The Pros And Cons Of The Death Penalty
The death penalty is the highest level of exoneration in the United States Justice System. It is used for capital punishment in which society has the power to take someone’s life depending on the severity of the crime. The death penalty is a highly controversial topic that has depicted the way one may or may not think a menace to society should be punished. One might reason that a harsher and more effective punishment would be sentencing someone to life in prison without the possibility of parole, while another could make the argument that sentencing that person to death is more suitable. Perspectives on the topic take hold on the legal considerations, religious views, social issues, and deterrence and retribution in relation to the death
…show more content…
penalty. One of the most prominent views that opposes the death penalty includes whether sentencing an individual to death is unconstitutional. A source from the Stanford Law Review published a journal titled “Public Opinion and the Death Penalty” by Neil Vidmart, which discussed the legal considerations of the history of the death penalty in court case hearings by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court case of Furman v. Georgia in 1972 came to the decision that the death penalty violated the eight-amendment that no cruel or unusual punishment will be inflicted upon. This is one of many occurrences that the Supreme Court has made it difficult to come to a collective decision to decide how the criminal justice system will take its stance towards the death penalty. A dissenting opinion made by Justice Brennan of the US Supreme Court in July 2, 1976 in Gregg v. Georgia explains why the death penalty violates the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution. Brennan states, “Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment... The fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death is that it treats members of the human race as nonhumans…I therefore would hold, that death is today a cruel and unusual punishment” (Brenan). Brennan discusses that no matter the severity of the crime, one doesn’t have the right to take the individuals life away. The 8th amendment was brought to question by other Justices in relation to the death penalty as a form of capital punishment and has been employed throughout American early history. Chief Justice Earl Warren stated in the decision of Trop v. Dulles in 1958, “The amendment draws its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that marks progress of a society” (Warren). The constitutionality is major objection on whether the death penalty should be abolished.
When it comes to the deliberation of taking someone’s life, there are strong ethical and moral values that an individual is affiliated with when it comes time to make their decision.
For example, each person has their own view towards different religious and faith practices, which makes it highly subjective. There is room in each church for honest differences concerning the use of capital punishment. A statement from the “Catholic Church” by Pope John Paul II in June 21st, 2001 at the Declaration of the Holy See to the First World Congress on the Death Penalty detailed, “The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty... The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity” (Paul, para. 4). As society has sustained its belief on the debate about the death penalty, a growing number of religious organizations have made their opinion concerning the matter. The Ten Commandments, a set religious principles which play a profound role in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity that relates to the ethics of each worshiper, is one of the earliest opinions on Christianity’s views towards the death penalty. But what comes to question is what society should do if one violates the commandment “Thou Shall Not Kill.” Does the government have the right to handle this matter or does God? However, a refuted declaration from Carl F.H. Henry stated at the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000 approved a resolution to the claim that “Therefore, be it resolved, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention...support the fair and equitable use of capital punishment by civil magistrates as a legitimate form of punishment for those guilty of murder or treasonous acts that result in death" (Henry, para. 9). There isn’t a straight answer that
religious groups have towards the use of capital punishment, which makes it such a strong controversial topic.
The underlying social issues of the death penalty is the views that sentencing to death is highly costly and the effectiveness of the Justice System to be certain one isn’t wrongfully convicted. There have been great doubts on whether sentencing a criminal to life in prison without the possibility of parole is cheaper for the state than have that individual sit on death row. Statistics show that the average time between a criminal being convicted to being executed (death row) has been 15.8 years; this number has been steadily rising since 1984 when it was 6.2 years (Bureau of Justice Statistics). An article written by Jolie McLaughlin titled “The Price of Justice: Interest-Convergence, Cost, and the Anti-Death Penalty Movement”, published in the Northwestern University Law Review effectively explained the cost associated with capital punishment. McLaughlin throughout this article emphasizes that anti-death movements have rather paid less attention towards the moral arguments associated with the death penalty and spent more time strengthening their argument by focusing on the cost and inefficiencies. The New Jerseyans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (NJADP) is an anti-death affiliation that has conducted a fiscal study explained by McLaughlin that by abolishing the death penalty, New Jersey would save more than $11 million per year (Northwestern University Law Review). This money saved could be used for valuable resources to the citizens such as improved health care, transportation, etc. The reason this number is so high is because of the costs associated with having capital murder trials. A study conducted by the Indiana Criminal Law Commission and published in the “Oregon’s Death Penalty: A Cost Analysis” written by Aliza Kaplan in 2016 found that “a death penalty prosecution and incarceration through execution was approximately 35 percent more expensive than a life- without-parole prosecution and incarceration though natural death.”
Throughout history, there has been many scenarios in which people have been wrongfully convicted of a crime they did not commit. A source from the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology published an article written by David Kaye titled “DNA Evidence: Probability, Population Genetics, and the Courts” in 1993. Kaye details that it wasn’t until the emergence of DNA testing in courts in 1986 until the number of wrongfully convicted individuals has dramatically decreased (Kaye, 102). A statement from Ernie Chambers, Nebraska State Senator, on a floor debate on April 16th, 2015 states, “Over 150 people in the last few years have been taken off death row because they were innocent…when you have this many people conclusively proved by DNA evidence to be actually innocent, there is no escaping the conclusion that innocent people have been executed” (Chambers). The argument that Chambers made is that there are many mistakes within the US Justice System, and jeopardizing one’s life isn’t acceptable. There is always a strong possibility that one may be wrongfully convicted of a crime they may have not committed. This therefore means that the higher the rate a state issues death verdicts, the greater the probability of a life being sparred due to error.
The act of taking one’s life can only be justified if it effectively deters crime. This goes to believe that if the death penalty does in-fact deter crime, then death sentences should have a resulting effect towards decreasing homicide rates. An article published by the South Bend Tribune in 2002, authored by Darrin Belousek describes that expenditures from the government shows no lasting impact towards the decrease of crime throughout America. Belousek incorporates information throughout this article conducted by the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics which states, “from 1955-1999, states without the death penalty had a 45 percent lower average homicide rate than states with the death penalty. Further, 47 percent of death penalty states had homicide rates above the national average, compared to only 17 percent of non-death penalty states” (Belousek). Overall, this evidence that exemplifies the fact that sentencing someone to life in prison is a whole lot more effective than sentencing someone to death. A refuting claim to this subject is best exemplified by a speech made by David Muhlhausen on the Judiciary of the United States Senate in 2007. Muhlhausen supports his claims by describing the effects that Deterrence Theory has on everyday Americans. “Criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals rationally maximize their own self-interest subject to constraints that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere…Thus, deterrence theory provides a basis for analyzing how capital punishment should influence murder rates” (Muhlhausen). However, the subject of the deterrence and retribution of the implementation of the death penalty has been refuted and validated by both sides of argument, which makes it difficult to come to a concrete consensus.
In conclusion, I take the stance that the death penalty should be abolished by all 50 states in America. This is because of the unconstitutionality of capital punishment, the vast amounts of expenditures of resources, and the credible research that shows that the death penalty doesn’t in-fact deter crime. A more efficient and effective form of punishment should be focused more on sentencing a criminal to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Taking someone’s life is wrong, and I strongly agree that there must be a form of punishment towards heinous crimes. However, when it comes to someone deciding the fate of whether someone should live or die, nobody should ever have the power to make that decision.
penalty. One of the most prominent views that opposes the death penalty includes whether sentencing an individual to death is unconstitutional. A source from the Stanford Law Review published a journal titled “Public Opinion and the Death Penalty” by Neil Vidmart, which discussed the legal considerations of the history of the death penalty in court case hearings by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court case of Furman v. Georgia in 1972 came to the decision that the death penalty violated the eight-amendment that no cruel or unusual punishment will be inflicted upon. This is one of many occurrences that the Supreme Court has made it difficult to come to a collective decision to decide how the criminal justice system will take its stance towards the death penalty. A dissenting opinion made by Justice Brennan of the US Supreme Court in July 2, 1976 in Gregg v. Georgia explains why the death penalty violates the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution. Brennan states, “Death is not only an unusually severe punishment, but it serves no penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment... The fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death is that it treats members of the human race as nonhumans…I therefore would hold, that death is today a cruel and unusual punishment” (Brenan). Brennan discusses that no matter the severity of the crime, one doesn’t have the right to take the individuals life away. The 8th amendment was brought to question by other Justices in relation to the death penalty as a form of capital punishment and has been employed throughout American early history. Chief Justice Earl Warren stated in the decision of Trop v. Dulles in 1958, “The amendment draws its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that marks progress of a society” (Warren). The constitutionality is major objection on whether the death penalty should be abolished.
When it comes to the deliberation of taking someone’s life, there are strong ethical and moral values that an individual is affiliated with when it comes time to make their decision.
For example, each person has their own view towards different religious and faith practices, which makes it highly subjective. There is room in each church for honest differences concerning the use of capital punishment. A statement from the “Catholic Church” by Pope John Paul II in June 21st, 2001 at the Declaration of the Holy See to the First World Congress on the Death Penalty detailed, “The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty... The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity” (Paul, para. 4). As society has sustained its belief on the debate about the death penalty, a growing number of religious organizations have made their opinion concerning the matter. The Ten Commandments, a set religious principles which play a profound role in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity that relates to the ethics of each worshiper, is one of the earliest opinions on Christianity’s views towards the death penalty. But what comes to question is what society should do if one violates the commandment “Thou Shall Not Kill.” Does the government have the right to handle this matter or does God? However, a refuted declaration from Carl F.H. Henry stated at the Southern Baptist Convention in 2000 approved a resolution to the claim that “Therefore, be it resolved, that the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention...support the fair and equitable use of capital punishment by civil magistrates as a legitimate form of punishment for those guilty of murder or treasonous acts that result in death" (Henry, para. 9). There isn’t a straight answer that
religious groups have towards the use of capital punishment, which makes it such a strong controversial topic.
The underlying social issues of the death penalty is the views that sentencing to death is highly costly and the effectiveness of the Justice System to be certain one isn’t wrongfully convicted. There have been great doubts on whether sentencing a criminal to life in prison without the possibility of parole is cheaper for the state than have that individual sit on death row. Statistics show that the average time between a criminal being convicted to being executed (death row) has been 15.8 years; this number has been steadily rising since 1984 when it was 6.2 years (Bureau of Justice Statistics). An article written by Jolie McLaughlin titled “The Price of Justice: Interest-Convergence, Cost, and the Anti-Death Penalty Movement”, published in the Northwestern University Law Review effectively explained the cost associated with capital punishment. McLaughlin throughout this article emphasizes that anti-death movements have rather paid less attention towards the moral arguments associated with the death penalty and spent more time strengthening their argument by focusing on the cost and inefficiencies. The New Jerseyans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty (NJADP) is an anti-death affiliation that has conducted a fiscal study explained by McLaughlin that by abolishing the death penalty, New Jersey would save more than $11 million per year (Northwestern University Law Review). This money saved could be used for valuable resources to the citizens such as improved health care, transportation, etc. The reason this number is so high is because of the costs associated with having capital murder trials. A study conducted by the Indiana Criminal Law Commission and published in the “Oregon’s Death Penalty: A Cost Analysis” written by Aliza Kaplan in 2016 found that “a death penalty prosecution and incarceration through execution was approximately 35 percent more expensive than a life- without-parole prosecution and incarceration though natural death.”
Throughout history, there has been many scenarios in which people have been wrongfully convicted of a crime they did not commit. A source from the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology published an article written by David Kaye titled “DNA Evidence: Probability, Population Genetics, and the Courts” in 1993. Kaye details that it wasn’t until the emergence of DNA testing in courts in 1986 until the number of wrongfully convicted individuals has dramatically decreased (Kaye, 102). A statement from Ernie Chambers, Nebraska State Senator, on a floor debate on April 16th, 2015 states, “Over 150 people in the last few years have been taken off death row because they were innocent…when you have this many people conclusively proved by DNA evidence to be actually innocent, there is no escaping the conclusion that innocent people have been executed” (Chambers). The argument that Chambers made is that there are many mistakes within the US Justice System, and jeopardizing one’s life isn’t acceptable. There is always a strong possibility that one may be wrongfully convicted of a crime they may have not committed. This therefore means that the higher the rate a state issues death verdicts, the greater the probability of a life being sparred due to error.
The act of taking one’s life can only be justified if it effectively deters crime. This goes to believe that if the death penalty does in-fact deter crime, then death sentences should have a resulting effect towards decreasing homicide rates. An article published by the South Bend Tribune in 2002, authored by Darrin Belousek describes that expenditures from the government shows no lasting impact towards the decrease of crime throughout America. Belousek incorporates information throughout this article conducted by the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics which states, “from 1955-1999, states without the death penalty had a 45 percent lower average homicide rate than states with the death penalty. Further, 47 percent of death penalty states had homicide rates above the national average, compared to only 17 percent of non-death penalty states” (Belousek). Overall, this evidence that exemplifies the fact that sentencing someone to life in prison is a whole lot more effective than sentencing someone to death. A refuting claim to this subject is best exemplified by a speech made by David Muhlhausen on the Judiciary of the United States Senate in 2007. Muhlhausen supports his claims by describing the effects that Deterrence Theory has on everyday Americans. “Criminals are no different from law-abiding people. Criminals rationally maximize their own self-interest subject to constraints that they face in the marketplace and elsewhere…Thus, deterrence theory provides a basis for analyzing how capital punishment should influence murder rates” (Muhlhausen). However, the subject of the deterrence and retribution of the implementation of the death penalty has been refuted and validated by both sides of argument, which makes it difficult to come to a concrete consensus.
In conclusion, I take the stance that the death penalty should be abolished by all 50 states in America. This is because of the unconstitutionality of capital punishment, the vast amounts of expenditures of resources, and the credible research that shows that the death penalty doesn’t in-fact deter crime. A more efficient and effective form of punishment should be focused more on sentencing a criminal to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Taking someone’s life is wrong, and I strongly agree that there must be a form of punishment towards heinous crimes. However, when it comes to someone deciding the fate of whether someone should live or die, nobody should ever have the power to make that decision.