Category: Death Penalty

Death Penalty for Minors: Critical Essay on Pros and Cons

The Declaration of Rights Article 7 states that all are equal before the law and are entitled to no discrimination and equal protection of the law. Additionally, Article 8 states that everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. However, the criminal justice system in the United States has proven in numerous ways to diverge from these that it claims to stand for, first in the evidential prejudice against people of color, in this case, African Americans as well as the death penalty in the United States.

It is no secret that the United States’ justice system is preputial against people of color and, most notably, the African American community. While there is not so much evidence that racial profiling is a blanket issue across the United States, there have been valid reasons to believe that its indeed a menace. Evidently, the rate of incarceration for black people is higher than for other races in America. Arrest, conviction, and sentencing are also done differently for different these communities. For instance, African Americans were 37.5% of the total incarcerated population in America out of an overall population at that time of less than 13% of black people in the country. What was more astonishing was that one in every 33 black men in the same year was in prison while a significantly lower I out of 205 white men was in prison. This disproportion stands out as a red flag in the justice system.

Furthermore, several attempts have been made that explain this disparity, with many suggesting that police officers, who primarily up until recently are white, tend to over-arrest African Americans and ignore criminals that are white. The fact that there are more arrests of

African Americans create the negative illusion that most crimes are carried out by African Americans, which is not valid. This thinking has, in turn, influenced the justice system, This belief is not only held by black people but also white folk who believe that the justice system works against the black community, In a statement made in May 1999, Justice Sandra O’Connor stated that black people believe that they are treated worse than other races and that many white people believe the same as well. Therefore, inclusive action must be taken to eradicate this racial bias in the system.

The same issue also extends to juvenile cases where young black folks are overrepresented in juvenile courts. For instance, in the year 2016, 90% of the juvenile cases recorded in New Jersey were from minority communities, with most being African Americans. These cases were of back people that committed crimes as minors but were being tried as adults. This, therefore, demonstrates a slowness in the justice system to deal with cases involving the black minority. This is contrary to the Sixth Amendment, which is intended to protect people accused of a crime, stating the accused has a right to a speedy and public trial, trial by an impartial jury which should be made up of jurors from the state in which the crime allegedly happened. Additionally, the accused has a right to call their witnesses as well as face the witness of the plaintiff face to face. The accused also must be informed of the exact charges against them.

Position Paper about Death Penalty

The death penalty is the punishment of execution, administered to anybody legally convicted of a capital crime. This penalty needs to be completed to a person who is using prohibited drugs, to human rights, and many more.

This is a frequent difficulty debated by way of the senators of the Philippines or even around the world. Death penalty pursuits to execute a man or woman who is committed as a suspect of killing and rape which is against human rights but these penalties as properly is against human rights.

All the households of raped victims and the victims of injustice killings are for sure in desire this sort of penalty. But how about the household of the accused suspect of such a crime, possibly the accused suspect is being accused of a crime that he did not do.

I desire to know, no, each human beings in this world want to recognize why this sort of punishment has to be approved. What will this penalty contribute to lessening inhuman crimes, while this punishment is additionally inhuman?

Bryan Luna Representative Crispin Beltrán says, in the cutting-edge state, the gadget of justice in the country is fit to raise out the demise penalty. There are too many flaws in the justice system, and the stability is often tipped in the desire of the wealthy and the influential. The poor, being unable to pay for the services of accurate lawyers, are frequently left at the mercy of unscrupulous judges or to the weaknesses of the gadget itself.

According to Mr. Beltrán, the negative cannot come up with the money to have desirable lawyers that may additionally shield himself from accusations of heinous crimes he did but suppose first the reasons why these unlucky people commit such heinous crimes.

Most humans who experience poverty, no work, and alcohol and drug abuse are all related in explaining why people commit crimes; rape, consuming and pusher of illegal drugs, and other crimes that are against human rights.

My point right here is, these people can make no crimes that are inhuman if these human beings have matters to do, like work. If the government solely supplies these humans with something to be busy with, they will now not commit such heinous crimes.

There are many techniques for the death penalty, however, it is nonetheless inhuman. Otherwise, if the death penalty will be not approved, where is the justice in our country? I recognize that the loss of life penalty is towards human rights, however, how about those humans that can be a sufferer of rape, and this possible suspect of heinous crimes can have a better life.

I, as one of the human beings of the country of the Philippines, am no longer towards the loss of life penalty. If This is the sole and feasible way to reduce the number of criminals, to make them worry about making crimes. But I solely wish that the present-day government will assist every human that resides in this country so that we can stop the unexpected range of people that may additionally be done to such penalty. Support in a way of, giving some lectures each and every month or possibly as soon as a year of what are the one hand work a character can enter to be busy with, free scholarship for some unlucky teenagers that can’t manage to pay for to enter any school.

The death penalty is each human’s right, yet we need to think of the advantageous effects these can carry on us.

Why Is Life in Prison Better Than Death Penalty: Argumentative Essay

In 2019, 657 offenders were executed, Why? How? What has made us come to this?

You must be thinking how is this even legal Well this is the sad and harsh reality, this is Capital Punishment known as the Death Penalty. This is a form of punishment given by execution to prisoners, this is also a form of murder. Aren’t there any other ways to punish someone without taking a life away, for a mistake once done? This can be given for Murder, Kidnapping, Espionage, and Arson and these, are only some of the many crimes that can be given the Death Penalty Worldwide. This is not only cruel but inhumane and must be stopped.

The Death Penalty originated back in Medieval Europe, to punish anyone for the wrongdoings they committed. Back in the time when Henry VIII ruled 72,000 were executed, including witches that were allegedly executed in Europe. This is where it all went wrong!

The Death Penalty started to evolve in America, since its recent colonisation in 1584. Then an Italian Criminologist, Cesare Beccaria proposed the idea to completely abolish the Death Penalty. With the use of other influential people at the time, such as Charles Dickens.

I will be giving an insight into why I believe the Death Penalty should be abolished, and how we should change the Justice System, to reintegrate prisoners back into life.

Every single one of us in this room has made a mistake before, but you could make one silly mistake and it could cost you your life. How is that fair?

Luckily Over 70% of countries worldwide have abolished the Death Penalty. Including the UK and all European Countries, except Belarus and Russia. As these European Countries use the protocol of, the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council Of Europe. These countries realize other forms of action must take place instead. As no lives can be taken back. This is because by killing murderers has not proved that it will stop other people from committing similar crimes.

Compared to the USA which has a higher rate of violent crimes, that only makes society more brutal.

For example, Halden Prison in Norway holds some of the most notorious and high-profile inmates. These inmates have committed serious crimes. Seeing that there is no Death Penalty, the maximum year’s sentence is 21 years, even for committing murder.

Halden wants to help prisoners get back to life once they get out, treating inmates with respect as if they are still people. This prison has the lowest reoffending rate of 20% after two years, compared to the USA with 48%. In America, there is the massive issue of mass incarceration, not treating prisoners as human, and giving them the basic rights they deserve even though they are criminals, and have once made a bad decision in their life.

Prisoners that are waiting to be executed are put on Death Row. Lethal Injection ‘Gas Chambers’ The Electric Chair, are all ways to end an offender’s life, in a blink. All of these methods are completely cruel and inhumane.

One of these ways is being killed by lethal injection can cause a painful death, not only violating human rights, to have the right to die peacefully. However this should not even be happening in the first place, instead we could be giving prisoners life with no parole. This way prisoners can rehabilitate themselves in the prison walls, instead of another life gone.

To keep a person without the Death Penalty is around 740,000 dollars compared to keeping someone on Death Row for 1.26 million dollars. Instead, we should give prisoners rehabilitation, and programs to help bring them on track to a better life.

This is partly because of the mass incarceration issues, as the Death Penalty is being used to seek revenge, as a lot of people want the Death Penalty to, get back at the offender’s wrongdoings.

Some of the victim’s families might think executing the offender is an alternative, and the Death Penalty should be sought out. HOWEVER, THIS IS WRONG! If a prisoner is in life knowing they can never get out and can’t get parole, this is a way to help prisoners do more with their life.

As a way for their actions instead of being executed, adding on to go through the process of Execution for the family, is excruciating. Which makes it even worse for everyone, whereas life without parole and restitution could work.

Restitution is making prisoners work and the money earnt will go to the victim’s family, where the criminal won’t be a threat to society instead, as he or she is in prison for life. Instead of just killing criminals they won’t have time to reform, from their crime.

A Jewish Philosopher Maimonides once said It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death

The Death Penalty is, cruel, and barbaric by taking lives, as well as waiting for the process causing anxiety and fear in the offenders. Including if the execution will actually go out and happen.

Over 4.1 % have been executed in the past and found innocent. Now take a minute to think about how the system has failed all of those people. For example, Troy Davis was accused of shooting a police officer in 1989, when forensic testing was not at the level, it is today. As well as witnesses claiming he did not commit the crime, which goes to show how the system can manipulate a person so easily.

Troy Davis’s last words were, I am innocent, I did not hold the gun’ Troy Davis was black and many people like him were subjected because they were a different race from everyone else.

42% of African American people make up the majority of the Death Row population. 35% of these people are executed. These people are seen as worse at killing a white person than vice versa.

This inmate would be treated differently, so banning the Death Penalty means we don’t have these problems, and prisoners can all be treated the same. Without judging their race, or any other factors about them. Instead trying to help prisoners to rehabilitate them.

At the time when the inmate commits the crime, these offenders might be poor and cannot afford a lawyer to get a fair trial, often. During these trials, people’s backgrounds and circumstances have not been taken into account.

5-10% of these offenders have mental illnesses such as Schizophrenia and intellectual disabilities. Schizophrenia is when people hallucinate, which can affect them to do bad things, such as making a stupid mistake or a crime.

So when questioned they will mostly give false confessions, because they are in such a bad state and are pressured by the police. However, when having the trial a lot of these inmates do not understand what is going on.

Instead of killing them, we should be educating and helping them. Now offenders with a background of mental illnesses can not be executed, and this shouldn’t just apply to them but anyone, no matter the situation.

Like Maimonides once said, It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death One mistake and everything is over, now this must stop and we can all help to make a change, to stop the Death Penalty.

Death Penalty for Juveniles: Discursive Essay

The death penalty has long been a contentious issue in society, raising profound moral, ethical, and legal questions. Among the numerous debates surrounding capital punishment, the question of whether juveniles should be subjected to the death penalty stands as one of the most polarizing. The imposition of the death penalty on juveniles elicits concerns about justice, human rights, and the potential for rehabilitation.

One of the primary arguments against the death penalty for juveniles is rooted in the notion of justice. Critics contend that juveniles, due to their underdeveloped cognitive abilities and limited life experiences, should not be held to the same moral and legal standards as adults. The concept of proportionality in punishment suggests that the severity of the penalty should be commensurate with the offender’s level of culpability. Applying the death penalty to juveniles ignores their potential for reform and rehabilitation, emphasizing punishment over rehabilitation.

Furthermore, proponents of abolishing the death penalty for juveniles point to international human rights norms. Organizations like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child assert that the execution of individuals under the age of 18 constitutes a violation of human rights. Such norms reflect a global consensus on the need to protect the vulnerable and impressionable minds of young individuals, as well as to offer them an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The argument against the death penalty for juveniles is also based on the growing body of scientific research that highlights the developmental differences between adolescents and adults. Neuroscientific studies reveal that the adolescent brain is still evolving, with areas responsible for impulse control, risk assessment, and decision-making not fully developed. This biological reality calls into question the idea of juveniles possessing the same level of moral culpability as adults, thus challenging the ethical basis for their execution.

Another critical concern revolves around the potential for wrongful convictions. The justice system is not immune to errors, and the finality of the death penalty leaves no room for correcting mistakes. Given the vulnerability of juvenile defendants to manipulation, misinformation, and inadequate legal representation, the risk of wrongful convictions is heightened. The irreversible nature of capital punishment makes it a perilous option when dealing with juvenile offenders.

Nevertheless, proponents of retaining the death penalty for juveniles argue that some crimes are so heinous and the offenders so incorrigible that the ultimate punishment is warranted. They contend that the age of the offender should not serve as an absolute barrier against capital punishment, especially when dealing with individuals who have committed acts of extreme violence or terrorism. Additionally, proponents argue that the possibility of the death penalty may act as a deterrent against particularly serious crimes committed by juveniles.

In conclusion, the debate over the death penalty for juveniles hinges on fundamental questions of justice, human rights, and the potential for rehabilitation. The arguments against executing juveniles rest on the principles of proportionality, international human rights norms, scientific understanding of brain development, and the risk of wrongful convictions. As society continues to evolve and our understanding of juvenile offenders deepens, the debate on this issue remains complex and multifaceted. Balancing the need for justice with a commitment to the well-being and potential for reform of young individuals remains a central challenge in this ongoing discourse.

Informative Essay about Death Penalty

Introduction:

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is a highly debated and controversial topic. This informative essay aims to provide an overview of the death penalty, including its historical background, various methods of execution, arguments for and against its use, and its implications on society.

Historical Background:

The use of the death penalty dates back to ancient civilizations, where it was often employed as a form of punishment for severe crimes. Over time, different societies developed their own methods of execution, including hanging, beheading, firing squad, lethal injection, and electric chair. The application and acceptance of the death penalty have varied across cultures and time periods.

Methods of Execution:

Throughout history, several methods of execution have been utilized. Traditional methods, such as hanging and firing squad, have been largely replaced by more “humane” methods, including lethal injection. However, concerns have been raised about the effectiveness and painlessness of these methods, leading to ongoing debates about their ethical implications.

Arguments For the Death Penalty:

Deterrence: Proponents argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent against heinous crimes. The fear of the ultimate punishment is believed to discourage potential criminals from committing violent acts, thereby protecting society.

Retribution and Justice: Supporters assert that capital punishment provides a sense of justice and closure for the victims’ families. They argue that certain crimes deserve the most severe punishment to balance the scales of justice.

Cost and Resources: Advocates claim that the death penalty can be more cost-effective than lengthy imprisonment. They argue that executing convicted criminals eliminates the need for prolonged incarceration, reducing the strain on prison systems and taxpayers.

Arguments Against the Death Penalty:

Human Rights and Ethics: Opponents argue that the death penalty violates the fundamental human right to life and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. They contend that the state should not have the power to take a person’s life, regardless of the crime committed.

Potential for Error and Irreversibility: Critics highlight the possibility of wrongful convictions and the irreversibility of the death penalty. Numerous cases have emerged of innocent individuals being wrongly sentenced to death, raising concerns about the fallibility of the justice system.

Inequality and Bias: The death penalty is often criticized for its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities and individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Studies have shown racial and socioeconomic disparities in its application, suggesting systemic biases.

Implications and Alternatives:

The use of the death penalty has significant implications for society. Its application raises questions about the value placed on human life, the effectiveness of deterrence, and the potential for a flawed justice system. Many countries and states have abolished or placed a moratorium on the death penalty, opting for alternative forms of punishment such as life imprisonment without parole.

Conclusion:

The death penalty is a complex and contentious issue that raises profound ethical, legal, and societal considerations. While some argue for its use as a deterrent and a form of justice, others emphasize its potential for error, its violation of human rights, and its unequal application. As public opinion continues to evolve, it is important to engage in informed discussions about the death penalty and explore alternative approaches to justice that prioritize rehabilitation, fairness, and the preservation of human life.

Rogerian Argument Essay on the Death Penalty

The question as to whether whole life sentences with no possibility of parole are morally superior to The Death Penalty is relatively new but of the utmost importance. For most of human history, almost all punishments for crimes didn’t involve prison but instead mutilation and/or death, especially the sort of crimes that we now give out whole life sentences for; however now that The Death Penalty has been abolished in the UK, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (which should be assumed as what I’m talking about when I refer to whole life sentences from now on) is the harshest sentence we can give. In England, Wales, and Northern Ireland the whole life sentence is a specific punishment while in Scotland the judge can effectively hand out a whole life sentence due to the option of an indefinite prison sentence where parole is set outside of the criminal’s probable life; however, in all British legal systems, a whole life sentence can only be handed out when the crime(s) committed is particularly horrifying, mostly involving the murder of a particularly terrible sort. People being sentenced to life in prison is very common across the rest of the world as well, with most countries having such a punishment within their laws. The primary reason the UK and many other nations have abolished The Death Penalty is because of moral concerns and the fact that whole-life sentences can act as an alternative; however the moral superiority of whole-life sentences isn’t self-evident and since its the most extreme punishment our government can give people now it’s very important to discuss whether its better or not, which I will do in this essay.

The most common argument for whole-life sentences is that they’re like The Death Penalty in many good ways but lack the risk involved with killing someone. This is primarily argued in the sense that the criminal is no longer a threat to the public, however, they also don’t have to be killed; sparing the government from having to kill someone and eliminating the possibility of a wrongful conviction ending with an innocent being killed. This means that the government isn’t required to have the power to kill someone who’s not an active threat like with The Death Penalty (decreasing the chances of tyranny) and that the complicated moral and legal situation where a court has killed an innocent never has to reappear. This argument could be countered by referencing the fact that even if they haven’t been killed, the wrongfully convicted person could still spend much of their life in prison due to the court, which means the innocent would still be facing a terrible punishment. While it is true that wrongful convictions can’t be avoided unless how much evidence is required to convict someone changes, death is still an infinitely worse punishment than whole life imprisonment; since unlike lost time, death can never be made up for. It’s for this reason that I agree with this argument if we are to presuppose that some people are beyond redemption like whole life sentences and The Death Penalty does.

The most common argument against whole-life sentences is that they do not offer a chance at redemption, making them essentially longer and arguably crueler versions of The Death Penalty; which raises the question of whether people should just use The Death Penalty instead. This is a view often held by the religious, since most religions (for example Buddhism and Judaism) largely judge a person based upon the morality of their actions instead of a change in mindset, so from such a perspective the lack of agency prisoner’s have in prison greatly reduces their capacity to do good. This argument is often used by both those who desire more punitive justice along those who desire more rehabilitative justice since they both usually see whole life sentences as very similar to the death penalty; meaning they think you might as well go with either The Death Penalty or a lesser sentence. Those serving sentences that offer them no chance at freedom can indeed change their ways and do good from within prison-like Stanley Williams (a Crips founding member who whiles in prison on death row renounced his gang membership and spent much of his time warning people across the globe of the dangers of gangs), however, they have much more opportunity to do good with their freedom, an argument many made to try and get Williams released before he was executed. For this reason (though I think it’s an exaggeration to say that prisoners have no chance to redeem themselves behind bars), it’s perfectly valid to say that whole life sentences greatly limit the criminal’s chances at redemption, especially from a religious perspective. This is why I’m generally supportive of the argument that whole life sentences are quite similar to capital punishment, leading most of its victims to end up essentially dead, even if technically alive.

A second argument in favor of whole life sentences is that they are severe enough to match the crimes and therefore act as an effective deterrent, yet unlike The Death Penalty allow the prisoner to understand what they’ve done. This argument is a mix of practicality and sentimentality since while life imprisonment is indeed close to The Death Penalty when it comes to deterrent effect with how it deeply affects the criminal’s life, the practical effect of the criminal understanding the gravity of their actions is minimal when they’ll never actually get freedom. Nonetheless, the idea that a criminal could be executed without respecting the gravity of their actions disturbs many people. For example, you have Arthur Hutchison, who in the year 1983 at the age of 42 broke into an elderly couple’s home and killed them along with their son, before raping their 18-year-old daughter; all of which happened on the same day that their other daughter’s wedding reception took place, in that very home. Such horrific crimes’ inconceivable weight is clear to us, however, it wasn’t to Arthur himself and the idea that he could die not feeling the weight of his crimes is troublesome to many people. Most people who are given either whole life sentences or used to be given The Death Penalty commit crimes at a similar level so, understandably, many people would not want to grant them death, instead leaving them to think about their actions. I understand why people would want these criminals to know the gravity of what they’ve done, however, this is too unlikely for me to hedge my bets on. While many (and perhaps even most) people who are given whole life sentences come to understand what they’ve done, not all will; so for them, the sentence is simply an escape from execution. Then also you get people who are warped by their sentences like Robbert Maudsley, who got a whole life sentence for murdering a child rapist in 1974 before going on to murder 3 more people in prison, likely because there was little else that could be done to him now that he had lost his freedom permanently. Because of the unreliability of prisoners having this revelation and the possibility of a whole life sentence making the sentenced fearless I don’t think this argument holds up, people simply are too unpredictable to be forced into experiencing certain things.

To turn towards the views of particular groups on The Death Penalty and whole life sentences we can look at those of Humanists. The non-theistic philosophy of Humanism is based upon the idea that what drives humanity is human agency and the choices that individual humans make, not believing in anything supernatural like an afterlife. Humanists are almost exclusively against The Death Penalty because their philosophy dictates that all people have inherent value as they only ever exist in this world, so killing them doesn’t respect that value; however, the Humanist community doesn’t have as clear a stance on whole life sentences. This article from a Humanist website called TheHumanist makes an argument against whole life sentences, its core argument being summed up in this part which says:

“Humanists emphasize living in this world instead of preparing for a supposed afterlife. But with that recognition must come the understanding that life sentences without parole are inherently unethical”

As mentioned in the article itself, this opposition to life imprisonment is very similar to that of Humanist opposition to capital punishment since in both scenarios the criminal will never be able to exercise their full agency again. This is akin to the previously mentioned argument against life sentences that they don’t offer a chance at redemption, however, it’s different in that this Humanist argument (which seems very consistent with Humanist beliefs) sees human action through an agency as the only source of good in the world, making it the most important part of the criminals’ existences. I feel that to value the inherent humanness within everyone so highly without some supernatural justification is questionable, however, I still understand the concern. I’d agree that in most situations if someone’s freedom is being heavily restricted like it is in prison they have lost much of what it means to be alive, making the outcome for those who never have their sentences altered often similar to that of The Death Penalty.

The other group whose views on the matter of life imprisonment and The Death Penalty will I look at here is an organization, that is The Catholic Church. While the views of The Church have changed a lot over the years and many within it disagree with one another I shall go with The Church’s official stance, since said stance is set by The Pope and by the organization’s own rules he is the only one who can truly interpret God’s teachings. Like his predecessors, Pope Francis has taken a stand against The Death Penalty due to the Christian view that all people have a divine spark, making it possible for all to be redeemed; however, his opposition to whole-life sentences is shown in the following quote from the Catholic Citizen website is more unique to himself;

“I link this to life imprisonment. A short time ago the life sentence was taken out of the Vatican’s Criminal Code. A life sentence is just a death penalty in disguise.”

His opinion (and therefore the opinion of Catholicism) is surprisingly similar to that of the aforementioned (quite typical) Humanist, despite the many differences in their core beliefs. A belief that their ideologies do share in common is that they inherently value people and believe that they all deserve some level of respect, even if they believe this for different reasons. So while they do understand that in some circumstances people must be stopped permanently for the safety of others, this should be avoided at all costs; meaning that in the modern day because of the technology we have, etc. capital punishment and life imprisonment are unnecessary. It seems to me that almost all beliefs that place indestructible value on the individual oppose the use of both The Death Penalty and whole life sentences unless they are necessary to protect people, which most think they never are in the modern world. As someone with Utilitarian leanings, I think that there are still quite a lot of reasonably likely scenarios in the modern world where someone who isn’t an active threat would have to be at least given a whole life sentence, so I’m not convinced of the idea that they have no application in the UK. Nevertheless, I do think that all people can be redeemed and that you should never be cruel to anyone, even those who are monstrous, so I do think that whole life sentences and The Death penalty both have a similar base level of immorality.

In conclusion, from what I’ve seen and considered, whole life sentences that disclude the possibility of parole and The Death Penalty are morally almost identical; however whole life sentences just barely prove to be more ethically sound, so I would say they are indeed the morally superior of the two. I think whole life sentences ignore the inherent value of human beings in the same way that The Death Penalty does, something which Humanist and Catholic views imply. I also think that whole-life sentences can’t be trusted to punish criminals in any particular way because of how much variance there is in how people react to whole-life sentences and that they greatly limit a criminal’s chances of reformation, along with any good they could do. Despite all of this, I stand by my answer that whole-life sentences are better than capital punishment because, with whole-life sentences, there is still hope. People stuck in prison may often (though not always) in some way end up dead, but not literally: if they don’t die behind bars they could be metaphorically brought back to life through freedom. Even if they were sentenced to life imprisonment there is still hope that there could be a change in law or something else to the same effect, meanwhile, if someone has truly been killed, there is no coming back. While I’ve concluded that it’s certainly not unreasonable to be against both whole life sentences without any chance of parole and The Death Penalty, I can still confidently say that when compared to The Death Penalty, whole life sentences are the morally superior option.

Essay on Death Penalty: Eye for an Eye

Although the death penalty has been withdrawn it still exists in some states in the USA and is used in other countries across the globe. Is death a suitable punishment, or does it reduce civilization to the status of murderers?

The dilemma of whether the death penalty is ethical is a major issue that society has been facing for centuries. Currently, capital punishment more commonly known as the death penalty is used in 53 countries around the world to deprive someone of their life because they are believed to have committed crimes deemed by society and the governments as deserving the infliction of death. This essay will discuss how the death penalty should not be considered a suitable punishment and on the contrary how the law and society should condemn and abolish it as a means of punishment as there is no official evidence that killing individuals contributes to less wrongdoing or deters crime.

The death penalty has been used to punish the guilty for centuries. It is the act of executing someone for a particular wrongdoing. It is the harshest of all disciplines as there is no point of return, death is definitive. Supportive and counter considerations against the ‘moral side’ of the death penalty have been the center of debates for a long time. Although individuals who advocate the necessity of the death penalty consider the positive effects of the execution, they fail to acknowledge that capital punishment does not guide society to good morals; on the contrary, it infringes our Human Rights Act and punishes innocent individuals to an unfair and painful death without having given them the second chance that everyone deserves.

On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly passed the ‘Human Rights Bill.’ ‘No one shall be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhumane, or humiliating treatment or punishment,’ declares Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Epstein, 2014). The death penalty is barbaric and a terrible punishment for the entire human race. We preach non-violence, but we put it into action in our daily lives. Execution is an inhumane method of putting an end to a human life. The death penalty does not discourage future killings. Most intellectual criminological groups oppose the idea that the death sentence deters murder, according to the Death Penalty Information Center (The Death Penalty Information Centre, 2021). Fear of the death penalty has an insignificant effect on murderers.

An outraged person’s ‘argument’ usually leads to a murder. ‘I think I’m going to kill today,’ a normal person does not say. (DPI, 2021) People never consider the possibility of being executed if they murder someone. People still kill, and the number of murders in the United States and elsewhere in the world where people are being executed has not diminished.

Advocates of the death penalty support the idea that the fear of capital punishment would eventually diminish the killer instinct of the individual and that the dread of the execution would be a hindrance. The main weakness of this theory is that despite, what is expected, the contrary is achieved, as the individual knows that even if they get arrested the end is predefined so with that mindset, nothing will stop them from going extensively further, to do substantially more evil.

Another point of view of the supporters of the death penalty is that in society there must be some form of retribution for heavy crimes, a relief for those who are left behind, a lesson that should be taught. It is projected as the hand of law, or even worse as the way the law decides that an ‘eye for an eye’ should be applied in the case of someone who has committed a heinous crime and that what is owed to the families of the victims is to take their revenge by even allowing them to be the spectators in the execution. In this case, the state itself does not differentiate between the criminals as it chooses to commit the same crime by taking someone’s life without, however, the state having to bear the consequences of its actions. The key problem with this behavior is that the death of the criminal will not bring the lives of the victims back. On the contrary, it leads society to wrongdoing and reinforces the idea that you sow what you seed which is utterly wrong. One would argue if the death of the criminal will bring psychological peace to the relatives of the victims, if that would occur surely it would have a temporary duration, as in reality, no sane person would be happy watching someone else die. There have been cases where this temporary feeling of justice was soon transformed into guilt and regret because a person who has been saved and reintegrated into society was never given this chance. When an attempt is made to implement the policy, we should consider the examples of individuals who have come out to express their regret when shortly after the execution of the criminal, and the short satisfaction of watching him die, the family felt that this action had little or no impact on society and that they wish they had not supported the idea of the person being executed, like the case of the Hall Family in the state of Missouri in the United States.

After losing their daughter who was murdered by Jeff Ferguson, her father announced that ‘his family has come to deeply regret Ferguson’s execution.’ Death opens a vicious circle of pain and sadness that another death will not manage to heal or bring to closure. Instead, the people left behind will always have to carry it with them until they die.

More recently, research has also concluded that other factors predetermine if an individual will be sentenced to death, and the findings are contradictory. Race, gender, and social class of the victims and the offenders are potentially decisive factors when the decision is taken upon the punishment of the offender. For instance, women individuals are treated more leniently than men, as judges tend to empathize with them, being in a more vulnerable state than male offenders. Furthermore, in previous research, judges themselves have confirmed the preferential treatment of female offenders by the court (Johnson, 2003; Nagel

The Death Penalty: Ethical Dilemmas and Societal Impact

Defining the Death Penalty: An Overview

The death penalty is depicted as the approval and force, jail slaughtering of a man or lady as discipline for a criminal offense that was perpetrated by the crime. It is an administration-endorsed development that’s oftentimes alluded to as the death penalty in the US. Wrongdoings that are qualified for a sentence of the death penalty upon conviction incorporate murder, surveillance, and reason. Certain wrongdoings contrary to humankind, comprising the massacre, additionally qualify at a global level for the death penalty.

Arguments in Favor: The Deterrence Factor

The ace of the death penalty is It gives an obstacle to vicious wrongdoing inside a capital punishment general public. The expectation of guidelines is to offer an individual a hindrance towards the law they wish to devote. As a general public, brutal wrongdoing is something to be turned away at all charges. To get that going, the most dominant obstruction is required. That is the reason the death penalty regularly applies to instances of first-degree murder or issues in which the well-being of an entire nation changed to risk. By telling individuals they’ll kick the bucket, whenever sentenced, for these outrageous wrongdoings, the objective is to spare the wrongdoing from occurring inside the primary spot.

Moral Implications and Human Rights Concerns

The death penalty could be seen as morally incorrect. The crimes associated with the death penalty, such as murder, are reprehensible. However, if the society feels taking the life of another human is of utmost evil acts, then how can it be justified to punish the crime with the exact same thing looked down on.”Amnesty International holds that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular, the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

Flaws in the System: A Call for Abolishment

The use of capital punishment and or the death penalty should be abolished based on the fact that no one should get their lives taken from them based on the decision of someone else. Reasons such as wrongful execution and judicial bias showing there are a lot of flaws in the system dealing with the lives of many.

References:

1. Amnesty International. Death Penalty.
2. Death Penalty Information Center.  Methods of Execution.
3. Human Rights Watch. (n.d.). Death Penalty.
4. Kronenwetter, M. (Ed.). (2001). Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. Citation: Kronenwetter, M. (Ed.). (2001). Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO.
5. Banner, S. (2002). The Death Penalty: An American History. Harvard University Press. Citation: Banner, S. (2002). The Death Penalty: An American History. Harvard University Press.

The Evolution and Controversy of the Death Penalty in the United States

Evolution of the Death Penalty

Throughout the history of the United States, there have numerous cases that have dealt with the death penalty and begun to specify what crimes it should be used for. In the beginning, it seemed that the death penalty was used quite frequently for even the simplest of crimes, but as time has gone on, there have been new adjustments made to how the death penalty is used, when it is used, and for what crimes it is used, but there has been a movement by many groups such as the American Civil Liberties Unit to explain why the death penalty should no longer be used in the United States.

When the death penalty originated, it was an easy and effective way for individuals to get justice for a crime committed against them. At the time, and even now, there is an idea that the punishment must fit the crime, which is why the punishment is usually used only for murder now. There has been what people consider “an eye for an eye” idea surrounding the death penalty and why it has been used. The punishment today is used only for murders, but there have been two men that were sentenced to death for the rape of a minor, and one of those convictions was reversed because it did not result in the death of the girl, which is the main priority to the criminal justice system.

Problems with the Death Penalty System

Problems can often occur when sentencing someone to death row. For example, there is a problem of racial bias when convicting individuals and sentencing them to death row. There is evidence to show that a person is 11 times more likely to get the death penalty when the victim is white than if they are black and 22 times more likely to receive it if the victim is white and the defendant is black. As crime changes, the death penalty law has been found by the American Civil Liberties Unit (ACLU) to not be an effective deterrent to crime, and the best way to deter crime is with more police officers, reducing drug abuse, and creating a better economy.

So, the death penalty does not deter a person from committing a crime, especially if the individual is not rationally thinking. There is also the fact that 1 out of every nine people sentenced to death are innocent. This is a much larger group of people than society realizes are sentenced to death for something they never did. Other countries do not use the death penalty; for example, Germany has started to use different ways of dealing with crime. If other countries have succeeded in abolishing the death penalty, then there could be a way that the United States could eventually do the same.

In the United States, it has been found that the states who still allow the use of the death penalty have higher murder rates than those who do not (“Murder Rate,” 2019). For example, the murder rates in states that had the death penalty in 2018 were at 5.34 percent, while in those states which had abolished it was at only 4 percent (“Murder Rate,” 2019). Individuals have no terror of the possibility of receiving the death penalty because, most of the time, those individuals are not thinking rationally. Rational thinking requires an individual to realize the consequences of actions and to understand what those results may do to a family or society in general.

Problems with the Death Penalty System

Some cases show the growth of how the death penalty is used. Now, an individual that can prove they are mentally challenged is not likely to receive the death penalty for something they did. There are three standards an individual like that has to meet. As stated in the textbook, “The person has a substantial intellectual impairment, that impairment impacts the everyday life of the mentally retarded individual, and retardation must be present at birth or during childhood”. If an individual has all three of those present in the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) definition, then executing them is considered a violation of their rights and considered cruel and unusual punishment. If an individual does not have all three elements present, the use of it does not work.

There have only been a few cases that have been able to prove that the individual that committed the crime was mentally challenged. One case where the defense was able to refute the original death penalty ruling and reverse it was in Atkins v. Virginia. In the case, two men, Daryl Atkins, and William Jones, were drinking and smoking marijuana. Around midnight, those two men decided to go to a convenience store and rob a customer. The men forced him to withdraw two-hundred dollars from an ATM before Atkins fired eight shots into the man’s body.

Soon after it happened, Atkins was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death row, but soon afterward there was an evaluation done, and it was proven that Atkins was mentally challenged. There were interviews conducted for people who knew him, as well as an IQ test, which showed he had an IQ of fifty-nine, and that he struggled in everyday life. This provided enough information to the higher court and judges to reverse the conviction and take away the previous ruling.

This case was significant because years earlier, there was a similar case with a mentally challenged individual who was sentenced to death but was found there was no violation of the individual’s rights. It showed the direction of change that the country was moving towards and understanding executing those individuals did not serve the main purposes of the punishment, which were retribution and deterrence. This is one of few cases that helped the movement of the death penalty law and how it was enacted in the country, but along with this case were cases where the suspect was not mentally challenged but had possibly made an error in their original plan.

One of those cases that had a mentally stable man who was committing a crime was Furman v. Georgia. This case traveled to the supreme court, where Furman was finally rescued from his death penalty. Furman had been burglarizing a home when he was discovered by a member of the house, and as he fled, Furman dropped his gun, and it went off and killed the individual. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death row but appealed the decision. When the case reached the supreme court, the ruling was reversed because the judges saw it as cruel and unjust and saw it as a violation of the eighth amendment. This was an important step in how the death penalty was handled, but in a case soon after, the opposite happened.

This case was in 1976 and had other cases like Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas being decided at the same time, and for those cases as well, the death penalty was considered unconstitutional. These cases were respectively about rape and murder convictions quite similar to other cases. All of these cases, later on, helped with convicting (or not) others of those same crimes.

In a similar case to Furman v. Georgia, there was another man that had a ruling on the death penalty. The case Gregg v. Georgia was a case where a man was convicted of robbery and the murder of two men. This time, Gregg was not as lucky as Furman. He appealed the decision stating that the death penalty violated his Eighth and fourteenth amendment rights, but the court did not agree and affirmed the decision. In the Supreme Court, it was decided 7-2 unanimously.

Previous cases like the Furman case usually help in later cases to decide what is done, but the case was different enough there was no way it could be used to help Gregg. He had intentionally committed the murder, unlike Furman, who had only dropped his gun. This was likely part of the reasoning for the case. For the Gregg case, it was most likely understood to be reasonable because of his intention of murdering two men while Furman had unintentionally murdered one.

As stated in the above paragraphs, the death penalty has had little positive effect on criminal deterrence. For deterrence to work, it needs to be swift and consistent, but the punishment of death cannot be done either consistently or swiftly (ACLU, 2019). Some crimes are not thought out before they happen but are rather a heat of moment crimes. It should be stated, though, that as years have gone by, death penalty sentences have lowered. In the 1990s, the death penalty convictions reached almost three hundred in one single year, but in 2019 it had been lowered to only 34 sentences. That shows that states have started to take action and have realized that the death penalty is not as effective as they had once hoped.

In a recent case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, that happened in 2008, a man was convicted of raping his eight-year-old stepdaughter. The damage to the girl was so extensive and required emergency surgery. The sentence to death row ended up being reversed by the supreme court because it did not result in the death of the individual, and in 45 jurisdictions Kennedy would not have been sentenced to death. To many people, this is infuriating, letting a man like this one live out his sentence in prison, but to the courts and previous cases, no one was murdered, which is what protects him from death row.

Calls for Abolishment and the Way Forward

The death penalty serves little purpose in society today. It has not deterred people from crime, and it has been the death of some innocent people. The punishment can be easily used against those who do not have good counsel or people of color (ACLU, 2019). Currently, twenty-one states have removed the death penalty and as has the District of Colombia (Deathpenaltyinfo, 2019). These states have moved forward, and now about sixty percent of respondents prefer a life sentence for murder rather than a death sentence (Deathpenaltyinfo, 2019). It has previously been used as a way to punish individuals for a specific crime, but today it seems like it is used more the ability to control citizens in the country.

This law is important when wanting to show the growth of the United States and its punishments. Every case that has dealt with the death penalty has greatly helped the adjustment and how or when it should be used. Cases like this are too important to learn about for them to be removed from future books, but it is also important to note that soon, the death penalty will most likely not exist. Even though this will likely happen, it will be important for future students to learn about and understand history. The Kennedy v. Louisiana case was one case that provided the context of what a court would do when a heinous crime was committed but did not end up being a murder.

For the reason that it provides little purpose and is used as a way to punish individuals in poverty or those of color, the death penalty should be abolished. Eleven percent of the people that fall to the death penalty are innocent. The fact is someone innocent could have been saved if the punishment did not exist. People who have been convicted and are innocent have the chance to be exonerated, but not if they have been executed. There is also the known fact that the price of lethal injection is high and has continued to rise in price over many years . The death sentence seems to still be used today just to satisfy the equal punishment to the crime, but when handling some criminal cases, it should not be trusted for the correct death of an individual.

The use of this penalty has not deterred the number of murders or various other crimes, it has become a useless punishment for criminals, and there is a possibility that life without parole could be more effective in trying to deter and prevent crimes. At this point, it is not as much a way to deter crime from happening but rather a way for the government to try and control the American people. It does not succeed in its purpose, and there should be a new created to prevent and deter crime from happening.

References:

1. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (2019). The Death Penalty. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/issues/capital-punishment
2. Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). (2019). Year End Report. Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/2019YE.pdf
3. Murder Rate by State 2018. (2019). World Population Review. Retrieved from https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/murder-rate-by-state-2018
4. ProCon.org. (2008). Death Penalty ProCon.org. Retrieved from https://deathpenalty.procon.org/historical-deterrent-effect-of-the-death-penalty/
5. Samaha, J. (2017). Criminal Law. Cengage Learning.
6. Stevenson, B. (2012). The Folly of Capital Punishment. TED. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice/transcript

Exploring the Controversies of the Death Penalty: Ethics and Consequences

Introduction to the Death Penalty

The justice system is a system that is based upon the evidence given in court, where a jury or a judge then makes a verdict. The most heinous verdict of all is to be sentenced to death. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is issued by the government, where the convicted are killed by the state through execution. We as human beings have no right to decide, based on evidence that could be falsified, to take away someone’s life.

As humans, we make mistakes and are nowhere near perfect, so therefore, our system is not one hundred percent qualified to make the decision on whether to take a life or not. Even if that person has done the most vicious crime there is, who are we to play God? It is believable that a more fitting punishment is for the convicted to be sentenced to life in prison. Living in a violent environment without any type of liberty will hopefully discourage any potential criminals. The death penalty should not be allowed in all cases because there is a dark side to it, there is both a moral and financial toll to execution, and it is discriminatory towards certain groups.

Historical Context of Capital Punishment

Capital punishment started as far back as the 18th century BC when the penalty had been established as a punishment for crimes (Reggio). It was also practiced by Greeks and Romans in ancient times. In the United States, the first person to be executed as a criminal was a man by the name of George Kendall in Virginia in 1608 due to the act of espionage (Reggio). This is not surprising when it comes to society and its thoughts and opinions on the topic the matter at hand; there are two sides to this debate. Some people believe that it brings closure for the victim’s family; there would be contemptuous feelings towards the killer, and there would be a desire for them to receive punishment. On the other hand, there are people who believe that it is morally wrong to take away someone’s life. It is true that the debate for this argument in society will never end.

There will never be a clear answer to whether it is right or wrong. There are many who believe that this punishment violates a person’s eighth amendment rights. Almost half, or 49% of Americans, say that they would prefer life imprisonment for convicted murderers over the death penalty. Currently, in our nation, there are only nineteen states who have abolished the death penalty and have made it illegal to utilize. Meanwhile, there are still thirty-one states where the punishment is still legal. However, in 1972, there were only three states where the death penalty was legal.

Moral and Ethical Implications of the Death Penalty

Humans are not perfect; therefore, there is no way for our justice system to be perfect with no flaws. People make mistakes every day, so why is there power given to individuals to take someone’s life away? There are innocent people every day that get accused based on false evidence and are sentenced. It then usually takes a significant amount of time to notice the mistakes made and that they are, in fact, not guilty. What happens if that person is sentenced to death? What happens after we have already executed them for a crime they did not commit? For example, in 1994, a 14-year-old boy named George Stinney Jr. was put on trial for murder. It took only 10 minutes for the jury to convict a child and sentence him to execution. They put a 100 lb. child in an electric chair where the straps were too big to fit him due to his frail body.

These electric chairs or lethal injections don’t instantly kill individuals; in fact, they are prone to failure and are known to cause extreme pain. The people being executed usually die from the excruciating pain. That is what we as human beings put a child through, even only to find out 70 years after his execution he was innocent (Beaver, 2014). It is abhorrent to think people are being sentenced to a slow death because of a crime they committed; such behavior is painful and torturous. We are torturing them slowly and painfully. Additionally, killing someone for a crime they committed would not bring the dead back to life; instead, it would cost taxpayers millions of dollars. For these reasons, the death penalty should be banned in our society.

The death penalty is government-sponsored ‘murder,’ which is morally and ethically wrong. Some people might call it retribution, but at the core level, it is a civilized nation deliberately ending the life of a sentient living being. The forefathers of the United States of America fought for the God-given rights of liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness and believed that it was the job of the government to preserve those rights. To them, the death penalty would seem like a tyrannical act, something they have fought so hard to avoid. The sanctity of life is echoed by various religions around the world; almost all the major religions denounce the use of the death penalty.

As stated by Pope John Paul II, “Human life from the beginning involved the ‘creative action of God’ and remains forever in a special relationship with the Creator; only God is the master of life.”Aside from the moral and ethical dilemma, the death penalty goes against the basic rights set by the eighth amendment. It states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Death penalty falls under cruel and unusual punishment since it extinguishes life in a violent and painful manner.

Financial and Discriminatory Aspects of the Death Penalty

The death penalty takes a heavy toll on the taxpayers. There are numerous trials and appeals associated with the death penalty to lower the chances of convicting an innocent person. The cost of prosecution lies with the taxpayers and, in some cases, the cost of public defenders as well, not to mention the cost of decades-long prison times while awaiting execution due to appeals. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, on average, it costs $23,000 a year to keep someone in prison, depending on the security.

Additionally, the death rows are among the costliest due to high security Even with the high cost of incarceration, a 2008 study of Maryland by the Urban Institute concluded that it costs the state $2 million more to carry on a death sentence than carrying on a life sentence. Similarly, the average cost of a federal death penalty case is $620,932, which is about eight times higher than a non-death penalty murder case.

Since the taxpayers are ultimately responsible for the cases, it indirectly affects the budget for public services. It might also have to increase taxes or levy higher fines to cover costs. A report by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that between 1982 and 1997, the extra cost of capital trial was 1.6 billion, and to manage the cost, the local counties decreased the funding for highways and police and increased taxes.

Furthermore, another reason why the death penalty should be illegal is because it disproportionately affects those of a minority race or a lower economic status. The death penalty often targets those who identify as a race that is not Caucasian. In a 2017 study, it was found that about 41% of those on death row were classified as African-American, while 13% were classified as Hispanic. On the other hand, within the federal system, it was found that about 42.6% of those on death row, about 26 out of 61 inmates, were classified as African American, while 13% of those on death row, about 7 out of 61 inmates, were classified as Hispanic. Racial discrimination affects the death penalty in court cases as well.

In the years 1995 to 2000, 682 cases were given to the Department of Justice to review in order to make an informed decision about whether the death penalty should be given. Out of all these cases, 324 perpetrators were classified as African-American, while 195 perpetrators were classified as Hispanic. In contrast, about 20% of these death penalty cases had Caucasian perpetrators.

Not only does the death penalty unlawfully affect minorities, but it also affects those lower on the socio-economic scale. Individuals at an economic disadvantage cannot actually hire proper representation. The lack of proper legal defense is a significant factor in death penalty cases that involve innocent individuals. When a person’s lawyers have completed an incompetent job in trying to defend in their court case and leave out important facts to give to the jury, in turn, they are then more likely to be sentenced to death row.

Advocates of capital punishment ground their reinforcement of the penalization on the fact that execution perpetually eradicates the worst felons from society. It serves as an illustration and reminder that society can take tough initiative when required. Society is better by getting rid of murderers. Society has constantly used chastisement to dissuade prospective felons from criminal deeds. Since society has the uppermost concentration on avoiding manslaughter, it should use the sturdiest punishment obtainable to prevent murder, and that is the death penalty.

If murderers are condemned to death and executed, possible murderers will deliberate before murdering on behalf of terror of losing their individual existence. Conclusively, the death penalty unquestionably ‘deters’ the killer who is eradicated. Malicious murderers should be executed to prevent them from killing again, in prison and in society, if they are released from prison. Together as a warning and as a form of everlasting incapacitation, the death penalty aids in precluding impending criminal activities.

Some would say that the death penalty deters individuals from committing atrocious crimes. However, according to data and studies executed, crime rates are shown to decrease in states that have forbidden capital punishment as an option for a prisoner (Issitt, 2013). As stated by the Death Penalty Information Center, in 2015, it was found that the most murders were committed in the Southern region of the United States, which also happens to be the area that executes the most prisoners.

It has been found that neither supporters nor opponents of the death penalty have been able to produce evidence that conclusively determines the role of capital punishment in crime deterrence”. Also, according to the top criminologists in the country, eighty-eight percent of them believe that the death penalty does not deter individuals from homicide. Seventy-five percent of these criminologists also believe that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems”.

Overall, the death penalty is a controversial topic today. Proponents of the death penalty claim that it is a vital contrivance for upholding rules, dissuades corruption and has less expenditure than life imprisonment. Opponents of the death penalty declare that it does not at all deter crime, erroneously provides governments the authority to murder an individual, and immortalizes social prejudices. The death penalty is the process by which convicted criminals are executed by a governing authority. In layman’s terms, it is murder committed by governments under the pretense of social justice, also known as capital punishment. The advantage of not sanctioning the death penalty is that innocent people will not be executed, and there is a lower chance of both heinous crimes being committed and more of a prison labor force.

References:

1. Issitt, M. (2013). The death penalty: Opposing viewpoints. Greenhaven Publishing LLC.
2. Reggio, M. H. (n.d.). History of the Death Penalty. Death Penalty Information Center.
3. Declaration of Independence. (n.d.). National Archives.
4. Williams, J. P. (2017). The case against the death penalty. America – The Jesuit Review.
5. The Bill of Rights: A Transcription. (2018). National Archives.
6. Urbina, I. (2009). Study Finds Death Penalty Costs Texas Millions. The New York Times.
7. Costs of the Death Penalty. (2018). Death Penalty Information Center.
8. MacDougall, S., & Williams, B. (2018). Death Penalty in Decline. The Hub.
9. Bright, S. B. (2002). Discrimination, Death and Denial: The Tolerance of Racial Discrimination in Infliction of the Death Penalty. Southern University Law Review, 29(2), 1-123.
10. Michigan State University and Death Penalty Center. (n.d.). Arguments for and against the Death Penalty. Michigan State University.
11. DPIC (2018). The Death Penalty Doesn’t Deter Crime. Death Penalty Information Center.