe the death penalty is the right thing to do and that it is the perfect example of ‘justice’ while others believe that it is immoral and overly expensive. The death penalty is not a logical sentence for criminals, it doesn’t give them the right type of justice and it is immoral.

Punishment by death for people convicted of certain crimes also known as the death penalty is unethical. There are currently 31 states including New Hampshire, in the U.S. with the death penalty and 19 states without. The death penalty is immoral and violates human rights. In some parts of the United States we have a biased criminal justice system which can lead to false an unlawful sentence to death. The death penalty also has irreversible outcomes if proven innocent, it doesn’t lower crime rates, and it is very expensive. The death penalty is just contributing to the cycle of violence, retribution is not the answer.

"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" (Bible). The death penalty seems like a fair execution for inmates who have committed murder. In reality, people need to realize that they're putting the blood of another person on their hands, the death of a murderer will not make a victim return back to life. It makes them as guilty as the person who committed the crime, but the only difference is that they didn't use a weapon. The whole purpose of criminal justice is to prevent crime and rehabilitate convicts. Life in prison allows inmates to change and pay for their crime but the death penalty will just give them an easy way to escape. Capital punishment brings no benefits and should be abolished because of its cost, discrimination and condemns who were innocent.

Capital crime is something that is meant for people that are found guilty of committing a serious crime, such as murder, rape, or theft. These are offences that should not be taken lightly but by killing the offender, the government is carrying about the action that they are trying to prevent. Also, the wrong person may be sentenced to death. After this person is executed, there is obviously nothing that can be done for the terrible mistake to be reversed. The death penalty should be abolished because it is more expensive than life imprisonment, numerous innocent people are condemned to death row, and it is cruel and inhumane.