argumentative essay is the death penalty a just punishment

The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment Essay

The use of the death penalty is considered by some to be the most obvious and heinous example of cruel and unusual punishment. The book An Eye for an Eye (Nathanson, 2001) articulates the opposition viewpoint. It and like-minded opponents to capital punishment do not believe that the government should be vested with the power to put any of its citizens to death and that the practice is racially biased, overtly costly, and does not achieve the intended outcome. The majority in this country believes it to be neither cruel nor unusual, on the contrary, they think it just and fair.

Originally, the death punishment is aimed to be the revenge for a crime, to protect society by imprisoning the criminal, to deter that person and other potential offenders from the commission of crimes, and to obtain reparations from the offender (Wolfgang, 1998). This type of punishment was intended to be the compensation for a crime, linked with life destruction (a crime, after which life was impossible). This category includes murder, rape (deprivation of honor), and similar actions. Originally, the death punishment should be appointed to any murderer, rapist, and serial gambler (gambling rarely deals without deaths). It is necessary to mention that capital punishment is often regarded as the most powerful crime prevention tool, as the fear of being sentenced to death makes some criminals refuse their ideas and intentions.

As for the necessity of the death penalty, the following fact should be emphasized: the death penalty is the most effective means of crime eradication. The punished criminal does not require to be guarded, fed, observed, etc. No Person – No Trouble. The principles of the criminals should be used against them, consequently, the death penalty is the best way to give humanity to realize the horror of death and the fear of being killed. Despite the fact it is considered a violation of the principal human rights, there is no necessity to regard criminals as humans, while the criminals ignore the rights of their victims. However, the investigation system should be essentially improved in order to avoid mistaken sentencing and the punishment of the innocents.

Sending a murderer away to enjoy three meals a day and a roof over their heads for life simply doesn’t fully address the issue. Death penalty laws have been known to change and probably will again. In addition, people tend to forget the past and parole boards constantly evolve their personnel so there is always a chance, no matter how small, that the murderer will strike again if he is allowed to remain alive. A life sentence imprisonment tends to depreciate with the passage of time as these examples illustrate. In 1962, James Moore raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss in New York State. Her parents were opposed to the death penalty and asked that he be given life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Moore has been eligible for parole every two years since 1982 because of a change in sentencing laws. In 1966, Kenneth McDuff was convicted in the fatal shooting of two boys in the face and the brutal rape and strangulation of their 16-year-old female friend. A Texas jury sentenced McDuff to die in the electric chair but in 1972 this was commuted to life in prison after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. In 1989, he was released only to commit at least six more murders which included a pregnant mother of two. He was finally executed in 1998 (Lowe, 2006).

Although the U.S. court system is at least among the most equitable in the world, no system of justice can expect to provide perfect results 100 percent of the time. Mistakes are inherent within all systems that rely on the human element for proof and for judgment. The justice system correctly demands that a higher standard be imposed for determinations of guilt in death penalty cases. With the extraordinary due process that is applied in all death penalty cases, the risk of making a mistake is minute. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, there has been no credible evidence provided that confirms any innocent persons have been executed. The more than 100 ‘innocent’ death row inmates that were ‘exonerated’ are a sham. The actual figure of innocent death row inmates is nearer 40 which should be considered in context with the 7,000-plus death–row inmates added to the roles since 1973. Mistakes within the system, though few and unavoidable, should not serve as justification to eradicate the death penalty. We should never disregard the dangers of permitting murderers to kill again (Stewart, 2006).

The death penalty is the option of last resort for criminals that cannot be rehabilitated. Every murderer executed is one less person that the taxpayers are not feeding and housing. An execution is less costly to taxpayers than the alternative, long imprisonment. “The cost of supporting criminals in maximum security prisons until they die is very high and they feel the innocent taxpayer should not have to foot the bill for the care of depraved criminals who’ve demonstrated that they have no respect for society’s laws or human life” (Olen & Barry, 1996: 273-274). Additionally, a lengthy appeals process is a costly process that ties up the court system. This cost is considered by opponents to be an insignificant argument because the value of human life cannot possibly be broken down into columns on a profit and loss ledger. Department of Justice statistics clearly illustrates that the death penalty contains many constitutional flaws. Between 1973 and 1993, almost half (forty-two percent) of inmates awaiting the death sentence had their sentences commuted or reversed. Capital punishment is “a waste of money and resources in producing what turns out to be counterfeit death sentences in almost one out of every two instances” (McCloskey, 1996: 7).

Opponents of the death penalty defy reasonable logic by arguing that taking a murderer’s life devalues human life, the ‘killing is wrong no matter the circumstances’ argument such as expressed in (Nathanson, 2001 p.7). Evidently, they have never had their car stolen and don’t understand the example or they believe that the murderer’s life is more valuable than the victim’s. Taking away criminals’ freedom is the only way of showing how much this society showing values freedom. Taking away criminals’ life is the only way of showing how much this society values life.

Works Cited

“Furman v. Georgia.” The Supreme Court Collection. (1972). Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Web.

Lowe, Wesley. “Capital Punishment vs. Life Without Parole.” ProDeath Penalty. (2006). Web.

Nathanson, Stephen “An Eye for an Eye?” Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 2nd edition (2001).

Olen, Jeffrey & Barry, Vincent. Applying Ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., (1996).

Prager, Dennis. “Death Penalty Guards What is Valued Most.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. (2001).

Stewart, Steven D. “A Message from the Prosecuting Attorney.” The Death Penalty. Clark County, IN: Office of the Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, (2006).

Wolfgang, M.E. “We Do Not Deserve to Kill.” Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 44, (1998), pp. 19-32.

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, November 18). The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-death-penalty-a-just-punishment/

"The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment." IvyPanda , 18 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/the-death-penalty-a-just-punishment/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment'. 18 November.

IvyPanda . 2021. "The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment." November 18, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-death-penalty-a-just-punishment/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment." November 18, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-death-penalty-a-just-punishment/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment." November 18, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-death-penalty-a-just-punishment/.

Strict Liability Case: A Statement of Facts, Arguments
Overcrowd Prisons With Non-Violent Offenders
Analyzing the Adaptation of the Shakespeare's "Macbeth"
The U.S. Federal Parole System
Does Parole Work? Effectiveness of Parole
Probation and Parole
Parole as an Incentive to Control Inmate Behavior
Parole system in the United States
Oil Crisis of 1973: Article Study
Parole as an Essential Correctional Component
Capital Punishment: Term Definition
Capital Punishment in the UK Should be Reintroduced?
Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?
The Death Penalty in the United States
The Death Penalty, a Matter of Morals

Request Info

Current Issues Blog

Discover new resources and teaching techniques to help you discuss current issues in the classroom!

Subscribe >

The Death Penalty: A Just Punishment?

Sort by Category: All Government & Elections (105) Constitutional Issues (38) Equality (51) Economic Issues (54) Executive Branch (53) Foreign Policy (28) Social Issues (57) Judicial Branch (21) Partisanship & Polarization (53) Teaching the News (36) COVID-19 (27) Energy & Environment (15) US History (27) Political Science (21) Civil Rights & Individual Liberties (65) Legislative Branch (66) Criminal Justice (20) Education (23) Health Care (32) Immigration (15) Historical Perspectives (25) News (12)

December 4, 2019

Currently, 29 states have death penalty laws, and the federal government recently announced that it would resume executions after a 16-year hiatus. Attorney General William Barr has scheduled five death sentences to be carried out by the end of the year , all in cases involving horrifying murder (and, in some cases, sexual assault as well). Seven states have carried out 20 executions this ye ar, 3 the lowest number since 1976 , when the Supreme Court found in Gregg v. Georgia that the death penalty does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. 4 Among the factors hindering the pace of federal e xecutions are the difficulty of obtaining the drugs necessary for lethal injection, as well as declining support for the death penalty among the public, 5 possibly due to lower rates of violent crime and the recent exoneration of some death row inmates. 6

On November 25, 2019, Gallup released the results of a new survey indicating for the first time that Americans now prefer life in prison with no possibility of parole over the death penalty when a person is convicted of murder. Support for life in prison rose from 45 percent in 2014 to 60 percent in the most recent survey; support for the death penalty dropped from 50 percent to 36 percent. However, 56 percent of Americans still broadly support the death penalty, even if they prefer life in prison as a just punishment for convicted murderers. 7

Although capital punishment has been a controversial issue for decades, researchers from the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that tracks death penalty statistics, noted that “[t]his year has had an extraordinarily high percentage of cases in which there is very serious evidence that people who did not commit the killing are being subjected to death warrants .” 8 As such, policymakers are considering and reconsidering whether or not the death penalty is an appropriate way to deliver justice.

Both supporters and opponents of the death penalty are vehemently opposed to any innocent person being put to death. But supporters insist that some crimes are so terrible that death is the only suitable punishment. They also argue that the possibility of a death sentence helps prevent crime from happening in the first place. 9 In response to Attorney General Barr’s decision to schedule executions for five federal prisoners, victims’ advocates pointed out that some families find it extremely painful to wait years or decades for an execution that they see as closure and justice for their loved one(s). 10 For his part, President Donald Trump supports the death penalty and has called for using capital punishment for mass shooters and drug traffickers. 11

Opposing opinions on the death penalty point to inmates like Reed, who was convicted and sentenced to death even though his blood did not match the blood found under the victim’s fingernails and observers have contested the legitimacy of the central evidence in his case. 12 Critics argue that the justice system can be flawed, and that there is always a risk that an innocent person could be executed . Opponents also note that even when guilt is certain—as it was in the case of Daniel Lewis Lee, who was convicted of mur dering a couple and their child—judgments of who receives the death penalty can be arbitrary and unfair. For example, Lee’s co-conspirator, Chevie Kehoe, received a life sentence even though most accounts point to Kehoe as instigating the violence . 13

For further reading on the death penalty, please see Close Up in Class’ Controversial Issue in the News on the subject.

Discussion Questions:

Do you support the death penalty ? Why or why not?
What type(s) of crime, if any, should warrant the death penalty?
How should policymakers respond to the problem of potentially innocent people serving on death row?
How should public opinion factor into death penalty decisions made by judges and justices?

Featured Image Credit: Associated Press

[1] new york times : https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/rodney-reed-texas-execution.html, [2] new york times : https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/death-penalty-rodney-reed-crimes.html, [3] reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-executions/ex-judges-families-of-murder-victims-call-for-halt-to-us-federal-death-penalty-iduskbn1xn046, [4] oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1975/74-6257, [5] reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-executions/ex-judges-families-of-murder-victims-call-for-halt-to-us-federal-death-penalty-iduskbn1xn046, [6] gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/268514/americans-support-life-prison-death-penalty.aspx, [8] new york times : https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/us/death-penalty-rodney-reed-crimes.html, [9] bbc: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/for_1.shtml, [10] the gazette : https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/public-safety/execution-for-iowa-mass-killer-dustin-honken-on-hold-20191121, [11] whitehouse.gov: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-mass-shootings-texas-ohio/, [12] new york times : https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/rodney-reed-texas-execution.html, [13] los angeles times : https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-11-12/rod-reed-ray-cromartie-kardashian-injustice-capital-punishment, one thought on “ the death penalty: a just punishment ”.

In some parts of the world the US is infamous for its continued use of the death penalty. Using the BBC’s Life and Death Row – The Mass Execution as a backdrop, Dr Viven Miller discusses the history of capital punishment in America. In doing so, she reveals how the death penalty divides the US along several different fault lines: race, gender, religion and region. https://www.alamopictures.co.uk/podcast/2020/03/20/capital-punishment

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

Click the buttons below to view arguments and testimony on each topic.

The death penalty deters future murders.

For years, criminologists analyzed murder rates to see if they fluctuated with the likelihood of convicted murderers being executed, but the results were inconclusive. Then in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies.

Moreover, even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, that is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has studied the question of deterrence closely, wrote: “Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks.”

Finally, the death penalty certainly “deters” the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, either in prison, or in society if they should get out. Both as a deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.

States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas’s executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, “It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you’ll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse.”

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A 2012 report released by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies and based on a review of more than three decades of research, concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy, Fordham University. Excerpts from ” The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense,” (Harvard Law Review Association, 1986)

“Execution of those who have committed heinous murders may deter only one murder per year. If it does, it seems quite warranted. It is also the only fitting retribution for murder I can think of.”

“Most abolitionists acknowledge that they would continue to favor abolition even if the death penalty were shown to deter more murders than alternatives could deter. Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers.

Deterrence is not altogether decisive for me either. I would favor retention of the death penalty as retribution even if it were shown that the threat of execution could not deter prospective murderers not already deterred by the threat of imprisonment. Still, I believe the death penalty, because of its finality, is more feared than imprisonment, and deters some prospective murderers not deterred by the thought of imprisonment. Sparing the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibility, or even the probability, that executing them would not deter others. Whereas the life of the victims who might be saved are valuable, that of the murderer has only negative value, because of his crime. Surely the criminal law is meant to protect the lives of potential victims in preference to those of actual murderers.”

“We threaten punishments in order to deter crime. We impose them not only to make the threats credible but also as retribution (justice) for the crimes that were not deterred. Threats and punishments are necessary to deter and deterrence is a sufficient practical justification for them. Retribution is an independent moral justification. Although penalties can be unwise, repulsive, or inappropriate, and those punished can be pitiable, in a sense the infliction of legal punishment on a guilty person cannot be unjust. By committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a legal punishment that he could have avoided by not committing the crime. The punishment he suffers is the punishment he voluntarily risked suffering and, therefore, it is no more unjust to him than any other event for which one knowingly volunteers to assume the risk. Thus, the death penalty cannot be unjust to the guilty criminal.”

Full text can be found at PBS.org .

“Persons who commit murder and other crimes of personal violence either may or may not premeditate their crimes.

When crime is planned, the criminal ordinarily concentrates on escaping detection, arrest, and conviction. The threat of even the severest punishment will not discourage those who expect to escape detection and arrest. It is impossible to imagine how the threat of any punishment could prevent a crime that is not premeditated….

Most capital crimes are committed in the heat of the moment. Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended. In such cases, violence is inflicted by persons heedless of the consequences to themselves as well as to others….

If, however, severe punishment can deter crime, then long-term imprisonment is severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime.

The vast preponderance of the evidence shows that the death penalty is no more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder and that it may even be an incitement to criminal violence. Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death-penalty states….

On-duty police officers do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide in abolitionist states than they do in death-penalty states. Between l973 and l984, for example, lethal assaults against police were not significantly more, or less, frequent in abolitionist states than in death-penalty states. There is ‘no support for the view that the death penalty provides a more effective deterrent to police homicides than alternative sanctions. Not for a single year was evidence found that police are safer in jurisdictions that provide for capital punishment.’ (Bailey and Peterson, Criminology (1987))

Prisoners and prison personnel do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide from life-term prisoners in abolition states than they do in death-penalty states. Between 1992 and 1995, 176 inmates were murdered by other prisoners; the vast majority (84%) were killed in death penalty jurisdictions. During the same period about 2% of all assaults on prison staff were committed by inmates in abolition jurisdictions. Evidently, the threat of the death penalty ‘does not even exert an incremental deterrent effect over the threat of a lesser punishment in the abolitionist states.’ (Wolfson, in Bedau, ed., The Death Penalty in America, 3rd ed. (1982))

Actual experience thus establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty does not deter murder. No comparable body of evidence contradicts that conclusion.”

Click here for the full text from the ACLU website.

Retribution

A just society requires the taking of a life for a life.

When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer’s life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind.

Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that it is proper to take an “eye for an eye” and a life for a life.

Although the victim and the victim’s family cannot be restored to the status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closure to the murderer’s crime (and closure to the ordeal for the victim’s family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more victims.

For the most cruel and heinous crimes, the ones for which the death penalty is applied, offenders deserve the worst punishment under our system of law, and that is the death penalty. Any lesser punishment would undermine the value society places on protecting lives.

Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, described his concept of the need for retribution in one case: “In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.”

Retribution is another word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict immediate pain on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a mature society demand a more measured response.

The emotional impulse for revenge is not a sufficient justification for invoking a system of capital punishment, with all its accompanying problems and risks. Our laws and criminal justice system should lead us to higher principles that demonstrate a complete respect for life, even the life of a murderer. Encouraging our basest motives of revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of violence. Allowing executions sanctions killing as a form of ‘pay-back.’

Many victims’ families denounce the use of the death penalty. Using an execution to try to right the wrong of their loss is an affront to them and only causes more pain. For example, Bud Welch’s daughter, Julie, was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Although his first reaction was to wish that those who committed this terrible crime be killed, he ultimately realized that such killing “is simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed Julie…. Vengeance is a strong and natural emotion. But it has no place in our justice system.”

The notion of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life, is a simplistic one which our society has never endorsed. We do not allow torturing the torturer, or raping the rapist. Taking the life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment, especially in light of the fact that the U.S. executes only a small percentage of those convicted of murder, and these defendants are typically not the worst offenders but merely the ones with the fewest resources to defend themselves.

Louis P. Pojman Author and Professor of Philosophy, U.S. Military Academy. Excerpt from “The Death Penalty: For and Against,” (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1998)

“[Opponents of the capital punishment often put forth the following argument:] Perhaps the murderer deserves to die, but what authority does the state have to execute him or her? Both the Old and New Testament says, “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Prov. 25:21 and Romans 12:19). You need special authority to justify taking the life of a human being.

The objector fails to note that the New Testament passage continues with a support of the right of the state to execute criminals in the name of God: “Let every person be subjected to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment…. If you do wrong, be afraid, for [the authority] does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13: 1-4). So, according to the Bible, the authority to punish, which presumably includes the death penalty, comes from God.

But we need not appeal to a religious justification for capital punishment. We can site the state’s role in dispensing justice. Just as the state has the authority (and duty) to act justly in allocating scarce resources, in meeting minimal needs of its (deserving) citizens, in defending its citizens from violence and crime, and in not waging unjust wars; so too does it have the authority, flowing from its mission to promote justice and the good of its people, to punish the criminal. If the criminal, as one who has forfeited a right to life, deserves to be executed, especially if it will likely deter would-be murderers, the state has a duty to execute those convicted of first-degree murder.”

National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Excerpts from “To End the Death Penalty: A Report of the National Jewish/Catholic Consultation” (December, 1999)

“Some would argue that the death penalty is needed as a means of retributive justice, to balance out the crime with the punishment. This reflects a natural concern of society, and especially of victims and their families. Yet we believe that we are called to seek a higher road even while punishing the guilty, for example through long and in some cases life-long incarceration, so that the healing of all can ultimately take place.

Some would argue that the death penalty will teach society at large the seriousness of crime. Yet we say that teaching people to respond to violence with violence will, again, only breed more violence.

The strongest argument of all [in favor of the death penalty] is the deep pain and grief of the families of victims, and their quite natural desire to see punishment meted out to those who have plunged them into such agony. Yet it is the clear teaching of our traditions that this pain and suffering cannot be healed simply through the retribution of capital punishment or by vengeance. It is a difficult and long process of healing which comes about through personal growth and God’s grace. We agree that much more must be done by the religious community and by society at large to solace and care for the grieving families of the victims of violent crime.

Recent statements of the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism, and of the U.S. Catholic Conference sum up well the increasingly strong convictions shared by Jews and Catholics…:

‘Respect for all human life and opposition to the violence in our society are at the root of our long-standing opposition (as bishops) to the death penalty. We see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. As we said in Confronting the Culture of Violence: ‘We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.’ We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes, but for what it does to all of us as a society. Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life.’1

We affirm that we came to these conclusions because of our shared understanding of the sanctity of human life. We have committed ourselves to work together, and each within our own communities, toward ending the death penalty.” Endnote 1. Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Catholic Conference, March 24, 1999.

The risk of executing the innocent precludes the use of the death penalty.

The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, over 180 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 1,500 people have been executed. Thus, for every 8.3 people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. These statistics represent an intolerable risk of executing the innocent. If an automobile manufacturer operated with similar failure rates, it would be run out of business.

Our capital punishment system is unreliable. A study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted.

Many of the releases of innocent defendants from death row came about as a result of factors outside of the justice system. Recently, journalism students in Illinois were assigned to investigate the case of a man who was scheduled to be executed, after the system of appeals had rejected his legal claims. The students discovered that one witness had lied at the original trial, and they were able to find another man, who confessed to the crime on videotape and was later convicted of the murder. The innocent man who was released was very fortunate, but he was spared because of the informal efforts of concerned citizens, not because of the justice system.

In other cases, DNA testing has exonerated death row inmates. Here, too, the justice system had concluded that these defendants were guilty and deserving of the death penalty. DNA testing became available only in the early 1990s, due to advancements in science. If this testing had not been discovered until ten years later, many of these inmates would have been executed. And if DNA testing had been applied to earlier cases where inmates were executed in the 1970s and 80s, the odds are high that it would have proven that some of them were innocent as well.

Society takes many risks in which innocent lives can be lost. We build bridges, knowing that statistically some workers will be killed during construction; we take great precautions to reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful executions are a preventable risk. By substituting a sentence of life without parole, we meet society’s needs of punishment and protection without running the risk of an erroneous and irrevocable punishment.

There is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to our death penalty system in the 1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are very rare. Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If improvements are needed in the system of representation, or in the use of scientific evidence such as DNA testing, then those reforms should be instituted. However, the need for reform is not a reason to abolish the death penalty.

Besides, many of the claims of innocence by those who have been released from death row are actually based on legal technicalities. Just because someone’s conviction is overturned years later and the prosecutor decides not to retry him, does not mean he is actually innocent.

If it can be shown that someone is innocent, surely a governor would grant clemency and spare the person. Hypothetical claims of innocence are usually just delaying tactics to put off the execution as long as possible. Given our thorough system of appeals through numerous state and federal courts, the execution of an innocent individual today is almost impossible. Even the theoretical execution of an innocent person can be justified because the death penalty saves lives by deterring other killings.

Gerald Kogan, Former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Excerpts from a speech given in Orlando, Florida, October 23, 1999 “[T]here is no question in my mind, and I can tell you this having seen the dynamics of our criminal justice system over the many years that I have been associated with it, [as] prosecutor, defense attorney, trial judge and Supreme Court Justice, that convinces me that we certainly have, in the past, executed those people who either didn’t fit the criteria for execution in the State of Florida or who, in fact, were, factually, not guilty of the crime for which they have been executed.

“And you can make these statements when you understand the dynamics of the criminal justice system, when you understand how the State makes deals with more culpable defendants in a capital case, offers them light sentences in exchange for their testimony against another participant or, in some cases, in fact, gives them immunity from prosecution so that they can secure their testimony; the use of jailhouse confessions, like people who say, ‘I was in the cell with so-and-so and they confessed to me,’ or using those particular confessions, the validity of which there has been great doubt. And yet, you see the uneven application of the death penalty where, in many instances, those that are the most culpable escape death and those that are the least culpable are victims of the death penalty. These things begin to weigh very heavily upon you. And under our system, this is the system we have. And that is, we are human beings administering an imperfect system.”

“And how about those people who are still sitting on death row today, who may be factually innocent but cannot prove their particular case very simply because there is no DNA evidence in their case that can be used to exonerate them? Of course, in most cases, you’re not going to have that kind of DNA evidence, so there is no way and there is no hope for them to be saved from what may be one of the biggest mistakes that our society can make.”

The entire speech by Justice Kogan is available here.

Paul G. Cassell Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah, College of Law, and former law clerk to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. Statement before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights Concerning Claims of Innocence in Capital Cases (July 23, 1993)

“Given the fallibility of human judgments, the possibility exists that the use of capital punishment may result in the execution of an innocent person. The Senate Judiciary Committee has previously found this risk to be ‘minimal,’ a view shared by numerous scholars. As Justice Powell has noted commenting on the numerous state capital cases that have come before the Supreme Court, the ‘unprecedented safeguards’ already inherent in capital sentencing statutes ‘ensure a degree of care in the imposition of the sentence of death that can only be described as unique.’”

“Our present system of capital punishment limits the ultimate penalty to certain specifically-defined crimes and even then, permit the penalty of death only when the jury finds that the aggravating circumstances in the case outweigh all mitigating circumstances. The system further provides judicial review of capital cases. Finally, before capital sentences are carried out, the governor or other executive official will review the sentence to insure that it is a just one, a determination that undoubtedly considers the evidence of the condemned defendant’s guilt. Once all of those decisionmakers have agreed that a death sentence is appropriate, innocent lives would be lost from failure to impose the sentence.”

“Capital sentences, when carried out, save innocent lives by permanently incapacitating murderers. Some persons who commit capital homicide will slay other innocent persons if given the opportunity to do so. The death penalty is the most effective means of preventing such killers from repeating their crimes. The next most serious penalty, life imprisonment without possibility of parole, prevents murderers from committing some crimes but does not prevent them from murdering in prison.”

“The mistaken release of guilty murderers should be of far greater concern than the speculative and heretofore nonexistent risk of the mistaken execution of an innocent person.”

Full text can be found here.

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used.

In practice, the death penalty does not single out the worst offenders. Rather, it selects an arbitrary group based on such irrational factors as the quality of the defense counsel, the county in which the crime was committed, or the race of the defendant or victim.

Almost all defendants facing the death penalty cannot afford their own attorney. Hence, they are dependent on the quality of the lawyers assigned by the state, many of whom lack experience in capital cases or are so underpaid that they fail to investigate the case properly. A poorly represented defendant is much more likely to be convicted and given a death sentence.

With respect to race, studies have repeatedly shown that a death sentence is far more likely where a white person is murdered than where a Black person is murdered. The death penalty is racially divisive because it appears to count white lives as more valuable than Black lives. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 296 Black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white victim, while only 31 white defendants have been executed for the murder of a Black victim. Such racial disparities have existed over the history of the death penalty and appear to be largely intractable.

It is arbitrary when someone in one county or state receives the death penalty, but someone who commits a comparable crime in another county or state is given a life sentence. Prosecutors have enormous discretion about when to seek the death penalty and when to settle for a plea bargain. Often those who can only afford a minimal defense are selected for the death penalty. Until race and other arbitrary factors, like economics and geography, can be eliminated as a determinant of who lives and who dies, the death penalty must not be used.

Discretion has always been an essential part of our system of justice. No one expects the prosecutor to pursue every possible offense or punishment, nor do we expect the same sentence to be imposed just because two crimes appear similar. Each crime is unique, both because the circumstances of each victim are different and because each defendant is different. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a mandatory death penalty which applied to everyone convicted of first degree murder would be unconstitutional. Hence, we must give prosecutors and juries some discretion.

In fact, more white people are executed in this country than black people. And even if blacks are disproportionately represented on death row, proportionately blacks commit more murders than whites. Moreover, the Supreme Court has rejected the use of statistical studies which claim racial bias as the sole reason for overturning a death sentence.

Even if the death penalty punishes some while sparing others, it does not follow that everyone should be spared. The guilty should still be punished appropriately, even if some do escape proper punishment unfairly. The death penalty should apply to killers of black people as well as to killers of whites. High paid, skillful lawyers should not be able to get some defendants off on technicalities. The existence of some systemic problems is no reason to abandon the whole death penalty system.

Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. President and Chief Executive Officer, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Inc. Excerpt from “Legal Lynching: Racism, Injustice & the Death Penalty,” (Marlowe & Company, 1996)

“Who receives the death penalty has less to do with the violence of the crime than with the color of the criminal’s skin, or more often, the color of the victim’s skin. Murder — always tragic — seems to be a more heinous and despicable crime in some states than in others. Women who kill and who are killed are judged by different standards than are men who are murderers and victims.

The death penalty is essentially an arbitrary punishment. There are no objective rules or guidelines for when a prosecutor should seek the death penalty, when a jury should recommend it, and when a judge should give it. This lack of objective, measurable standards ensures that the application of the death penalty will be discriminatory against racial, gender, and ethnic groups.

The majority of Americans who support the death penalty believe, or wish to believe, that legitimate factors such as the violence and cruelty with which the crime was committed, a defendant’s culpability or history of violence, and the number of victims involved determine who is sentenced to life in prison and who receives the ultimate punishment. The numbers, however, tell a different story. They confirm the terrible truth that bias and discrimination warp our nation’s judicial system at the very time it matters most — in matters of life and death. The factors that determine who will live and who will die — race, sex, and geography — are the very same ones that blind justice was meant to ignore. This prejudicial distribution should be a moral outrage to every American.”

Justice Lewis Powell United States Supreme Court Justice excerpts from McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (footnotes and citations omitted)

(Mr. McCleskey, a black man, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1978 for killing a white police officer while robbing a store. Mr. McCleskey appealed his conviction and death sentence, claiming racial discrimination in the application of Georgia’s death penalty. He presented statistical analysis showing a pattern of sentencing disparities based primarily on the race of the victim. The analysis indicated that black defendants who killed white victims had the greatest likelihood of receiving the death penalty. Writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice Powell held that statistical studies on race by themselves were an insufficient basis for overturning the death penalty.)

“[T]he claim that [t]his sentence rests on the irrelevant factor of race easily could be extended to apply to claims based on unexplained discrepancies that correlate to membership in other minority groups, and even to gender. Similarly, since [this] claim relates to the race of his victim, other claims could apply with equally logical force to statistical disparities that correlate with the race or sex of other actors in the criminal justice system, such as defense attorneys or judges. Also, there is no logical reason that such a claim need be limited to racial or sexual bias. If arbitrary and capricious punishment is the touchstone under the Eighth Amendment, such a claim could — at least in theory — be based upon any arbitrary variable, such as the defendant’s facial characteristics, or the physical attractiveness of the defendant or the victim, that some statistical study indicates may be influential in jury decision making. As these examples illustrate, there is no limiting principle to the type of challenge brought by McCleskey. The Constitution does not require that a State eliminate any demonstrable disparity that correlates with a potentially irrelevant factor in order to operate a criminal justice system that includes capital punishment. As we have stated specifically in the context of capital punishment, the Constitution does not ‘plac[e] totally unrealistic conditions on its use.’ (Gregg v. Georgia)”

The entire decision can be found here.

Share full article

Supported by

student opinion

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?

In its last six months, the United States government has put 13 prisoners to death. Do you think capital punishment should end?

argumentative essay is the death penalty a just punishment

By Nicole Daniels

Students in U.S. high schools can get free digital access to The New York Times until Sept. 1, 2021.

In July, the United States carried out its first federal execution in 17 years. Since then, the Trump administration has executed 13 inmates, more than three times as many as the federal government had in the previous six decades.

The death penalty has been abolished in 22 states and 106 countries, yet it is still legal at the federal level in the United States. Does your state or country allow the death penalty?

Do you believe governments should be allowed to execute people who have been convicted of crimes? Is it ever justified, such as for the most heinous crimes? Or are you universally opposed to capital punishment?

In “ ‘Expedited Spree of Executions’ Faced Little Supreme Court Scrutiny ,” Adam Liptak writes about the recent federal executions:

In 2015, a few months before he died, Justice Antonin Scalia said he w o uld not be surprised if the Supreme Court did away with the death penalty. These days, after President Trump’s appointment of three justices, liberal members of the court have lost all hope of abolishing capital punishment. In the face of an extraordinary run of federal executions over the past six months, they have been left to wonder whether the court is prepared to play any role in capital cases beyond hastening executions. Until July, there had been no federal executions in 17 years . Since then, the Trump administration has executed 13 inmates, more than three times as many as the federal government had put to death in the previous six decades.

The article goes on to explain that Justice Stephen G. Breyer issued a dissent on Friday as the Supreme Court cleared the way for the last execution of the Trump era, complaining that it had not sufficiently resolved legal questions that inmates had asked. The article continues:

If Justice Breyer sounded rueful, it was because he had just a few years ago held out hope that the court would reconsider the constitutionality of capital punishment. He had set out his arguments in a major dissent in 2015 , one that must have been on Justice Scalia’s mind when he made his comments a few months later. Justice Breyer wrote in that 46-page dissent that he considered it “highly likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment,” which bars cruel and unusual punishments. He said that death row exonerations were frequent, that death sentences were imposed arbitrarily and that the capital justice system was marred by racial discrimination. Justice Breyer added that there was little reason to think that the death penalty deterred crime and that long delays between sentences and executions might themselves violate the Eighth Amendment. Most of the country did not use the death penalty, he said, and the United States was an international outlier in embracing it. Justice Ginsburg, who died in September, had joined the dissent. The two other liberals — Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — were undoubtedly sympathetic. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who held the decisive vote in many closely divided cases until his retirement in 2018, had written the majority opinions in several 5-to-4 decisions that imposed limits on the death penalty, including ones barring the execution of juvenile offenders and people convicted of crimes other than murder .

In the July Opinion essay “ The Death Penalty Can Ensure ‘Justice Is Being Done,’ ” Jeffrey A. Rosen, then acting deputy attorney general, makes a legal case for capital punishment:

The death penalty is a difficult issue for many Americans on moral, religious and policy grounds. But as a legal issue, it is straightforward. The United States Constitution expressly contemplates “capital” crimes, and Congress has authorized the death penalty for serious federal offenses since President George Washington signed the Crimes Act of 1790. The American people have repeatedly ratified that decision, including through the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 signed by President Bill Clinton, the federal execution of Timothy McVeigh under President George W. Bush and the decision by President Barack Obama’s Justice Department to seek the death penalty against the Boston Marathon bomber and Dylann Roof.

Students, read the entire article , then tell us:

Do you support the use of capital punishment? Or do you think it should be abolished? Why?

Do you think the death penalty serves a necessary purpose, like deterring crime, providing relief for victims’ families or imparting justice? Or is capital punishment “cruel and unusual” and therefore prohibited by the Constitution? Is it morally wrong?

Are there alternatives to the death penalty that you think would be more appropriate? For example, is life in prison without the possibility of parole a sufficient sentence? Or is that still too harsh? What about restorative justice , an approach that “considers harm done and strives for agreement from all concerned — the victims, the offender and the community — on making amends”? What other ideas do you have?

Vast racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty have been found. For example, Black people are overrepresented on death row, and a recent study found that “defendants convicted of killing white victims were executed at a rate 17 times greater than those convicted of killing Black victims.” Does this information change or reinforce your opinion of capital punishment? How so?

The Federal Death Penalty Act prohibits the government from executing an inmate who is mentally disabled; however, in the recent executions of Corey Johnson , Alfred Bourgeois and Lisa Montgomery , their defense teams, families and others argued that they had intellectual disabilities. What role do you think disability or trauma history should play in how someone is punished, or rehabilitated, after committing a crime?

How concerned should we be about wrongfully convicted people being executed? The Innocence Project has proved the innocence of 18 people on death row who were exonerated by DNA testing. Do you have worries about the fair application of the death penalty, or about the possibility of the criminal justice system executing an innocent person?

About Student Opinion

• Find all of our Student Opinion questions in this column . • Have an idea for a Student Opinion question? Tell us about it . • Learn more about how to use our free daily writing prompts for remote learning .

Students 13 and older in the United States and the United Kingdom, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Nicole Daniels joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2019 after working in museum education, curriculum writing and bilingual education. More about Nicole Daniels

Entertainment
Environment
Information Science and Technology
Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Social Issues Death Penalty

Examining the Death Penalty: An Argumentative Perspective

Table of contents, death penalty arguments: deterrence and prevention, ethical considerations: the value of human life, implementation complexities: ensuring fairness, conclusion: weighing the arguments.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

Poverty in America
Immigration
Breastfeeding in Public
Hippies Movement

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

Capital punishment is an ancient practice. It’s one that human rights defenders strongly oppose and consider as inhumane and cruel. In 2019, Amnesty International reported the lowest number of executions in about a decade. Most executions occurred in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Egypt . The United States is the only developed western country still using capital punishment. What does this say about the US? Here are five essays about the death penalty everyone should read:

“When We Kill”

By: Nicholas Kristof | From: The New York Times 2019

In this excellent essay, Pulitizer-winner Nicholas Kristof explains how he first became interested in the death penalty. He failed to write about a man on death row in Texas. The man, Cameron Todd Willingham, was executed in 2004. Later evidence showed that the crime he supposedly committed – lighting his house on fire and killing his three kids – was more likely an accident. In “When We Kill,” Kristof puts preconceived notions about the death penalty under the microscope. These include opinions such as only guilty people are executed, that those guilty people “deserve” to die, and the death penalty deters crime and saves money. Based on his investigations, Kristof concludes that they are all wrong.

Nicholas Kristof has been a Times columnist since 2001. He’s the winner of two Pulitizer Prices for his coverage of China and the Darfur genocide.

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

By: Willie Jasper Darden, Jr.

Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. was on death row for 14 years. In his essay, he opens with the line, “Ironically, there is probably more hope on death row than would be found in most other places.” He states that everyone is capable of murder, questioning if people who support capital punishment are just as guilty as the people they execute. Darden goes on to say that if every murderer was executed, there would be 20,000 killed per day. Instead, a person is put on death row for something like flawed wording in an appeal. Darden feels like he was picked at random, like someone who gets a terminal illness. This essay is important to read as it gives readers a deeper, more personal insight into death row.

Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. was sentenced to death in 1974 for murder. During his time on death row, he advocated for his innocence and pointed out problems with his trial, such as the jury pool that excluded black people. Despite worldwide support for Darden from public figures like the Pope, Darden was executed in 1988.

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

By: Bryan Stevenson | From: TED 2012

This piece is a transcript of Bryan Stevenson’s 2012 TED talk, but we feel it’s important to include because of Stevenson’s contributions to criminal justice. In the talk, Stevenson discusses the death penalty at several points. He points out that for years, we’ve been taught to ask the question, “Do people deserve to die for their crimes?” Stevenson brings up another question we should ask: “Do we deserve to kill?” He also describes the American death penalty system as defined by “error.” Somehow, society has been able to disconnect itself from this problem even as minorities are disproportionately executed in a country with a history of slavery.

Bryan Stevenson is a lawyer, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, and author. He’s argued in courts, including the Supreme Court, on behalf of the poor, minorities, and children. A film based on his book Just Mercy was released in 2019 starring Michael B. Jordan and Jamie Foxx.

“I Know What It’s Like To Carry Out Executions”

By: S. Frank Thompson | From: The Atlantic 2019

In the death penalty debate, we often hear from the family of the victims and sometimes from those on death row. What about those responsible for facilitating an execution? In this opinion piece, a former superintendent from the Oregon State Penitentiary outlines his background. He carried out the only two executions in Oregon in the past 55 years, describing it as having a “profound and traumatic effect” on him. In his decades working as a correctional officer, he concluded that the death penalty is not working . The United States should not enact federal capital punishment.

Frank Thompson served as the superintendent of OSP from 1994-1998. Before that, he served in the military and law enforcement. When he first started at OSP, he supported the death penalty. He changed his mind when he observed the protocols firsthand and then had to conduct an execution.

“There Is No Such Thing As Closure on Death Row”

By: Paul Brown | From: The Marshall Project 2019

This essay is from Paul Brown, a death row inmate in Raleigh, North Carolina. He recalls the moment of his sentencing in a cold courtroom in August. The prosecutor used the term “closure” when justifying a death sentence. Who is this closure for? Brown theorizes that the prosecutors are getting closure as they end another case, but even then, the cases are just a way to further their careers. Is it for victims’ families? Brown is doubtful, as the death sentence is pursued even when the families don’t support it. There is no closure for Brown or his family as they wait for his execution. Vivid and deeply-personal, this essay is a must-read for anyone who wonders what it’s like inside the mind of a death row inmate.

Paul Brown has been on death row since 2000 for a double murder. He is a contributing writer to Prison Writers and shares essays on topics such as his childhood, his life as a prisoner, and more.

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

15 Root Causes of Climate Change

15 Facts about Rosa Parks

Abolitionist Movement: History, Main Ideas, and Activism Today

The Biggest 15 NGOs in the UK

15 Biggest NGOs in Canada

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

Argumentative essay on death penalty

In 1994, Seth Penalver was sentenced to death for a brutal murder that involved three individuals. There was no actual physical evidence relating him to the crime. The only evidence they had was a video with poor quality in which the murderer’s face could not be seen as well. Penalver remained in custody until 2012, when he was finally acquitted of all charges. (Florida: Seth Penalver, acquitted in 2012) Death Penalty is a crime. The death penalty is unjustifiable, hypocritical and leads to false imprisonment that results in executions that are later discovered to be found.

Seth Penalver case is just among the countless cases that have been recorded by individuals who have been on the verge of death due to poor apprehension tactics in their case. Investigations that have been carried out in numerous states following the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976 reveals that there are numerous people who were executed yet innocent. It is inevitable to state that the execution of any innocent individual is morally reprehensible. Despite the effort that has been put into guaranteeing proper investigation and conviction of individuals brought in front of a court, no case is fool proof (Ogletree 18). Thus, there might be the conviction of people into death row yet innocent. Based on this, it is recommendable that all individuals, if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, are given a sentence of life without parole which is reasonably effective. The sentencing of death to some criminals might put them out of the misery they might have endured in prison.

The manipulation of the judicial system has been evident where in history it is recorded that factors such as race influenced the death sentence in certain states. This is evident in cases whereby if an African American murdered a white man, he or she was likely to be sentenced to death which is unlike if the situation was reversed. In states such as Oregon, there have been numerous accounts of biases whereby the blacks were victimized by being given the death sentence, which would not have been the case if a white man killed an African American. The death row system has also been a significant waste of the taxpayers money whereby in cases such as the 1995 Washington County murder cases an estimated $1.5 million shillings was spent yet only one of the three suspects was sentenced to death (Ellsworth and Samuel 28). An investigation conducted by the Oregon Department of Administrative Service has made statements that the abolishment of the death row system would save the federal government a substantial amount of resources that could be utilized in significant development projects.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that may be rendered against a suspect, it is important to note that this does not necessarily make them guilty. However, the lack of a proper defense, particularly among suspects who do not have the financial resources to hire a good lawyer, are likely to be found guilty and sentenced to death. An analysis of the numerous cases that the death penalty has been reversed there has been overwhelming evidence pointing out poor counsel. A study conducted by the Columbia University argues that an estimated 68% of appeals made by individuals sentenced to death have been reversed due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Based on this understanding, it would be inappropriate to continuously sentence people to death row as there are numerous factors that could contribute to misjudgment.

Despite the numerous arguments that have been presented in support of the abolishment of the death penalty, there continues to exist counter arguments who believe that the death penalty should be upheld. Among the substantial arguments that have been presented is that, the public execution of the said offenders serves a public reminder to criminals that crime is not rewarding. Speculations reveal that an evaluation of the rate of homicide in numerous states significantly dropped after the incorporation of the death sentence (Hood and Carolyn 7). The further argument presented in support of the death penalty states that the execution of a convicted felon guarantees that the killer will never be engaged in the act again. This argument has been supported by the fact that a significant number of people have been killed by convicted felons who managed to get parole or escaped from jail.

Irrespective of the varied arguments that have been presented in support of the death penalty, I believe that everyone has the capacity to change. It would, therefore, be inappropriate to sentence convicted felons to death without giving them an opportunity to express their remorse towards their actions. It is important that other means of dealing with criminals who are engaged in great crimes is developed because the death sentence has seemingly had no positive impact on lowering the crime rate.

Ellsworth, Phoebe C., and Samuel R. Gross. “Hardening of the attitudes: Americans’ views on the death penalty.” Journal of Social Issues 50.2 (1994): 19-52.
Hood, Roger, and Carolyn Hoyle. The death penalty: A worldwide perspective. OUP Oxford, 2015.
Ogletree Jr, Charles J. “Black man’s burden: Race and the death penalty in America.” Or. L. Rev. 81 (2002): 15.
Bill of Rights
Civil Disobedience
Drunk Driving
First Amendment
Forensic Science
Gang Violence
Human Rights
Identity Theft

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Death Penalty — The Unethical Nature of Death Penalty: An Argumentative Perspective

The Unethical Nature of Death Penalty: an Argumentative Perspective

Categories: Death Penalty Punishment

About this sample

Words: 1212 |

Published: Mar 18, 2021

Words: 1212 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

Expert in: Social Issues Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

5 pages / 2452 words

2 pages / 760 words

2 pages / 745 words

2 pages / 1011 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Death Penalty

In conclusion, the ethical considerations surrounding the death penalty for murderers are complex and multifaceted. The arguments for deterrence, retribution, and justice are countered by concerns about the risk of wrongful [...]

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a highly debated and controversial topic. While some argue that it serves as a deterrent for heinous crimes and provides justice for victims and their families, others [...]

The death penalty has been a contentious issue in the United States for decades. Advocates argue that it serves as a deterrent for heinous crimes, while opponents highlight the moral and ethical implications of state-sanctioned [...]

The death of a moth may seem like a trivial event, but Virginia Woolf's essay "The Death of the Moth" suggests otherwise. Through her vivid and poetic language, Woolf portrays the inevitability of death and the fragility of [...]

The dilemma of whether or not the Death Penalty is ethical is major problem facing society today. The death penalty is given to those who commit crimes deemed by society and government as deserving the infliction of death with [...]

The Death Penalty has been a widely controversial topic in America as it is illegal in 27 of the 50 states in America. Only 21 of the 50 states have been a part of this movement including Texas, Alabama, and more. During the [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Argumentative essay on The death penalty

2016, Argumentative essay on The death penalty

Related Papers

Gerardette Philips

Brendan Beech

Mary Blakelock

charity mae dacut

Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life. For years, criminologists analyzed murder rates to see if they fluctuated with the likelihood of convicted murderers being executed, but the results were inconclusive. Then in 1973 Isaac Ehrlich employed a new kind of analysis which produced results showing that for every inmate who was executed, 7 lives were spared because others were deterred from committing murder. Similar results have been produced by disciples of Ehrlich in follow-up studies. Moreover, even if some studies regarding deterrence are inconclusive, that is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an execution is actually carried out. Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent. The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder rates than jurisdictions which do is not evidence of the failure of deterrence. States with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did not use the death penalty. Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has studied the question of deterrence closely, wrote: "Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive, and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence, the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been deterred. And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything else. We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks." Finally, the death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed. Strictly speaking, this is a form of incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is prevented from robbing on the streets. Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again, either in

Meray Maddah

" No crime goes unpunished " ; we are probably familiar with this quote where anyone who is guilty of any committed crime they should be prosecuted for it before the law and be held responsible for the actions that generated such crime. What people are also familiar with is the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights and the number of articles that it calls for, but distinctively the right to liberty, freedom and personal security. This right something that states and their sovereigns, at least most of them, aspire to accomplish in respect to their nationals' own security, well-being and livelihood; because after all what good is a state if it is not able to make its citizens enjoy the type of life that every human being is entitled on the expense of a certain political agenda from the state's part. In this sense, the state in such scenario will be the responsible party for not only distributing these rights but also following up with the citizens' utilization of these rights and making that each one does have the bare minimum of each right; meaning the entire right itself and not to settle with anything less. That said, what if the state in this case was the party that not only did it not allow the enjoyment of the before mentioned right; but also was the reason why that person is no longer alive? Capital punishment or the application of the different methods of death penalty are still part of many states' judiciary systems and are still until the present day categorically practiced based upon the crime committed by the defendant. No matter how heinous a crime maybe or the fact that numerous of these crimes claim other people's lives, but in the process what good and what type of benefit can we justify ourselves with when we are producing the same end result, that is death, through different procedures that fall under the label of " law application " ? Most importantly, how can we distinguish ourselves from these same criminals and why is acceptable to kill in the name of a perceived justice if such death penalty is agreed upon by a judiciary commission, than to reject

Joseph U C H E Anyebe

The issues as touching death penalty is as topical as they come. This Work seeks to address some of those issues and proffer solutions to some of those identified therein

Charadine Pich

Indian Journal of Legal Philosophy, ISSN:2347-4963,

Ashay Anand

Since the ancient ages ‘Death Penalty’ has been used as a means of deterring crime and eliminating criminals, but it has always been fraught with issues that have been hotly debated between its supporters and antagonists. In the contemporary era ‘Death Penalty’ faces severe challenges mainly regarding the shadow of arbitrariness looming over its applicability, its ability to be an effective deterrent and the serious issue of innocent people continuously in a danger of being sentenced to capital punishment under questionable circumstances which are still an integral part of this process. Moreover it also faces a continual threat of acting as a tool of retribution under pressure of public opinion and mass media. As such should death penalty be scrapped or should it be allowed to function as a necessary evil or an invisible scepter that keeps the perverse from doing heinous acts is an issue worth consideration.

Ines Manoylova

David Von Drehle

RELATED PAPERS

Mahmuda Mukta

Réanimation

françois lemaire

New Journal of Chemistry

Mohsine Driowya

Mauricio Trujillo

Hasan Hasan

Katinka Bergema

The American Journal of Sports Medicine

luis melendez

Jurnal Riset Akuakultur

Indra Suharman

Temas em Psicologia

jucelaine Grazziotin

Clinical Biochemistry

Karim Parastouei

Krzysztof Dudek

Alcohol and Alcoholism

Olivier Bon

Open Access Emergency Medicine

Osama Kentab

Latin American Journal of Development

109 Ioneide Negromonte de Vasconcelos Rocha

Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics

Marine and Petroleum Geology

Psychiatry Research

Mark Salazar

Jean-Michel Bruel

08. Daniesh Bangkit Wijaya

Publizistik

Rudolf Stöber

Communications in Computer and Information Science

NORZAIDAH MD NOH

Annals of Clinical Biochemistry

Abayomi Akanji

Moudi ALASMARI

See More Documents Like This

Death Penalty Argumentative Essay.edited

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

Essay Database >
Essay Examples >
Essays Topics >
Essay on Death Penalty

Death Penalty Is Not Just And Fair Argumentative Essay Examples

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Death Penalty , Social Issues , Capital Punishment , Finance , Crime , Punishment , Criminal Justice , Death

Words: 2000

Published: 02/03/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

Death penalty, as the name suggest is a punishment sentenced to the criminals who are involved and have been proven guilty in assassination of one or more individuals or other giant crime. This is a legal manner that is taken into courts and after the hearings of all the witnesses and considering all the proofs; he is than considered guilty if the proofs are against him and then the court decides to announce the death penalty. The rules and regulations regarding the capital punishment are different from one country to another. Many countries have identified the kinds of punishment for several crimes. But, this capital punishment is considered as cruel and harsh punishment by several people. Many consider it to be against the values and ethics of human being. On the contrary, some other individuals claim that this punishment is important for restricting the murder in future by somebody else. Despite of all the dis-likings and resentment, few countries across the globe is still practicing its procedure. Punishment is considered to be a teaching for all the individuals especially criminals to avoid such mistakes in future but when that criminal has been sentenced to death than he doesn’t stay in this world any more to have a lesson from his act. That is a reason why capital punishment is considered unjust and unfair.

Arguments against capital punishment:

Human life is considered to be the most precious conception of the Almighty and no individual or group has a right to take the precious life of any individual may it be a punishment or a lesson. And if the main focus is to teach him a lesson for the mistake he has done than he would no further live to understand the consequences of his deeds and feels sorry about it. Therefore, no one would be able to turn a criminal into a gem if he is dead. Furthermore, there could be a possibility that an innocent is wrong executed and all the proofs are fabricated just to take revenge from him by his enemies or to save somebody else who is more powerful than him in terms of resources. Death penalty is irreversible and irreplaceable, unlike prison sentence. Therefore, any justice system no matter how developed it is; it will always remain susceptible to human flaws and failure. There is another argument that death penalty has not decreased the number of crime and murder rate. As a matter of fact, many countries that do not practice death penalty or capital punishment have lower murder case than those countries where death penalized is being practiced . The death penalty process is nothing but a trauma for the families and loved ones of the victims. The wounds of these victims who are directly or indirectly associated with the on-going case in the court gets fresh every time they hear a proceedings in that court which doesn’t let their pain healed. By taking, one’s life out of revenge cannot bring the innocent back and therefore that individual cannot be replaced by any one. Then why to go against the human rights? Human rights calls for saving individual’s right to live and it protects the basic principle of every religion that is to have humanity for all the brothers living in the society. Death penalty is against this basic principle of human rights and many religions. It also violates the basic human right of not torturing any human, being cruel or harsh towards him and having inhumane and degrading treatment. Last but not the least; capital punishment undermines human dignity which is inherent to every individual since the time he is born till death .

Pros of Capital punishment:

In today’s modern world, many of the developed and even under-developed countries recommend death penalty. There are many advantages attached to capital punishment which are discussed as under: - It becomes the responsibility of the government to look after the criminal who is being sentenced for life time imprisonment or even for a longer time period for instance, for 10 or more years. Government has to bear all the cost of his maintenance, health, food and clothing and even shelter which turns out to be really expensive. On the contrary, when a criminal is hanged to death then there is no expense incurred on him after wards which becomes cheaper for the jail management and government. The crime is the same in case of both the individuals but the living expense has a huge difference. Therefore, death penalty is considered to be the cost effective method while dealing with the criminals and offenders . - Many law and constitution experts, law practitioners, general public, autocrats and bureaucrat have different opinions regarding the intensity of punishment with the severity of crime that a criminal has convicted. In simple words it means that bigger the conviction is; severe the punishment will be. Therefore, it has the direct relation of crime and punishment. Here, death penalty is the severe sort of punishment among all other forms which is sentenced to the serious and giant crimes such as murders. Penalties are dependent on the nature of crime and it is determined under the court of justice after several hearings and discussion being held on the bases of proofs and witnesses . - The major argument based on the pros of capital punishment is that it is a frightening and dreadful lessor for all the potential criminals who have the criminal minds and who have the potential to commit crime. Therefore, it stops the criminals to act like other murderers when they see their ending being so dreadful and horrible. They fear their ending to be like the one who has been hanged to death and thus change their mind of taking revenge from the innocent or even culprit . - Many criminals that are being penalized to death are brutal. They are a threat to all the other prisoners who have not done a giant crime like them. Therefore, death penalty is a way to secure these prisoners whose punishment is for a shorter period and they have a life ahead. They also get a lesson and thus limit themselves from the criminal activities in future. - Crime activities that include murder, rape, kidnapping, perjury and torture turn on the rules that escapes truth and facts hidden behind and needs evidence for the trial and punishment. But it would generate a great chaos in the society if it doesn’t consider moral assumptions based on the facts that whether sun rises from the west or east and where it sets. Many people would oppose the death penalty being immoral or inhumane against the government and the court system, regardless of provocation of the nature. - Moreover, one advantage of death penalty among others; is that it protects the occurrence of criminal activities by the giant criminals again in future once they are released on parole which can become a serious threat to the society and civilians. There are much of the facts and statistics available in black and white that criminals who are released on parole either tries to damage the witnesses or their families or even tries to escape from the country so as to carry on their activities in some other country. They takes benefit of the provisional release that they get for the limited time period and tries to make the most out of it which is obviously harmful to the society and the government .

Counter Arguments:

There are numerous counter arguments against the above stated pros for the penalty of death which are discussed as under: - Execution that is held in higher courts costs much more than in city or session courts where major cases are related to murder offense. Therefore, where it is argued that death penalty is cost effective and saves money, is not true in real sense. Additional procedures and addition to appeals thus incur more cost and diminish the cost effectiveness of capital punishment. In one way or other, the cost is increasing and decreasing at the same time therefore cost effective method is of no importance as such. In short, criminal courts and chief justice fee is much more than the magistrate . - Many individuals and experts say that death penalty is harsh, inhumane, barbaric and cruel way of dealing with the criminal no matter how serious is the conviction and its intensity. This capital punishment is against the basic right of human and also offends his dignity . - The capital punishment is considered a barefaced violation of human right by the opinion makers and the propagators. Human has all the right of living his life to the fullest, but on the other hand; it is the responsibility of the state to let the human live with dignity, pride and honor . - Eventually, there is a question that rises every time in American citizen’s mind against capital punishment that, should the people who have been accused of murder deserves punishment of death penalized or the government running the state should dissolve the real reason behind this conviction. The murder convicted by criminal may be the result of his poor condition of living or he is taking revenge from even the worst criminal than him who has destroyed his life dreadfully or is blaming or blackmailing him in a certain manner which pressurized him to take such drastic step. In United States of America, there is inheritance of ethnic discrimination, racial biasness and racial apartheid which is unavoidable in the direction of death penalty . There is still an unjust system in even United States of America which saves the wealthy and mighty persons whether he is a giant criminal and treats the poor and meager person harshly who cannot invest his capital in order to get released from the crime and punishment. This is a reason why death penalty is being rejected by many individuals considering the morality, inequality and injustice by the state and its administration. - There is no such evidence as yet that death penalty has deteriorated the crime in the society and is keeping away the criminals from the crimes. Therefore, saying that capital punishment is a lesson for all the potential criminals and murderers is just an argument and not an established fact.

It is a fact that capital punishment cost is 2% to 5% greater as compared to prisoning the criminals for several years. Trial procedure takes dozens of days and even months which takes several petitions and hearings because it need an extensive thorough debate on the proofs provided by witnesses and accused. There is a vast history which claims that there are certain cases which took almost two decades for a decision to be made and for death sentenced to be taken against a criminal. This is a time consuming process which takes a lot funds and time. Death penalty thus is cruel and barbaric which violates human right and dignity. Life is a gift of God and only God has the right to take the life of individual. There are several methods for death penalty which is an emotional trauma for the family of the prisoner. On the contrary, there are certain advantages too of the death penalty which requires a careful consideration before its implementation. One of the major advantages associated to it is that it controls and even minimizes the crime that a society is facing and thus is a frightening warning and lesson for the one who are potential criminals.

Almonte, P., & Desmond, T. (1991). Capital Punishment. Houston (TX): Crestwood House. Fridell, R. (2002). Capital Punishment. Singapore: Marshall Cavendish. Kronenwetter, M. (2001). Capital Punishment: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO: Santa Barbara (CA). Melusky, J. A., & Pesto, K. A. (2011). Capital Punishment. Santa Barbara (CA): ABC-CLIO. Rooney, A. (2005). Capital Punishment. Mankato (MN): Heinemann-Raintree. Wilson, R. (2013). Capital Punishment. Boston (MA): Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1559

This paper is created by writer with

ID 288287169

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

The giving tree opening discussion for oral presentation examples, free electronic medical system dissertation example, literary works presentations example, sample presentation on 9 11 commemorative speech, good example of presentation on plantation tourism, good example of article on dont send your kids to ivy league, good presentation about public speaking, good presentation about the federal no child left behind nclb education reform law, good article on pos system, free dissertation about cardiac ion channels, free dissertation on diabetes, why drinking age should be lowered presentation examples, midwestern states essay sample, good head and shoulders report example, renaissance and its beginnings a top quality essay for your inspiration, good movie review on a place at the table movie review, freedom riders and their modern counterparts literature reviews example, e commerce the challenges with e payments research proposals example, fetal hemoglobin essays, aluminium alloy essays, gait analysis essays, balance of nature essays, differential stress essays, ionic strength essays, pyruvate kinase essays, ionic bonding essays, phyletic gradualism essays, hypocenter essays, buffering agent essays, xico essays, shear stress essays, automobili lamborghini essays, sunderland essays, padre essays, alta essays, milano essays, suribachi essays, lieutenant general essays, vichy essays, kuomintang essays, handful essays, art department essays, bloomingdale essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

IMAGES

Death Penalty Argumentative Essay
⚡ Arguments against death penalty essay. Against the Death Penalty
007 Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty Capital Punishment L ~ Thatsnotus
Is the death penalty a justified form of punishment Free Essay Example
Argumentative Essay On Death Penalty
⇉Argument: Is the Death Penalty Effective? Argumentative Essay Essay

VIDEO

Your Punishment For Dying
argumentative speech about death penalty
Prisons So Brutal You’d Want To Rather Die
Death Penalty Views: A Warden's Perspective
capital punishment debate

COMMENTS

The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment
The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment Essay. The use of the death penalty is considered by some to be the most obvious and heinous example of cruel and unusual punishment. The book An Eye for an Eye (Nathanson, 2001) articulates the opposition viewpoint. It and like-minded opponents to capital punishment do not believe that the government should ...
The Death Penalty: A Just Punishment?
However, 56 percent of Americans still broadly support the death penalty, even if they prefer life in prison as a just punishment for convicted murderers.7. Although capital punishment has been a controversial issue for decades, researchers from the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit that tracks death penalty statistics, noted that ...
The Death Penalty Can Ensure 'Justice Is Being Done'
As John Duncan was dying of cancer in 2018, he asked family members to promise they would witness the execution on his behalf. On July 17, they did. "Finally," they said in a statement ...
Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty
The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used. Agree. Disagree. Testimony in Opposition to the Death Penalty: Arbitrariness. Testimony in Favor of the Death Penalty: Arbitrariness. The Death Penalty Information Center is a non-profit organization serving the media and the public with analysis and information about capital ...
Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?
In the July Opinion essay "The Death Penalty Can Ensure 'Justice Is Being Done,'" Jeffrey A. Rosen, then acting deputy attorney general, makes a legal case for capital punishment: The ...
Capital punishment
Capital punishment has long engendered considerable debate about both its morality and its effect on criminal behaviour. Contemporary arguments for and against capital punishment fall under three general headings: moral, utilitarian, and practical. Moral arguments. Supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit murder, because they have taken the life of another, have forfeited ...
≡Essays on Death Penalty: Top 10 Examples by GradesFixer
The Death Penalty as an Effective Punishment. 5 pages / 2464 words. The purpose of this essay is to assess the viability of the death penalty as an operative castigation. The death penalty is defined as the legal killing an individual as a sentence.
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments. 1. Legality. The United States is one of 55 countries globally with a legal death penalty, according to Amnesty International. As of Mar. 24, 2021, within the US, 27 states had a legal death penalty (though 3 of those states had a moratorium on the punishment's use).
Examining the Death Penalty: An Argumentative Perspective
The death penalty, a highly controversial topic, has ignited passionate debates across societies worldwide. This short argumentative essay seeks to dissect the key arguments for and against the death penalty, exploring its potential deterrence effect, ethical implications, and the complexities of implementing such a grave punishment.
5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know
Here are five essays about the death penalty everyone should read: ... He states that everyone is capable of murder, questioning if people who support capital punishment are just as guilty as the people they execute. Darden goes on to say that if every murderer was executed, there would be 20,000 killed per day. Instead, a person is put on ...
Argumentative Essay on the Death Penalty
Introduction. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment with no harsher inferior damnation than death itself. For centuries, the government has wanted the death penalty to be portrayed as a help in deterring murder and also as an ultimate way of "giving murders a dose of their own medicine" but it isn't the given image, the death penalty has caused people excruciating pain that was ...
Argumentative essay on death penalty
Argumentative essay on death penalty essay for free ️️799 words sample for your inspiration Download high-quality papers from GradeMiners database. ... 💀 Death Penalty, 🟥 Capital Punishment, 🏛️ Justice, 🟡 Morality, 👨🏻 ... Seth Penalver case is just among the countless cases that have been recorded by individuals who have ...
The Death Penalty Debate: An Argumentative Analysis
The topic of the death penalty or capital punishment has been one of controversy for a very long time now. The practice, which began many centuries ago, has seen various societies execute criminals for different capital offenses or crimes. ... This paper is an argumentative essay about death penalty and it argues that a death penalty is an ...
Argumentative Essay on Death Penalty
Currently the United States will only use the death penalty, if one commits first-degree murder. Individuals that believe in the death penalty believe that capital punishment will deter murderers. In this death penalty argumentative essay, I will be arguing that the death penalty does not deter criminals and that the United States should outlaw ...
The Death Penalty: Arguments and Alternative Solutions
A. Human rights. One of the strongest arguments against the death penalty is that it violates the right to life as stated in various international human rights conventions. Critics argue that the death penalty is a form of cruel and inhumane punishment, as it involves intentionally taking a person's life. They believe that every individual has ...
Argumentative Essay on Death Penalty
Argumentative Essay on Death Penalty. This essay sample was donated by a student to help the academic community. Papers provided by EduBirdie writers usually outdo students' samples. As the land of the free, did you know that America is ranked number 7, out of all the 45 countries worldwide that allow capital punishment, for how many executions ...
The Unethical Nature of Death Penalty: an Argumentative Perspective
In conclusion, in this argumentative essay I have argued that death penalty is an inappropriate way of criminal punishment and should not be applied. This essay was reviewed by Dr. Oliver Johnson
Argumentative essay on The death penalty
View PDF. Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty ARGUMENT 1 DETERRENCE The death penalty prevents future murders. charity mae dacut. Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter ...
Argumentative Essay About Death Penalty
Death Penalty Argumentative Essay. The Death Penalty should not be allowed in any country because of its bad influence. The death penalty has the risk of executing an innocent person. Everyone in death row has the right to a second chance to life. Sometime there is no evidence for execution just because of what they did.
Death Penalty Argumentative Essay.edited (docx)
The penalty is perceived as a just move to ensure that future murders do not occur or their rate of occurrence is reduced. This argumentative essay, therefore, favors the death penalty, showcasing its significance in upholding justice in. 3 societies and reducing instances of heinous acts of crime done to the vulnerable in societies.
Overview of Death Penalty
The Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia, 1. finding constitutional deficiencies in the manner in which the death penalty was applied, but not holding the death penalty unconstitutional per se, was a watershed in capital punishment jurisprudence. The ruling effectively constitutionalized capital sentencing law and involved ...
Death Penalty Is Not Just And Fair Argumentative Essay Examples
Death penalty, as the name suggest is a punishment sentenced to the criminals who are involved and have been proven guilty in assassination of one or more individuals or other giant crime. This is a legal manner that is taken into courts and after the hearings of all the witnesses and considering all the proofs; he is than considered guilty if ...
Persuasive Essay On Lord Of The Flies
In 1750 BCE, however, they were fair and lawful, it was these rules that kept citizens in place and harsh punishment was considered moral and just. The concept of what is a fair punishment for a crime is constantly changing; even today, laws against the death penalty are becoming more prominent, yet just recently they were considered to be a ...

The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment Essay

Works Cited

Current Issues Blog

The Death Penalty: A Just Punishment?

Featured Image Credit: Associated Press

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

Retribution

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?

Examining the Death Penalty: An Argumentative Perspective

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

“When We Kill”

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

“I Know What It’s Like To Carry Out Executions”

“There Is No Such Thing As Closure on Death Row”

You may also like

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

15 Root Causes of Climate Change

15 Facts about Rosa Parks

Abolitionist Movement: History, Main Ideas, and Activism Today

The Biggest 15 NGOs in the UK

15 Biggest NGOs in Canada

Argumentative essay on death penalty

The Unethical Nature of Death Penalty: an Argumentative Perspective

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Death Penalty

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Argumentative essay on The death penalty

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Death Penalty Argumentative Essay.edited

Death Penalty Is Not Just And Fair Argumentative Essay Examples

Introduction

Arguments against capital punishment:

Pros of Capital punishment:

Counter Arguments:

Cite this page

Other Pages

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS