Category: Death Penalty

According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, mental illnesses are described as “medical conditions that disrupt a person’s thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others and daily functioning”. This means that individuals suffering from mental illness are susceptible to be out of control or lose control of their actions because of their mental disabilities.

There is currently no law that prohibits handing down the death penalty to an individual who is mentally ill but according to the US Supreme Court individuals who have been sentenced to death need to know understand and know the reason why they are being sentenced to death (McCullough, 2019). The US Supreme Court says that if an individual is mentally ill, they are less morally culpable than a sane person and this factor should be considered before taking an individual’s life (‘Mental Illness’, 2018). Morally, they believe it is wrong to execute an individual with a mental illness. They believe that individuals with mental disabilities should be exempted from the death penalty, there are however loopholes to this.

If a bill was to be passed, that bans handing down the death penalty to individuals with mental illnesses, it will be hard to determine what illnesses are severe and whether an individual was under psychosis or suffering from an episode when the crime was committed. With that being said it would be troublesome and slightly challenging for the US Supreme Court to classify which group of mentally ill defendants should be excused from receiving the death penalty and whether their mental illness affected their choices when they committed the crime (‘Mental Illness’, 2018).

According to the article by Mental Illness numerous states have thought about creating a bill against executing individuals with mental illnesses but none have yet to be passed.

Texas is currently working on a bill that would stop Texas from sentencing criminals with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or severe bipolar disorder to death. On 8 May 2019 the Texas House of Representatives passed a law that “that would prohibit handing down a death sentence to someone with a severe mental illness, like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder” (McCullough, 2019). This new bill states that if defendants provided proof during the trial that they were “severely mentally ill at the time of the crime” and the jury accepts the proof, then the individual will not have to get the death penalty but rather life in prison (McCullough, 2019). The bill passed on 9 May 2019 but stilled needed “to pass the Senate and get signed by governor Greg Abbott to become law” (Young, 2019).

According to an article written by the Texas Tribune “despite bipartisan support” the bill to prevent those suffering from mental illnesses from receiving the death penalty fails. This means that the bill did not become law. The reason this bill did not become law was due to the fact that as members of both the Texas House and Texas Senate could not come to an agreement (Byrne and McCullough, 2019). Members of both the Texas house and Senate were tasked with writing a report about the differences between the amended bill and previous bill on the case but failed to submit a report by the deadline (Byrne and McCullough, 2019). According to the U4 Anti – Corruption Resource Centre, “interest groups are associations of individuals or organizations that on the basis of one or more shared concerns, attempts to influence public policy in its favor usually by lobbying members of the government”. I think that interest groups might have slightly influenced the choice made by the members of the legislature but there is no proof of that.

There are several articles that favor and do not favor the banning of the death penalty as a sentence for those diagnosed with mental disabilities. According to an article in The New York Times, there has been instances where individuals have been sentenced to death even when there is evidence that they are mentally ill. An example of such instances would be Dylann S. Roof, Andrew H. Brannan and John E. Ferguson (Dewan, 2017), these are a few examples where mentally ill criminals were treated exactly like normal criminals. The American Bar Association says that it would be “wrongful” to punish mentally ill individuals (Dewan, 2017) and other organizations such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness oppose the execution of mentally ill and mentally disabled individuals.

Since the legislation session ended shortly after the bill was rejected the only chance it could be discussed more and implemented any time soon is if the governor was to hold an emergency session or a special session. The bill is important, and the governor should hold special session for it. The death penalty is a serious punishment and if mentally disabled individuals were sentenced to death because there was no law against it would negatively affect the image of the government and of Texas.

To conclude, personally, I do not think nor believe that the death penalty should be implemented at all. Rather than having a death penalty, criminals should be sentenced to life in prison so that they can pay for their sins. Mentally ill criminals should be sent to psychiatric prisons so that they can be treated. Mentally ill criminals might not be aware of the decisions they make and actions they take, so in order for them to be punished properly they should be treated first.

Works Cited

1. Byrne, Elizabeth, and Jolie McCullough. “Despite Bipartisan Support, Texas Bill Tackling Intellectual Disability in Death Penalty Cases Fails”. The Texas Tribune, The Texas Tribune, 26 May 2019, http://www.texastribune.org/2019/05/26/Texas-death-penalty-intellectual-disability-fails/. Accessed 8 November 2019
2. Chammah, Maurice. “He’s Living with Severe Mental Illness. Should He Face the Death Penalty?”. The Marshall Project, The Marshall Project, 17 Apr. 2019, http://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/04/17/he-s-living-with-severe-mental-illness-should-he-face-the-death-penalty. Accessed 8 November 2019.
3. Dewan, Shaila. “Does the U.S. Execute People with Mental Illness? It’s Complicated”. The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Mar. 2017, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/us/mental-illness-death-penalty.html. Accessed 10 November 2019.
4. “Influence of Interest Groups on Policy-Making”. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, 12 June 2012, http://www.u4.no/publications/influence-of-interest-groups-on-policy-making Accessed 10 November 2019.
5. McCullough, Jolie. “Texas House OKs Bill to Ban Death Penalty for Those with Severe Mental Illness”. The Texas Tribune, The Texas Tribune, 8 May 2019, http://www.texastribune.org/2019/05/08/texas-death-penalty-rules-could-change-some-mentally-ill-defendants/ Accessed 8 November 2019.
6. “Mental Illness”. Death Penalty Information Center, 7 Dec. 2018, http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/mental-illness Accessed 8 November 2019.
7. Young, Stephen. “Texas House Votes to Limit Death Penalty for Mentally Ill Defendants”. Dallas Observer, 4, 10 May 2019, http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-house-votes-to-limit-death-penalty-for-mentally-ill-11661703 Accessed 8 November 2019.

Death sentence has been elucidated as lawful imposition of death as penalty for a criminal offence. It’s been described as an extreme and irreversible form of punishment since it takes away life and any mistake while awarding the same cannot be reversed. It’s usually awarded in cases where the nature of offence is such that it cannot be abated without a death penalty. The offences for which death penalty is awarded are described as ‘heinous’; the term has not been accorded a definite explanation within the Indian Penal Code, however S.2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 elucidates ‘heinous offences’ as offences for which the minimum punishment under the IPC, 1860 or any other law for the time being in force is imprisonment for 7 years or more.

Another explanation for heinous crimes is that their nature is such that it gives a jolt to the society’s conscience, it creates a repugnance within the minds of people and are often referred to as ‘rarest of rare’.

Death sentence is the maximum punishment awarded under the Indian penal law. It is a process wherein the state exercises its power to take an individual’s life. The practice of death sentence has been prevalent within the India since its inception; the Indian epics, ‘Mahabharata’ and ‘Ramayana’ contain references to death by amputation for offenders; ancient law giver Manu places emphasis on death penalty to prevent anarchy in the state. On the other hand, during the rule of the Great Mughals, the death penalty was applied in the most brutal form, and in British India, in most cases, the death sentence was carried out for breaking the law.

The post-independence era brough about a transformation in the Indian judiciary, thereby changing the process of awarding of death sentences. The Indian Penal Code along with other relevant codes enshrines provisions in conformity with the Indian constitution pertaining to death sentence. Some of these offences are:

• 120B IPC Party to criminal conspiracy to commit capital offence;
• 121 IPC Waging/attempt/abetting in waging of war against the Indian government;
• 132 IPC Abetting/engaging in mutiny in armed forces;
• 194 IPC Giving/fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction for capital offence;
• 302 & 303 IPC Murder;
• 305 IPC Abetting suicide of minor;
• 364A IPC Kidnapping for ransom, etc.;
• 376A, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 (punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of victim);
• 396 IPC Dacoity with murder;
• S.4 Prevention of sati act, aiding/abetting in act of sati;
• 31A of NDPS Act Drug Trafficking in cases of repeat offences;
• The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is an act to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to provide for special courts for the trial of such offences.

Art.21 of the Indian constitution enshrines ‘right to life’ and the same has been utilized by activists & social groups who are calling for abolition of death as capital punishment, a practice which has been trending globally. Abolitionists have argued that increasing rate of crimes are an indication of the fact that death sentences are futile in instilling fear in the minds of offenders. However, India has maintained its stand in favor of death sentence, unfettered by the global trend against it; the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2018 is an indication of the same wherein maximum punishment has been increased to death sentence.

Despite the increased severity of punishment for heinous offences by imposition of death sentence, it cannot be carried out without the consent of the high court, further an appeal against such an order can also be filed in the supreme court the same has been enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In addition, the constitution of India confers the power of pardon, reprieve, reprieve or discharge on the President of India under Article 72 and on the Governor of a State under Article 161. Landmark judgements have time and again challenged the constitutionality and sometimes even reinforced the need for death sentence within the Indian criminal system.

In Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P, which was the first case questioning the constitutional validity of death sentence, the appellant’s counsel stated that execution of death penalty was violative of fundamental rights enshrined under Art.19, Art.14 and the right to life under Art.21; however, the five-judge bench upheld that deprivation of life was permitted if performed by due process of law.

The case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab gave rise to a major development in the matter of death sentence with the introduction of ‘rarest of rare’ principle wherein the five-judge bench upheld the validity of death sentence and stated that it was not violative of Articles 14,19 and 21.

In Machi Singh v. State of Punjab, J. Thakkar further elaborated upon the ‘rarest of rare’ principle by giving 5 points to ponder upon, i.e., manner of commission of crime, motive, nature of crime, magnitude of crime and victim’s personality.

Displaying a deviation from all the previous cases wherein death sentence was upheld; in Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab, the court upheld that S.303 of IPC was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian constitution and hence unconstitutional.

To sum up, death penalty is constitutional in India, despite several attempts being made to abolish it. Further, the matter of death sentence has to also take into consideration some other factors such as public sentiments and the moral concept of ‘eye for an eye’. In addition, every offence cannot be punished with death sentence, the facts associated with it needs to be examined too and that’s the rationale utilized by the judiciary while utilizing the principle of ‘rarest of rare’, which in turn has led to the evolution of the concept of ‘heinous crimes’ to define the principle cited while finalizing an award in the form of death sentence.

The death penalty, also known as Capital Punishment is the most egregious and very controversial punishment, that’s why I chose to talk about it in my report. Capital punishment is only sentenced to crimes of the worst sort, such as murders, terrorists, and maybe rapists. Capital punishment has engendered ubiquitous arguments debating whether it’s advantageous or erroneous whilst exploring both its morality and criminal behavior. The death penalty’s primary aim is to reduce the number of heinous crimes. Some argue it’s an anomaly to human rights and others might assert that it decreases extreme criminal behavior.

National Perspective

For a variety of offenses, Egyptian law mandates the death penalty. These include crimes against state security committed abroad as well as some crimes against state security committed within the country. Capital punishment is sentenced to crimes of the worst sort such as premeditated murder, intentional homicide with poison, homicide in the commission of a crime or misdemeanor, arson resulting in death, abduction of a female by fraud or force linked to rape, killing a person injured in a war, endangering means of transportation if this results in human death, bullying correlated with premeditated murder and perjury that has resulted in a person’s execution [1]. At the turn of the century, 111 countries had abolished the death penalty in statute or practice, accounting for more than half of the world’s countries [2]. Just 53 countries still have and use the death penalty, despite the fact that the number of countries that currently execute prisoners is much lower. While the use of the death penalty is decreasing worldwide, Over the last decade, its usage in Egypt has increased.

Professor William Anthony Schabas is a Canadian scholar who specializes in international criminal and human rights law. According to his research, “Islamic states like Egypt interpret capital punishment according to the Quran’s principles.” [3]. Egypt’s perspective on the death penalty is based on belief and religion. On the other hand, not all crimes are dealt with according to religious traditions. For example, a very old Islamic punishment against thieves or anyone who steals others’ belongings was that they should have their hands cut off. But of course, in modern times this punishment was abolished as it was deemed too harsh. Egypt also believes that the death penalty has the potential to discourage violent crime. Egyptian criminologists such as Ahmed Okasha, assert that the human brain fully develops at the age of 25. The frontal cortex is the last thing to mature, it makes a person fully understand the consequence of an action they’re trying to pursue, as a result, capital punishment serves as an irreversible deterrent, ensuring that the killer will never have another opportunity to take a life. It is a form of incapacitation that aids in the protection of society by avoiding potential crime. [4]. Also, the death penalty in Egypt is not carried out with brutality; rather, it is aimed at ending life as easily and peacefully as possible.

Another example of why Egypt believes in the effectiveness of the death penalty is because Egypt has been opposing some of the world’s most dangerous and treacherous terrorists for many years. Egypt believes that condemning terrorists to live in prison is ineffective as they can still communicate easily due to jail guard corruption, sneaking in phones, and having visited. There are also many cases around the world where terrorists or dangerous and high-profile criminals have successfully escaped maximum security prisons. The risk of an escape and potential victims are eliminated with capital punishment. With these terrorists dead Egypt is eliminating any possible future danger to the country. This will definitely decrease the extreme crime rate proving the effectiveness of the death penalty.

In upper Egypt, families are very large and can’t be controlled by the government. There are lots of vendettas between the families in Upper Egypt which cause many deaths and the loss of many family members, even innocent ones. When the death penalty is one of the legal punishments for someone’s actions, it protects the victim’s family from any kind of victimization. [5]. This proves the convenience of the death penalty for victimized families and innocent family members stuck in between large family feuds and vendettas.

Egypt’s use of capital punishment between 25 January 2011 and 23 September 2020:

Global Perspective

In fourteen nations around the world, capital punishment is still legal and in use. Below are the fourteen nations that have legalized and held the ability to kill criminals: [6]

• Bangladesh
• China
• Egypt
• Ethiopia
• India
• Indonesia
• Iran
• Japan
• Nigeria
• Saudi Arabia
• South Korea
• Sri Lanka
• Taiwan
• The United States

Capital Punishment in China Study

We’ll start with China’s viewpoint on the death penalty. When it comes to capital punishment, the Chinese government is peculiar. Unlike the United States, where death penalty trials are made public and execution dates are released, China has a provision that all executions must be kept secret and confidential. They’re kept a secret, and sometimes the relatives won’t find out until it’s too late.

In addition, China also uses firing squads to carry out the death penalty. Many of the inmates on China’s version of Death Row are shot in the head with bullets. This approach is relatively uncommon and it is considered extremely immoral. You may argue that punishing offenders for their mistakes by taking their lives is immoral enough in itself, but being fired in the head point blank brings the breach of ethical practices to a new level. Death by lethal injection is the only other permissible method of execution available to Chinese authorities. [7]. Although there is no data on how the death penalty impacts violence in China, federal statistics indicate that the number of felony prosecutions reported decreased from 2015 to 2018. Experts, such as Borge Bakken, who studies crime in China at the Australian National University, are skeptical of official statistics. Bakken said the crime figures were rumors and misinformation in a BBC interview from January 2019 [8].

Capital Punishment in Russia Study

On the 18th of December 2007, Russia voted in favor of a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly, along with 103 other countries, calling for a prohibition on the use of the death penalty before it is abolished. The last time the death penalty was used in Russia was in 1996, almost two decades ago. According to some sources, serial killer Sergey Golovkin, who was accused of raping and killing more than 30 boys and was executed by the firing squad in August of that year, may have been the most recent person to be executed [9]. Following the expiration of the moratorium in 2009, Russia voted to keep the death penalty outlawed, and the Constitutional Court made it illegal for courts to sentence citizens to death. “Returning to death sentences would be incompatible with humanitarian principles,” said Vadim Vinogradov, a law specialist at the All-Russian State University of Justice [10].

According to available evidence, the majority of Russians favor the death penalty. Since the late 1980s, when Glasnost was pronounced the guiding ideology of modern post-Soviet Russia, a number of polling firms have been permitted to conduct polls on public opinion on the death penalty.

Russian Centre of Public Opinion Research (VCIOM) Data

• The VCIOM published the first-ever research and surveys on capital punishment in Russia in 1989. It revealed that 62 percent of all Russians believed the death penalty should be maintained and expanded beyond the existing capital offenses. Five years later, in 1994, 65 percent of respondents in a representative poll of Russians accepted that the death penalty should be used, although only 5 percent believed that capital punishment should be discontinued immediately.
• According to a VCIOM report, public support for the death penalty in Russia rose in 2000. According to VCIOM statistics, 73 percent of all respondents supported capital punishment. Death penalty backers were more prevalent in those above the age of 45 and those with less than a college diploma. VCIOM registered a surge in public support for capital punishment in Russia in 2001. According to their research, in 2001, 79 percent of all Russians concluded that any heinous crimes in Russia should be punishable by death.
• A VCIOM research conducted in 2002 revealed increased public approval for the death penalty in Russia. According to the findings of this report, 82% of all respondents believed that the death penalty should be reinstated. [11].

Russian Foundation of Public Opinion (FOM) Data

• According to a FOM survey conducted in 1997, 70% of all Russians also believed that the death penalty should be used. The analysis also discovered that 55 percent of all Russians felt the death penalty moratorium declared in 1996 was a mistake, and 63 percent of all Russians advocated for the immediate reinstatement of capital punishment.
• The results of the FOM poll, which was also published in 2001, corroborate these findings, with 63 percent believing that the ban on the death penalty should be lifted.
• According to FOM data from 2006, 74% of all respondents believe the death penalty is an effective measure of social discipline and deterrence [12].

Russian Public Opinion Research Group (ROMIR) Data

• In a 2006 poll conducted by the Russian Public Opinion Research Group (ROMIR), 57.9 percent of all respondents supported repealing the ban on the death penalty in Russia. According to the most recent studies conducted by leading research institutions, public support for the death penalty in Russia remains high [13].

Levada Data

• Finally, according to a 2007 Levada poll, only 17% of all Russians think the death penalty is socially immoral. This figure is even higher among Internet users, who are mostly younger and more educated than the general public.
• Despite significant adjustments in the former Soviet Union’s political and economic structures, public support for the death penalty remains high and constant [14].

Conclusion – Personal Perspective

In my point of view, I think that Capital punishment is effective as it acts as a deterrent for a capital crime, especially in countries with high crime rates. The death penalty influences extreme criminal behavior by decreasing atrocious crimes. In Russia, the death penalty has been abolished for almost 25 years, whilst in Egypt, the death penalty has always been upheld as a legal punishment against capital crime as its influenced by their religion and beliefs.

Since capital punishment had been abolished in Russia, crime rates started increasing, especially in 2006. Study shows that in 2006 there had been 2700 crime recordings, 20 of them being murders per 100,000 people [15]. Currently, in Russia, there are 15 murderers and 3.4 rapists per 100,000 people, whilst in Egypt, there are 0.8 murders and 0.1 rapists per 100,000 people [16]. I think the main factor for capital punishment influencing capital crime rate is deterrence most widely stated reason for the death penalty is deterrence. The idea is that the possibility of being killed in the future will deter a large number of individuals from committing a heinous offense that they would otherwise commit.

Is the death penalty right?

The United States currently has a death penalty in more than 30 states. Some states do not carry out actual executions, but other states still carry out actual executions. What is the opinion of those who support and oppose the death penalty? First, my opinion is in favor of the death penalty. The state I live in now is the state where the death penalty was abolished.

The death penalty must, under whatever circumstances, be enforced by the public to clarify the reason for the death of the executor and to carry it out in public proceedings. In the past, there were political deaths for political reasons in relation to power, but most of them were justified by the fact that they were law. Until the eighteenth century, penal law was more common than imprisonment, and in social structures where there were many vertical relationships, the ruling class tended to abuse even the heaviest sins in order to fear the dominant. Of course, in the case of theft or other minor crimes, it is common not to use them in consideration of the people’s antagonism. In the case of double treason, it was easy to be abused for political reasons, and it was widely used because it could be legally used to eliminate political hostile forces, mainly to consolidate the ruling of the ruling class. The death penalty in this premodern society was mainly open, and the method was very cruel as it had the purpose of social control. Either element of openness or cruelty is usually included and in most cases both. In Mongolia, there was a terrible way of keeping them in wooden crates and starving them to death. Since the death penalty in modern society is for the purpose of social segregation of the victims only, most of the death penalty is private and makes it as painless as possible. However, some countries, such as North Korea and China, carry out executions for social control purposes, and although they do not adopt the same brutal executions as before, public executions remain in some countries. In North Korea, such public executions are mainly shot. Occasionally, brutal punishment is also given to dogs or to remove their skin. Iran and Afghanistan implement the death penalty, known as stone or dialysis, in which a prisoner is half-buried and then thrown into a stone for execution. Human rights groups are criticizing this. Unusually, if a prisoner escapes from a burial place, execution stops: the man asks to the waist and the woman to the chest. In the case of Iran, it has recently been replaced by hangings, which are conscious of the eyes of the international community. However, since the elimination of dialysis, there is no concept of human rights, and hangings are executed in the most painful way. On the other hand, as the judicial system changes from criminal punishment to genealogy and the human rights issue is highlighted, the pros and cons are very divided and are still at the center of controversial debate. In countries where the death penalty has been abolished, voices demanding resurrection in countries where the death penalty is maintained.

Most proponents believe that the death penalty should be preserved from a retributive point of view, and even if the proponents that prevention and rehabilitation are the sole purposes of punishment do not abolish the death penalty, there is no proper alternative.

While everyone thinks that their ideas are the result of rational and rational judgments, the controversy would not have lasted so long if the condemnation of the death penalty was indeed something that could be terminated by rational calculations. When we think about the death penalty, most of us think of ‘if there is an absolute value, such as religion or belief’, ‘I imagine hanging my neck on a rope in front of the death penalty, and I feel like I’m dying. I have been raped and chopped up several times, and when I hear an act of a burned offender, I feel as if my family has been upset. ‘ We know well that half-human beings are emotional and can’t think of anything except this. In this age, a society living under the law, it is not right to oppose the death penalty implemented by expressing emotional opinions in the rational rule of law. On the contrary, injecting an emotional opinion, you might think that I am not going to be executed, but rather someone who almost kills my family. Since emotional ways of thinking are contradictory and dangerous, I think the death penalty should be executed in a rational way that completely excludes emotions.

The death penalty is a very sensitive subject. Because it has a direct connection to the judgment of a person’s life. However, I am finally in favor of the death penalty because the death penalty, which is done for the sake of social justice and the law that supports it, is mostly correct.

References

1. Bedau, H. A. (2010). The death penalty in America: current controversies. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Early History of the Death Penalty. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/history-of-the-death-penalty/early-history-of-the-death-penalty.
3. Garrett, B., & Kovarsky, L. (2018). The death penalty. St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press.

The death penalty is one of the most controversial topics in the world. It has been a source of heated debate for centuries and continues to be a focus of discussion today. The debate is often between whether this form of punishment should be used. The two main arguments against the death penalty are that it is inhumane and that innocent people have been killed by mistake.

This essay will examine both sides of the argument, exploring both why people are for and against capital punishment.

Arguments For The Death Penalty

The primary argument in favor of the death penalty revolves around justice and retribution. Supporters believe that capital punishment is an appropriate form of retribution for heinous crimes, as it serves to punish offenders in a way that fits the severity of their crime. Furthermore, supporters argue that capital punishment acts as a deterrent to potential criminals who may be considering committing similar crimes.

Many people believe that the death penalty acts as a deterrent for criminals who are thinking about committing murder or other violent crimes. They say that if there was no possibility of being caught and punished with death, more people would commit murder and other violent crimes. This argument is based on the idea that people are more likely to do something when they know they won’t get caught, than when there’s some chance they might get caught and punished. For example, if you were thinking about stealing money from your employer, how likely would it be that you’d do it if there was a chance you’d go to jail? Now imagine there was no possibility of going to jail — what would happen then? You might feel like stealing money from your employer because there aren’t any consequences at all!

Proponents also point out that life sentences can sometimes provide criminals with incentive to commit further violent acts while incarcerated, or after they are released back into society. The death penalty eliminates this risk by taking away any possibility of these criminals ever being released back into society. Finally, some proponents believe that if someone takes away another person’s life, they should not have the right to keep their own life intact.

Arguments Against The Death Penalty

Opponents of capital punishment argue that it is an inherently cruel and unusual form of punishment. They cite statistics showing that executions disproportionately affect racial minorities, those with mental illnesses or disabilities, and those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds — groups which are more likely to be wrongfully convicted than those who come from more privileged backgrounds.

Opponents also point out that no conclusive evidence exists proving that capital punishment deters crime more effectively than other forms of punishments, such as life imprisonment without parole or community service programs like restorative justice initiatives.

There is no evidence that shows that the death penalty prevents people from committing murder. In fact, many studies have shown that there is no link between the severity of punishment and how much crime is committed. If a person has decided to commit murder, then they will do so, regardless of whether they might be sent to prison or executed for it.

Moreover, opposite thoughts are about executing someone does not bring back those who have been killed; instead, it simply ends another person’s life without actually solving anything or remedying any suffering caused by the original crime.

Another issue with the death penalty is that innocent people can be executed by mistake. There have been cases where innocent people were convicted of murder and sentenced to death because they were unable to afford good lawyers at trial or because they were wrongly identified by witnesses as being involved in crimes they didn’t commit.

Conclusion

Well, there are passionate arguments from both sides when it comes to discussing whether capital punishment is an appropriate form of justice in our society today.

On one hand, proponents argue it serves as a moral reminder to potential offenders not to commit such horrendous acts again. On the other hand, opponents contend that executions disproportionately affect marginalized populations and do not actually solve any underlying issues related to crime prevention or victim restitution.

The death penalty is the punishment handed to people found guilty of capital criminal offenses. Capital punishment is also called the death penalty, and it is carried out through the execution of the offender (Balleisen, 2018). Through death penalty involves killing the offender; it is essential to extrajudicial killing since the latter is done without following the due process stipulated by the law. Though the term capital punishment can be used interchangeably with the term death penalty, it does not necessarily mean people handed the death penalty will be executed. The carrying-on of capital punishment can also be achieved through life imprisonment (McCann, 2008). In the execution of capital punishment, then small numbers, preferably relatives of the offender, are allowed into the execution room/chamber to watch and pay their last respects. In some countries, public execution of capital punishment is carried out in public spaces; this form of execution is public execution. In the past capital crime, has been used to punish murder, arson, treason, and rape. According to Balleisen (2018), capital punishment was also used to punish offenders under the laws of Draco of ancient Greece; the death penalty was also used in other ancient civilizations, including Roman and Islamic civilizations. Capital punishment, specifically the execution of the death penalty, is presently used in 27 states in the US. Rogers et al. (2020) observe that there have grown factions supporting or opposing the death penalty based on their beliefs over time. The study seeks to examine how the public perceives sentencing by the death penalty.

Crimes that lead to a death penalty

Many countries have been carrying death penalties; this has changed over time, with some countries dropping the practice (McCann, 2008). Twenty-seven of the United States states still have used the death penalty to punish crimes. Traditionally death penalties are sentenced to capital crime offenders. McCann (2008) notes that the term capital crime’s description may vary from state to state, but some states also share a similar view as to what crime is considered a capital crime. Capital crime in the US is described as any crime that warrants the death penalty. According to Balleisen (2018), in most cases, capital crimes are crimes that have serious economic implications, murder, or particular circumstances around murder, rape, or robbery, among crimes. In Virginia, premeditated, willful, and deliberate murder during a robbery or a terror act is considered a capital crime.

In some countries such as Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, Somalia, Singapore, Malaysia, and the state of Florida, drug trafficking is a capital crime and attracts the death penalty. Countries like China and Taiwan also apply the death penalty to punish economic crimes such as embezzlement of public funds and corruption (Balleisen, 2018). Sexual offenses, including and not limited to rape, are also punishable by the death penalty. The death penalty against sexual offenders, specifically rape offenders, was abolished in 1977 and for child rape in 2008.

Rogers et al. (2020) point out that though many countries still sentence offenders of various crimes by the death penalty, some exercise restrictions over special cases. In most countries, the killing of minors, mostly people below the legal age, is unconstitutional and illegal. Though it may be unlawful to execute children, some countries such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo (Kinshasa), and the US still hand minor offenders death penalties. Minors handed the death penalty are spared execution until they attain the legal age. A study by Rogers et al. (2020) states that the Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits the execution of minors found guilty of capital crimes warranting the death penalty. The US ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child with reservations about the death penalty. In 2002 the US Supreme Court declared the execution of minors unlawful and unconstitutional. Also included in the exceptional cases spared by the death penalty are pregnant and mentally indisposed persons. Though the US law, as stated by the US Supreme Court in 2005, outlaws the execution of mentally impaired persons, it exempts people below an intelligence quotient (IQ) score of 70 or below (McCann, 2008).

The debate on the death penalty

Though the death penalty has been carried on for a long time, it has caused disgruntling among people. McCann (2008) shows the difference in the perception of the death penalty by the public. Some people are satisfied and okay with the death penalty, while others are entirely opposed. People’s dissatisfaction has gone ahead to open ways to campaign against the death penalty and get it abolished. Proponents of the death penalty view it as the ultimate punishment and crucial in distracting crime and believe that the practice should be maintained. Some proponents of the practice even propose the use of punishment by the death penalty to punish offenders of considerably less serious crimes. According to Balleisen (2018), the proponents feel that imposing the death punishment on crimes such as theft may be the best way to deal with crime in communities. People garnering for and against the death penalty have different views and approaches to the matter based on their moral or religious inclinations.

The majority of US citizens support the death penalty in the cases they view as deserving the sentence and believe that it is constitutional despite the imperfections of the practice (McCann, 2008). The death penalty is approved by the 5th and 14th amendments which state that a person may not be deprived of their property, liberty, or life without the due process of law. The Supreme Court furthermore upheld the death penalty to be lawful and constitutional. In light of the approval of the death penalty by the federal government, 27 US states practice death penalty sentencing.

Proponents of the death penalty support it because, in their view, it serves its penological purpose which is specific deterrence, general deterrence, and retribution (McCann, 2008). General deterrence is used to stop people from committing crimes that may end up in a death penalty sentence. The death penalty also serves to prevent the people found guilty of committing capital crimes from doing it again. When handed the death penalty, the person will die, therefore, will not be there to commit the same or similar offense. On moral grounds, proponents of the practice seek it to be upheld since killing the single offender, and society is saved from a wrongdoer who may have eventually hurt more than just a single person (McCann, 2008). Based on the outcome of crimes committed by people, the proponents argue that it is safer and better to lose a single life over losing more than just a single life as a result of the crime committed. Doing away with a single person makes society safer and more peaceful to conduct daily life routines and maintains the community’s welfare. This type of approach is aimed at causing specific deterrence. McCann (2008) explained that another objective of the death sentence is to ensure that offenders pay for their crimes; this is retribution. Retribution is based on society’s moral belief that the person would have paid for their heinous crimes by death. Through retribution, justice is served, and all are treated equally as justice demands.

Per Bartolotta (2018), proponents of the death penalty over the years have been pushing for the abolishment of the death penalty based on moral and ethical grounds. The opponents also argue that since most countries no longer keep the practice, it is vital for all governments to do away with the death penalty. Opponents also point out that people have been wrongfully sentenced to the death penalty in the past though they were innocent (Loeffler et al., 2018). The opponents point out mistakes in the judicial systems causing any profiling, racial biases, and issues with the judicial systems mandated to pass the sentence that is juries and judges. Opponents of the death penalty implore that it does not always serve the intended objective of general deterrence. To most people, life is precious and valuable. A study by Bartolotta (2018) noted, given the value attached to life and the right to life to all people, opponents of the death penalty are against the practice citing that no person has the right to take away another person’s life regardless of the wrongs committed. People opposing the penalty also argue that retribution is not the perfect punishment and is flawed. The opponents view retribution as vengeance rather than punishment. The opponents point out that if vengeance, everyone getting what they feel owed for crimes committed against them, is upheld, society will be rogue and full of brutal and vengeful people. Opponents of the death penalty are against the practice based on its financial implications; it is expensive to carry out a death penalty execution (Loeffler et al., 2018). The opponents argue that the death penalty process is often lengthy, implying costs in time and money.

Conclusion

Though the death penalty may have served its purpose, its fairness is still a matter of question. The importance of legality, ethics, and moral grounds of the death penalty has been discussed by many people, legislators, law professionals, and the general public without reaching an amicable solution. There is a need for stakeholders to clarify what offense is a capital offense. It is also crucial for the criminal justice system as a whole to satisfactorily provide an amicable ground to which a crime warrants a death penalty. The justice system should reassess the successes and failures of the death penalty and hopefully develop a better option for punishing capital crimes, an option that is acceptable to both opponents and proponents of the death penalty.

Capital punishment, known also as the death penalty, is a subject that is been present in human history for a long time and remains today. Throughout the years’ many people have been arguing about whether if it should be completely abolished, why should be abolished, or why should not, either in the United States or other countries around the world, and the answer for that is complete yes.

There are many reasons why the death penalty should not be allowed, and one of them, to start with the argument, is because innocent people are getting killed without further investigation. For many years we have seen cases in the United States where the man who has been accused of murder or either of other things ends up being innocent after having spent a lifetime in prison. As humans we make mistakes, but there are some mistakes from where we cannot recover on which is losing ‘time’ and when your life is being taken away for man mistake. One example of this is the case of Kwame, his brother, and friend of his friend Ricky Jackson, who were found guilty for killing a man in Cleveland back in 1975 for lack of investigation when they were not after 40 years: “Jackson’s sentence was commuted to life a year earlier because of an error in the jury instructions” (The Washington Times/ Mark Gillespie, p.7). This is a clear example of how dangerous the death penalty can be without further investigation, which can also destroy in one instant someone’s life. In addition to this, according to ‘It’s All Politics’ by Danielle Kurtz Leben, “153 death row inmates have been exonerated”. This is a big number of victims that throughout the years have spent a lot of time in prison and have been exonerated of the death penalty because the information provided at first was not reliable.

Another reason why the death penalty should be abolished is due to the fact is too expansive and it could help the country to save a lot of money. The United States spends a lot of money from taxes in order to kill a prisoner sentenced to the death penalty, which is 10 times more expensive than keeping it alive in prison. As reported by Philip J. Cook, “North Carolina could save $11 million per year by abolishing its death penalty”. This $11 million dollar can be used for school education, disability people, public hospital, public transportation, and more, instead of wasting this amount of money in a not reliable system. Not only that, but also, as mentioned previously, keeping the prisoners for life in prison could be the way to help the country economy to save a lot of money and even grow. Many people argue that putting the prisoner in jail can be more expensive because the government has to provide that person with food, water, to keep himself/her clean, and also a place to live on, either if it’s for a lifetime or for a period of time, but this is not true. Here is a note from Las Vegas Sun which tells us how much money is spend in retaining the prisoner than killing it: “From a suspect’s arrest through his or her final days behind bars, officials spend at least $1.3 million on murder cases where convicts are sentenced to death but not executed that’s $532,000 more compared with murder cases where capital punishment wasn’t sought” (Las Vegas Sun/ Ana Ley, p.5).

Another equally important reason why the death penalty should be abolished is that the system is not and hasn’t improved its methods throughout the years and it could be easily manipulated for someone’s advantage as a matter of fact. There had been more than two cases in the United States where the person who is been put to death takes longer than what it should as a result of suffering and agony before the prisoner dies. According to David Von Drehle from the Times, “In April 2014, Oklahoma authorities spent some 40 minutes trying to kill Clayton Lockett before he finally died of a heart attack”. Again, here is another example of negligence by the government and authorities who demonstrate how unprepared some of this death penalty movements can be. How it is that they spend around $532,000 in the death penalty when their methods are not getting better and what they’re doing is nothing than just torturing someone. On the other hand, the death penalty system it’s been manipulated in most of the cases back in the days in order to close a case or also to put an innocent to death just because they wanted to change somethings in the system for their own good. This is a good example of how weak the system had been back in the day and how it projects for the future to come. Also, it projects to us how careless they are in terms of evaluating its police officers, which give makes us doubt of today’s protocols. This quote by James Dawson examines the corruption of some of the cases back in the time and how police officers were able to remove or even add some evidence in order to find someone guilty and send it to jail. “Most of an elite team of forensic hair examiners had lied at trial in the 1980s and 1990s to benefit prosecutors in 32 death penalty cases. 14 of those people have since died in prison or have been executed” (Delaware Public Media/ James Dawson, p.3). As explained by James Dawson, fourteen of the people who were incarcerated wrongly had to spend the rest of their life in prison, and many had been killed, even know most of them were innocents. This is sad because these prisoners didn’t have someone to go over their case in order to prevent authorities from doing this and free them from something they never committed on their life.

There is a good amount of people who believe that the death penalty should be allowed because it has helped families to get justice throughout the years. However, this is true that instead of death penalty justice for families, we can elaborate justice throughout different methods. There are methods that can be more convenient for the country, as well as for the families who are suffering while they wait for their murder to be killed. This is something that can be described as something indescribable. Instead of the death penalty, prisoners should work for free in order to earn their food and give back to the country. For families, this cannot be enough justice, but it is more considerable to put the prisoner to work for the country than just being killed. The 13th Amendment, which otherwise banned slavery, expressly allowed the practice to continue for prisoners. In other words, we can still make prisoners work for free without turning this into slavery, helping the country to grow economically and keeping them doing something while they are in prison. Moreover, this can also be used as punishment for the bad things they’ve done and given back to the nation for the damages they caused as well. Prisoners could be fixing streets as they used to do back in the day, cleaning parks, in construction, and more. This is because killing them or keeping them in prison can be expansive and somehow, they need to earn their food, water, and the supplies they use while they are in jail, which actually comes from the government taxes. Here we can see how ABC NEWS makes mention of this economic situation as we still running the death penalty: “It is cheaper to imprison killers for life than to execute them” (ABC NEWS, p.2).

In relation to the things mentioned before, there is another statement against allowing the death penalty that it’s been circulating; this one states that the death penalty is delivered randomly and that it has to do with racial identity, in other words ‘racism’. When we talk about to abolish the death penalty this is something that we as humans’ beings have to pay close attention to. As I mentioned before, death penalty system can be easily shape on advantage of the person who is investigating the case, which means that if there a case that involucrate racial problems, such as a black men killed a white police officer, without further proof this person could be easily sent to jail and be sentenced later on to death penalty. Lincoln Kaplan, agreeing with the New York Times, explains that “black defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death if their victim is white rather than black” (p.2). In this quote by Lincoln Caplan, we can see racism still present among authorities, which gives the sense that white people even know are guilty, for social inequality had been getting priority over the black people, whether to not or be executed, while this is under ‘investigation’. Many families all over the country are now afraid about this random decision because they don’t know if one of their family members who also are in jail can be condemned to death. This makes the families wonder if this is based on identity or instead if it’s about who is actually guilty which puts so much pressure over the families of those who are in jail and their sentence is not done yet. Another quote from HUFFPOST by Laura Bassett states: “A national poll conducted in 2010 by Lake Research Partners showed that the unfairness of death sentencing is a top concern among voters who oppose capital punishment” (p.6). This confusion can lead to future problems as time goes by.

After having investigated and analyzed all this information about whether if the death penalty should be abolished or not, I have concluded that it should. This is because the death penalty cost too much money and which is been taken from citizen’s taxes while they are in prison waiting to be condemned death. In addition to this, the death penalty still doesn’t have reliable methods that we can depend on, bringing with innocent people put it to death and corruption in most of the cases.

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.

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

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.