The Pros And Cons 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?

The death penalty was established in the eighteenth century BC, two main reasons the death penalty was put into place was with the hope of reducing capital crime because of the result being in death and the believe that criminals who did a crime so bad that qualify for death row did not deserve to live, but that system is no longer believed to be effective anymore. According to U.S Newswire fifty seven percent of police chiefs agreed that the death penalty does little to prevent violent crimes because perpetrators rarely consider the consequences when engaged in violence(2). The death penalty is also ineffective because ninety percent of offenders can not afford an adequate criminal defence lawyer. This shows that only ten percent of offenders are getting the right defence against higher punishments and charges. Some people argue that the death penalty is effective because people who qualify for death row deserve to die, but many can also argue that the death row violates the constitution by using inhuman and crucial punishments. People also use the quote “An eye for an eye” but would anyone really be left on earth if that was the case? Times are different now then they were back in the eighteenth century, slavery was abolished in 1865, segregation was abolished in 1964, why have we not abolished a system that was put into use when segregation and slavery were believed to be

The laws of the land are to protect the innocent and the weak, if we don’t have a consequence for people who commit crimes than what type of world would this be? I believe that the death penalty is morally acceptable. The definition of morality is the principles of right and wrong. To me, this means as humans we can be praised for honorable deeds and should be punished for bad ones. Forfeiting someone’s freedom isn’t the same as forfeiting someone’s life and if someone murders someone, they deserve to forfeit their own life. Morally, incarceration isn’t enough punishment for taking someone’s life, their future and taking them away from their friends and family. I believe capital punishment is an ethically correct deterrent of future murders and acceptable form of punishment for such behavior.

Not only does the death penalty not deter crime but it is also very expensive. The death penalty costs so much because of the appeal process. The appeal process is a very long and expensive process that can go on forever and costs the government millions. Many assume that abolishing the death penalty is wrong because it becomes unfair to the taxpayers because they think the cost is less than that of life in prison without parole. However life in prison is less expensive than the death penalty (Bedau). The death penalty is actually three times more than keeping a prisoner in prison for life without parole (Messerli). Death penalty trials are costly as well. “[S]tudies estimate that death penalty trials cost $1

The death penalty should still be in use to lower the amount of money that the government spends on prisons and their inmates. According to Garmon & John in their

Adversaries of capital punishment have argued time and again differing reasons why the death penalty is a cruel punishment, nevertheless the Supreme Court of the United States has not complied. Individuals argued on this topic on the account that it increases taxpayer revenue, it goes against every religion, innocent people have been executed, and there isn’t any evidence that the death penalty deters crime. The death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment

Death penalty is a just punishment for crimes committed against the rights of life, freedom and safety of victims. Some people are of the opinion that death should be only being justified with death; this gives the idea that the perpetrator of a crime should be

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?

Death is something that a lot of people think about, but do people think about the Death Penalty? Having been given the death penalty means that someone is going to be put to death by a lethal injection or an electric chair; There are more ways, but the injection and the electric chair are the most used. There are many different opinions surrounding the idea of death penalties; which some people think the death penalty should be used more and some believe the complete opposite.

The death penalty has been debated for centuries. Within just America, it dates back all the way to 1608. In an article entitled “History of the Death Penalty” from the website Death Penalty Information Center, it states, “The first recorded execution in the new colonies was that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. Kendall was executed for being a spy for Spain.” So, it is safe to say that the death penalty has been around for a long time, and has been debated by many for just as long. Most people will claim that they are against the death penalty with no reason other than they believe it is immoral and wrong. Those people simply do not know the facts of how the death penalty actually helps the American Justice System. The death penalty prevents overcrowding in prisons, reoffenders, and is cheaper to the taxpayers.

The death penalty is not effective in reducing the amount of crime that occurs in our country. There is no evidence that the death penalty discourages or deters crime. The psychological mindset of a criminal is that they are not capable of thinking of the outcome or consequences of their actions when they are committing a crime. The criminals who commit these crimes obviously are not in a normal state of mind, and do not think of outcomes logically or like most people do. Criminals most likely do not sit around thinking, “I won’t commit this murder if I face the death penalty.” Therefore, the use of the death penalty does not help reduce crime, so why use it?

During the year of 1608, the first recorded execution took place, killing Captain George Kendall. Since that moment, as the United States of America expanded, the death penalty became part of the law. Killing 1465 criminals since 1796, the death penalty has kept numerous crimes from happening. The death penalty is supported by the victim of the crime’s family, follows the “eye for an eye” rule, is a deterrent of crimes and should not be abolished.

Death is the most mortifying thing almost everyone is afraid of, including criminals. Death penalties not only affect the criminal, but it also affects the state by its great expense. Sentencing someone to death is an unnatural and cruel ability the law has over people. Also, innocent people can be put on the death row. To sum up, death penalties should no longer be allowed because they are highly expensive, they are a cruel way to end someone’s life, and some people may be falsely accused, though they are just following the jurisdiction system.

Many opponents of the death penalty say that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and therefore it violates the Constitution. As was stated earlier, the recipient of the death penalty is treated humanely and is not tortured in any way, shape, or form. After the anesthetic is administered, the person feels no pain; the only part of the process that could be considered painful is when the IV is inserted, but that is done in hospitals on a daily basis and no one is calling it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the death penalty as constitutional in cases they have presided over. (Death Penalty Information Center) In the case of Furman v. Georgia the court stated, “The Punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the Constitution. It implies there is something more inhumane and barbaric than the mere extinguishment of life” (Death Penalty Information Center) The Supreme Court has not found the death penalty to be unconstitutional, and therefore this argument for abolition is

Death penalty should be scrapped because it can lead to the execution of innocent people. The justice system is bound to make mistakes and so, the accused people should be given a chance to appeal, and prove their innocence other than being murdered because of mistakes made by judges. There are many cases whereby individuals are imprisoned and