The Pros And Cons Of Death 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?

Many counties complain about the high costs and the financial difficulty it causes. The document, What Politicians Don’t Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty, written by Richard C. Dieter, executive director of The Death Penalty Information Center states, “Georgia is laying off 900 correctional personnel and New Jersey has had to dismiss 500 police officers. Yet these same states, and many others like them, are pouring millions of dollars into the death penalty with no resultant reduction in crime.” These cost of these trial are not only immense amounts of money to the local governments, but also people’s jobs and lives. It is an unnecessary process that millions of dollars are being poured into each

The death penalty wastes the money of the tax payers and is ineffective in stopping crime (Delcour). The cost that it takes to maintain the death penalty could be used for much more important statewide matters. Many law enforcement officials in states with the death penalty claim the money used toward the death penalty is a complete waste of tax dollars (Delcour). An example being, the opinion of law enforcement in states with the death penalty, “The cost of one execution is significantly higher than life imprisonment without parole. At a time when state budgets are slim and cutbacks are the norm, Delcour maintains that the high cost of the death penalty system makes little sense—especially when so many law enforcement officials consider it an ineffective deterrent against homicides and the least efficient use of taxpayer dollars” (Delcour). There are much less expensive ways to punish an inmate that will have a better effect on crime in those states, and cost less. There are greater causes that the money used on the death penalty can be used for. Education is one of the main things that the millions spent on capital punishment could be used for productively. The needs of millions of people in a state are far more important than the execution of a extremely small amount of people. A life-without-parole system would be much better than the current execution system (Delcour). The small amount of

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 has been battered backwards and forwards by the questions of abolishment and replacement, with mixed results. There seems to a jagged line in the sand on where people stand, and due to the continuous use today (albeit at a slower clip than in the past), it is still very much a prevalent topic of punishment. Those who argue for it believe that taking it away will take away a great deterrent, that families find peace, and that those who commit egregious crimes deserve only death. Anything less “would fail to do justice because the penalty – presumably a long period in prison – would be grossly disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime” (“Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments,” 2016). Those who don’t believe in this punishment as a modern-day, useful tool of deterrence and punishment for crime, continuously counter these arguments, as well as any others, daily at every turn. Though many states have made it illegal, others placing moratoriums or refusals to use it, the death penalty can still be found active today. But why can’t it be replaced with life without parole, and it if can why should it?

The death penalty isn’t anywhere on my list” ("New Voices” par. 5). Abbott, who oversees an entire police department says that with $250 million, he can reduce crime without the use of the death penalty. Not even the people arresting and charging criminals, support using millions of dollars to have them executed. This money is coming from their family’s income and could be used to benefit their loved ones directly. Essentially, life without parole costs way less than execution and, a person will eventually die for free in prison. Next, capital cases cause taxpayers to pay approximately $90,000 more per death row prisoner as opposed to prisoners in regular confinement. By putting people on life without parole, taxpayers save millions in taxes and eliminate the possibility of an irreversible mistake.

States like New York and New Jersey repealed capital punishment after their citizens spent over $170 million on cases where no executions were made, according to a study done by Richard Dieter. The money could have been spent elsewhere, like making public education environments more comfortable or buying more supplies for public service jobs, like the police force and the firefighters.

The cost for one inmate on death row is considerably higher than two inmates sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. One must consider, when a person is on death row, besides the countless years spent there, he or she has infinite access to attorney representation. Based on the information obtained through personal research, I maintain taxpayer money would be well spent and could be allocated to more important areas, if the judicial system sentenced fewer individuals to capital punishment or abolished the process altogether. Taxpayers are not saving money by placing convicts on death row. The amount of dollars spent to house death row inmates and the attorney fees can mount to the excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars at the date of the execution. In addition, Capital punishment has been disproportionately directed at the lower socioeconomic segment of the population. Though contained in character geographically, capital punishment is a forceful feature, a kind of staple meaning, “we are tough on crime” ideology, to those who commit heinous crimes.

An argument in opposition of the death penalty is the cost. The word “cost” is affiliated with more than one meaning. There is the numerical value or the estimate the price of a specific piece, this piece being the death penalty. The other is the moral value which pertains to the victims and criminals emotional thought process. Dealing with the cost aspect first, many states confirm that the cost to put a criminal to death via the death penalty, is substantially more than if the criminal were to have life in prison without parole. Anti-death penalty advocates brought economic arguments to the public’s attention which influenced lawmakers in many states to create legislative bills that eliminate capital punishment. By focusing on the costs and inefficiencies of capital punishment, the anti-death penalty movement has given state policymakers a self-interested reason to abolish capital punishment and save their constituents millions of dollars. (Mclaughlin) As early as the 1980s, people on both sides of the death penalty debate started to become aware of the costs involved in capital punishment compared to life imprisonment. (Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review) Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) show 11 states are now considering abolishing executions, with many legislators citing high costs associated with incarcerating and handling often decades-long appeals by death row inmates. (State Crime)

Have you ever thought of someone murdering a family member? If so would you want them to be on death row? Putting someone on death row creates another murderer which is why the death penalty should NOT be allowed.

The death penalty has been a debatable subject for many years. Violence is only getting worse

One of the most heavily discussed topics today is the death penalty. On one side of the spectrum, many argue that death is the only form of justice for the most heinous crimes. On the other, many argue that it is a pointless waste of time. Recent studies have supported the latter argument. In 2011, states without the death penalty have had 18% less murder rates than states that do enforce it. For the ten years prior, the murder rates in the state without the death penalty have been consistently lower and even, at times, the murder rate in those states have been lower than average (”Deterrence: States Without the Death”). Furthermore, “In New Mexico, according to the legislative finance committee a death penalty case costs approximately $20-25,000, compared to $7-8,000 for a non-death penalty murder case” (de Leon). From a monetary front, the death penalty has been shown to cost more on average than a regular life sentence. Money is being wasted on a service that harms an individual. The death penalty is not an effective form of deterrence because studies have shown that states with the death penalty have higher crime rates, and it provides no form of justice to anyone.

The reality in the 21st century is startlingly different the past few decades have seen the importance’s of public defender systems that in many cases rival some of the best lawyers retained on the low many giant law firms in large cities across America not only provide pro-bono counsel in capital cases, but also offer friendship to lawyers whose sole job is to promote in indigent capital defense. Next who pays the ultimate penalty for crimes? The poor. Who gets the death penalty? The poor. After all the talk that goes on in courtroom getting the gathers in the end when the net is cast out it is the poor people who get the death penalty? It has everything to do with the kind of defense. That’s why you’ll never see a Jerremy Webster on death row. As the saying goes capital punishment means those without the capital get the punishment, And let’s start on doctors at executions and the pros and cons accepting capital punish in the worst way principle means accepting it in practice, whether by the hand of a doctor or

The death penalty produces a great drain on the monetary reserves of this country. "A 1982 New York study estimated the death penalty cost conservatively three times that of life imprisonment." (Freedman 2) Often there are calls to reduce the number of appeals and thus cut the costs incurred after the trial. Yet, death penalty trials cost far more than normal trials and this is where much of the extra cost is incurred. Death penalty trials have two phases, and there are special motions and more questions asked of prospective jurors. There is more prosecution investigation into a death penalty case. Yet, the outcome of most of these trials is a sentence other than death. In addition, 50 percent of the trials that do result in death verdicts have the conviction turned into a lesser sentence on appeal. (Ibid. 2) "In short, even if all post-conviction proceedings following the first appeal were abolished, the death penalty system still would be more expensive than the alternative." (Ibid. 3)

The death penalty is both a relevant and interesting topic of discussion as it serves as both a moral and ethical question, yielding many different and opposing opinions. The topic of the death penalty is one that will produce a multitude of differing opinions, resulting in a lot of interesting debate and conversation at the discussion sections. The death penalty, specifically the use of the electric chair, has brought up a lot of debate in the US, as certain states have gone as far as to ban it altogether, whilst others practice it regularly. The death penalty can be beneficial by helping to handle the overcrowding at prison facilities, as well as providing justice to families of victims. With the continuous advancements in technology, DNA testing has become increasingly more accurate and can effectively decipher whether one is guilty or innocent to avoid executing the wrong person. However, there are many negative associations with the death penalty, many being on the issue of moral standards. Many argue that the use of the death penalty goes against the Bill of Rights violation of “Cruel and unusual punishments”, as the death penalty could be seen as both. Despite the strong moral standings against the death penalty, many are also against it because of its extremely expensive cost. Taxpayers are forced to pay several times more money to place an inmate on death row and execute them, than it would cost to keep the inmate in prison for life. Because of this, many are