is the death penalty effective essay conclusion

Is the Death Penalty Effective? Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Death penalty in saudi arabia, effectiveness, the death penalty in the united states, effectiveness of this form of punishment in deterring crime, works cited.

Although the number of countries that still use the death penalty as a form of punishment has drastically reduced, some countries such as Saudi Arabia and China and some states in the USA still use it.

As per Amnesty International’s research reports, over 90% global states have completely abolished this form of punishment and for those that still use it, they normally use it to punish crimes that they consider to be very heinous (Radelet and Lacock 495-509).

For a while now, Saudi Arabia has remained one of the global nations that strongly believe that punishing by death is one of the ways of giving justice to victims of crime and one of the best ways of deterring heinous crimes.

Capital punishment in this Arabic country is well defined in Sharia laws, and once somebody has been found guilty of a capital offense, the best form of punishment they are subjected to is the death sentence. Some of the wrongdoings that attract such a sentence are theft, infidelity, witchcraft, rape, killing, and if you are assumed or found guilty of being a false prophet or apostrophes.

When one is convicted with one of these offenses, there is normally a couple of ways justice is applied with the favourite being a public cutting of the head, which is done in the middle of Riyadh. There have been 345 executions carried out in the three years culminating to 2010, 82 executed in 2011 and 17 to date. Other methods of execution are death by stoning, although this method is not currently used.

Before the execution day comes, the defendant firstly has to undergoes a trial (which is usually a closed door meeting) and is allowed legal representation and a right to appeal if the case goes against him or her for fairness purposes.

Later on if one is found guilty, they will have to go to prison and await their execution day; whereby the family of the victim will be given a chance to decide what they want to be done. Any guilty individual can be punished by death, be allowed to serve a jail term and compensate the bereaved family or pay the government some fine and serve some jail term (Lines 6-17 and Schabas 225-231).

According to Hands off Cain (1), in 2003 there were 52 executions, in 2004 38, in 2005 90, in 2006 39, in 2007 166, in 2008 102, in 2009 27, in 2010 81, and in 2012 the figure stood at 78. The statistics above show that, although the number of executions has not reduced very much, there is a slight reduction; hence, showing that this form of punishment has really helped to reduce occurrence of heinous crimes.

Considering that every year the population increases, statistically, there should be a larger number of perpetrators of capital crime. Therefore, even though the figures may seem to go up in certain years, the figures point to a startling finding that indeed capital punishment is effective.

Although the United States is a first world country and the use of this form of punishment is one of the most controversial topics, this form of punishment is still alive and practised in some if it’s states with immense support from its population.

According to Radelet and Lacock (481-487), for a long time now, there have been numerous individuals who support this from of punishment, because to them there is no any better form of punishment for heinous crime perpetrators. Although a good number of individuals who are found guilty of committing of heinous crimes are put on death row, most of these convictions are normally overturned for lesser forms of punishments.

Before being convicted, the accused will have to first pass through the legal system of the court; whereby, they will be charged. After this, a direct review of the conviction is made to ascertain if the sentencing was fair. This is the final stage where the defendants can have their case overturned based on the judge’s final ruling.

If a defendant is unsuccessful with the above process, there is the “Federal habeas corpus”; where one can demand their case to be heard by the federal court. In case all the above appeal processes completely fail, the last process will be the “section 1983 contested”, which involves setting of the execution date.

Most convicted felons on death row in this continent are normally executed by lethal injection. Though hanging is the oldest method that was used, it’s unpopular now and less likely to be used. Other ways that are used are electrocution, using the lethal gas or a firing squad.

Some Americans still think that the death penalty is not being utilised to its capacity, since some killers actually slip through the hand of justice and are left to kill again.

Most people justify the death penalty on grounds that that the convicted killer will never live to kill again, and is seen as the best deterrent to potential future murders. As per Weisberg (153-161), as far as can be established, a single death sentence helps to prevent more than 18 murders; hence, this sentence is effective.

In conclusion, considering the numerous benefits of this form of punishment and because of the significance of a fair justice system, capital punishment should be appreciated and embraced. However, to limit the chances of killing innocent people and executing the guilty ones cruelly, state and governmental organs must endeavour to find better ways of executing this form of punishment

Hand off Cain. Saudi Arabia – Retentionist . 2013. Web.

Lines, Rick. “The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: A violation of international human Rights law.” London: International Harm Reduction Association (2007):1-30. Print.

Radelet, Michael and Lacock, Traci. “Recent Developments: Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading.” The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Criminologist 99.2 (2009): 489-508. Print.

Schabas, William A. “Islam and the Death Penalty.” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 9.1 (2000): 223-236. Print.

Weisberg, Robert. “The death penalty meets social science: Deterrence and jury behaviour under new scrutiny.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1(2005): 151-170. Print.

• The Consequences of Capital Punishment
• The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?
• Should Juvenile Offenders Be Tried as Adults?
• Death Penalty: Ryan Mathews Case
• Does the Death Sentence Offer Justice to the Criminal?
• The Death Penalty Debate in the United States of America
• Arguments in Favor and Against the Death Penalty
• Death Penalty: Utilitarian View on Capital Punishment
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, April 18). Is the Death Penalty Effective? https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-the-death-penalty-effective/

"Is the Death Penalty Effective?" IvyPanda , 18 Apr. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/is-the-death-penalty-effective/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Is the Death Penalty Effective'. 18 April.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Is the Death Penalty Effective?" April 18, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-the-death-penalty-effective/.

1. IvyPanda . "Is the Death Penalty Effective?" April 18, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-the-death-penalty-effective/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Is the Death Penalty Effective?" April 18, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-the-death-penalty-effective/.

Is the Death Penalty Effective?

The use of capital punishment within the legal system is one of the highly contested issues in the United States and the world. The death penalty occurs when a person or individual gets punished by being put to death. Proponents of the death penalty argue that it helps in eliminating felons who are members of criminal groups. However, their argument is flawed since they fail to consider the numerous wrongful convictions made in the courts. The government sanctions capital punishment to serve justice for offenses considered capital felonies, such as treason, murder, and terrorism. However, other forms of punishment can be applied through rehabilitation in jail to avoid instances where families are left to mourn for their relatives. For capital punishments, forms of execution include death by hanging, electrocution, lethal injections, shooting, and even gassing. However, executing offenders does not prevent crime, is inhumane, and promotes violence over rehabilitation. Capital punishment is also associated with discrimination and violates the right to life. Therefore, the death penalty is not effective as it does not promote the human right to live and the choice to rehabilitate.

Executing offenders is not an effective approach because it takes away a person’s life and human dignity. The right to life is among the fundamental rights of human beings across the globe (Nagelsen and Huckleberry 2). Through the death penalty, persons sentenced to death do not get a chance to live as expected. The law is supposed to respect every individual’s right, including those condemned to death penalties. It is the duty of those enforcing the law to protect each person’s life, regardless of who they are and what the person has done. (Nagelsen and Huckleberry 2). The death penalty takes away citizens’ dignity and lives since the government decides when they will die. Notably, the government should be a body that facilitates the promotion of human life and dignity and not the one that sanctions the killing of human beings (Nagelsen and Huckleberry 4). Further, it carries no affirmative value, and it proves expensive. Through this realization, there has been a constant decrease in the number of death penalties in the United States. Therefore, this form of punishment is ineffective since it violates the right to life and human dignity.

In most countries, the death penalty fails to consider the crimes that women commit and the circumstances under which they were committed. Available statistics about the women sentenced for murder show that they committed the crime as a way of self-defense from abusive relatives and spouses (Lourtau and Hickey 11). For example, in China, over half of the women sentenced to death murdered a response to gender-based violence (Lourtau and Hickey 11). In most nations, the law does not consider that these women were killing their abusers, who the law had failed to apprehend. Discrimination has a direct link with death penalties, thus rendering the punishment ineffective. Factors that perpetuate discrimination may include deficient defense counsel and, in some cases, race (Steiker and Steiker 243). The lack of economic independence and supportive institutions to facilitate divorce does not exist in some nations, especially where there is a prevalence in marriages between young girls and older spouses. Women in the Middle East and Asia are also more likely to face the death penalty for drug-related crimes.

Additionally, over 40 women in Iran were hanged due to engaging in drug crimes between 2001 and 2017 (Lourtau and Hickey 12). On the other hand, men were more likely to get life sentences for similar or worse crimes. In Thailand, most women facing capital punishment are in prison due to drug crimes (Lourtau and Hickey 12). However, the Middle East and Asia’s justice systems ignore the gender and economic inequalities that push women to engage in such crimes. Research also shows that female victims of abuse are likely to indulge in smuggling and selling drugs as a way to boost their self-esteem (Lourtau and Hickey 12). In that case, research gaps in the criminal and social system have caused many women worldwide to die for crimes that they committed due to circumstances and inequalities within the social structure.

Capital punishment does not give individuals a chance to rehabilitate. Most people serving their time in jail have the chance to reflect on their crimes and become better people deeply. Apart from putting criminals away to serve justice, the prison system is also there to rehabilitate criminals and give them a chance to be better citizens. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence to prove that the death penalty prevents crime or lowers deterrence rates. Although remorse does not work for everyone to help them change, the death penalty gives no chances for those sentenced to change or try to become better (Nagelsen and Huckleberry 2). Therefore, justice cannot be served using a punishment that seeks to take away the lives of the same people in correctional facilities. Abolishing capital punishment is one way to prove that correctional facilities are functional. It also helps save people who may be convicted for drug smuggling, which requires rehabilitation. Hence, the death penalty is ineffective since it fails to recognize the significance of correctional centers in rehabilitating offenders.

Sentencing offenders found guilty of the crimes to death does not reduce murder cases, terrorism acts, and treason charges substantially. Serial killers and terrorists continue with their criminal activities, get caught, and are sentenced to death in some cases. In countries such as Canada where the death penalty is banned, the rate of murder seems to be lower than when the death penalty was active (Amnesty International). Also, there have been cases where innocent convicts face execution through the death penalty (Tortorice 532). Capital punishment, when implemented to punish a person, cannot be appealed since death is final. There should be no mistakes where innocents face the death penalty’s execution to be deemed effective and fair for those committing capital offenses (Tortorice 532). In this respect, life imprisonment sentences can replace death since, in imprisonment, there is no chance to make a terrible mistake right. For instance, many innocent people in the US have been subjected to the death sentence for crimes they have not committed. Records show that 155 people have been freed from death row since 1976, while one out of ten was executed (Sethuraju et al. 4). Death penalties are highly subjective, especially when innocent persons are involved, as they pose a significant violation of human rights.

The American criminal justice face accusations of racial injustice due to the skewed number of incarcerated offenders based on ethnicity. More so, racial disparity in capital punishment has existed since colonial times (Steiker and Steiker 243). In essence, racial discrimination is linked to the number of deaths through execution, which renders the punishment ineffective. Notably, African Americans have experienced heightened disparate treatment in capital crimes under neutral capital statutes. Further, following the Civil War, the black community experienced a lengthy era of lynching with minimal legal protection. This exposed many individuals to the death penalty, mostly since the Supreme Court avoids race issues in such legal proceedings (Steiker and Steiker 244). Other factors that perpetuate discrimination may include deficient defense counsel afforded to offenders from the African American community. This is because most are inexperienced in cases involving capital felonies, further increasing the chances of being sentenced to death. Moreover, most offenders on death row can barely afford quality and experienced defense counsels. Based on these findings, capital punishment fails to achieve its purpose of deterring crime and becomes a channel for promoting systemic discrimination against vulnerable groups.

Proponents of the death penalty base their arguments on retribution law, deterrence, and incapacitating capital offenders’ costs. Retribution stands as a primary reason for supporting capital punishment. One of the support claims of retribution is that punishment should cause equal harm to the offender as the damage caused by the criminal act. Another perspective indicates that the death penalty is the only appropriate punishment for murder convicts since the crime involved a deliberate killing of the victim (Sethuraju et al. 4). This approach depicts anger-directed retribution to the pain caused to those affected by the murder. However, morality governs human actions noting that it is wrong to kill someone despite their actions. Further, this argument is grounded on the fact that innocent people might be executed due to the death penalty’s blunt nature. Moreover, research on capital punishment’s effects shows that it does not contribute significantly to deterrence (Sethuraju et al. 4). Besides, the brutalization effect elicited by the death penalty might lead to increased homicides and violent crimes. In that case, the death penalty does not provide a solution to current crimes and may serve as a way of satisfying other people’s retributive anger.

Capital punishment has long been thought to lower incarceration costs as more offenders are imprisoned in the US, leading to overcrowding. However, research has shown that in states where the death penalty is practiced, the process has become more expensive than life imprisonment. The costs of the death penalty arise from the prolonged legal process and expensive living conditions. Notably, the complexity of issuing a death sentence on an offender increases the costs from prosecution to the final hearing. Statistics show that the average time spent in death penalty cases was 74 and 190 months in 1984 and 2012 (McFarland 54). This indicates that inmates serve almost double sentences because of the extended stays during the prosecution process. Furthermore, death row offenders are expensive to maintain during incarceration because they require high security, which raises the costs of supervision and living conditions (McFarland 56). More so, the number of executions has significantly reduced over the years due to the death penalty’s controversial nature. Therefore, allowing such persons to serve life imprisonment can reduce prolonged legal proceedings costs due to the complex legal system.

In most cases involving terrorism, capital punishment when executed does more wrong than good for citizens. Many governments enforce death penalties in the name of national security. However, many terrorists commit crimes and persecutions without fear of death, as most of them are willing to die for their terrorist beliefs (Bibi et al. 43). This means that killing such individuals propels their religious beliefs, such as becoming martyrs to those idolizing them. The Islamic fighters continue to ravage peaceful countries on the argument of holy war, which only increases when imprisoned offenders are killed. The followers praise the ‘martyrs’ causing more destruction than good and affecting not only victims but also every other citizen in the affected countries (Bibi et al. 43). Also, some civilians get death sentences due to condemnation from confessions extracted by employing torture. However, despite the terrorist attacks, the death penalty is inhumane. Capital punishments are executed in different approaches where some such electrocution is painful. How the ‘martyr’ is executed might solicit an emotional response from other followers, leading to increased acts of terrorism. Therefore, in terror-related cases, the death sentence is not practical since the terrorists are committed to the suicide mission.

The death penalty can reduce homicides as studies have shown that abolition of capital punishment has led to increased unlawful killings. Studies show that publicizing executions decreases the number of homicides (Muramatsu et al. 432). This is because capital punishment functions as a temporary deterrent factor for homicides. In that case, people are dissuaded from committing a crime if capital punishment is implemented swiftly. However, the increasing complexity of criminal justice systems across the world hampers the probability of executing offenders without lengthy court proceedings. Furthermore, studies in the UK have shown that the number of unlawful killings has increased since capital punishment was abolished in 1964 (Chen 7). Although public opinion tends to show that the death penalty is not effective, the significance of receiving a death sentence might hinder people from committing crimes. In cases where an individual premeditates to commit murder, the person may be discouraged by the thought of being issued the death penalty. On the other hand, the death penalty may not certainly prevent future capital crimes from being committed by other people. As death remains irreversible, there is an assurance of a crime not repeated by an individual already executed.

In conclusion, the death penalty has proven ineffective since it affects the dignity of human life, inhibits rehabilitation, and adversely affects the distribution of justice. Besides, executing people does not show a positive response towards crime deterrence. Justice should be fair, observing the rights of the condemned. Taking another person’s life will always have consequences, which in this case, outweigh the benefits associated with the death penalty. In a world where people cry for social justice, there has to be a readiness to take full responsibility for taking a life, especially where the life taken is that of an innocent individual. The death penalty has been proved ineffective in most cases where discrimination is apparent, especially in the US despite being a democracy. The criminal justice system also fails to recognize the circumstances in which a homicide occurred, leading to women’s wrongful convictions on violent marriages. They are also devalued, and the events under which they save themselves from abusive spouses are always ignored. Maintaining the death penalty negates the promoting quality of life and the development of justice across the world.

Works Cited

Amnesty International. “The Death Penalty, Answered.” Amnesty International , 2020, Web.

Bibi, Sughra, Qian Hongdao, Najeeb Ullah, and Muhammad Bilawal Khaskheli. “Excessive Use of Death Penalty as Stoppage Tool for Terrorism: Wrongful Death Executions In Pakistan.” JL Pol’y & Globalization, vol. 81, 2019, pp. 42-52. IISTE.

Chen, Daniel L. “The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty? Evidence From British Commutations During World War I.” Evidence from British Commutations During World War I, 2017, pp. 1-140. SSRN.

Lourtau, Delphine, and Sharon Pia Hickey. Judged For More Than Her Crime: A Global Overview of Women Facing the Death Penalty. Cornell Law School, 2018.

Mbah, Ruth Endam, Tanisha Pruitt, and Divine Forcha Wasum. “Cruel Choice: The Ethics and Morality of the Death Penalty.” Research on Humanities and Social Sciences , vol. 9, no. 24, 2019, pp. 14-22. IISTE.

McFarland, Torin. “The Death Penalty vs. Life Incarceration: A Financial Analysis.” Susquehanna University Political Review vol. 7, no. 1, 2016, 46-87. SAGE Journals.

Muramatsu, Kanji, David T. Johnson, and Koiti Yano. “The Death Penalty and Homicide Deterrence in Japan.” Punishment & Society vol. 20 no. 4, 2018, pp. 432-457. SAGE Journals .

Nagelsen, Susan, and Charles Huckelbury. “The Death Penalty and Human Dignity: An Existential Fallacy.” Laws, vol. 5, no. 25, 2016, pp. 1-5. MDPI.

Sethuraju, Raj, Jason Sole, and Brian E. Oliver. “Understanding Death Penalty Support and Opposition among Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement Students.” SAGE Open, vol. 6, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-15. SAGE Journals .

Steiker, Carol S., and Jordan M. Steiker. “The American Death Penalty and the (in) Visibility of Race.” The University of Chicago Law Review , 2015, pp. 243-294.

Tortorice, Marla D. “Costs Versus Benefits: The Fiscal Realities of the Death Penalty in Pennsylvania.” U. Pitt. L. Rev. vol. 78, 2016, pp. 519-555. ULS.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, February 24). Is the Death Penalty Effective? https://studycorgi.com/is-the-death-penalty-effective/

"Is the Death Penalty Effective?" StudyCorgi , 24 Feb. 2022, studycorgi.com/is-the-death-penalty-effective/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) 'Is the Death Penalty Effective'. 24 February.

1. StudyCorgi . "Is the Death Penalty Effective?" February 24, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/is-the-death-penalty-effective/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Is the Death Penalty Effective?" February 24, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/is-the-death-penalty-effective/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "Is the Death Penalty Effective?" February 24, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/is-the-death-penalty-effective/.

This paper, “Is the Death Penalty Effective?”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: February 24, 2022 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

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.

You may also like

15 Political Issues We Must Address

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for LGBTQ+ Rights

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger 

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

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.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Death Penalty Can Ensure ‘Justice Is Being Done’

A top Justice Department official says for many Americans the death penalty is a difficult issue on moral, religious and policy grounds. But as a legal issue, it is straightforward.

By Jeffrey A. Rosen

Mr. Rosen is the deputy attorney general.

This month, for the first time in 17 years , the United States resumed carrying out death sentences for federal crimes.

On July 14, Daniel Lewis Lee was executed for the 1996 murder of a family, including an 8-year-old girl, by suffocating and drowning them in the Illinois Bayou after robbing them to fund a white-supremacist organization. On July 16, Wesley Purkey was executed for the 1998 murder of a teenage girl, whom he kidnapped, raped, killed, dismembered and discarded in a septic pond. The next day, Dustin Honken was executed for five murders committed in 1993, including the execution-style shooting of two young girls, their mother, and two prospective witnesses against him in a federal prosecution for methamphetamine trafficking.

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 .

The recent executions reflect that consensus, as the Justice Department has an obligation to carry out the law. The decision to seek the death penalty against Mr. Lee was made by Attorney General Janet Reno (who said she personally opposed the death penalty but was bound by the law) and reaffirmed by Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder.

Mr. Purkey was prosecuted during the George W. Bush administration, and his conviction and sentence were vigorously defended throughout the Obama administration. The judge who imposed the death sentence on Mr. Honken, Mark Bennett, said that while he generally opposed the death penalty, he would not lose any sleep over Mr. Honken’s execution.

In a New York Times Op-Ed essay published on July 17 , two of Mr. Lee’s lawyers criticized the execution of their client, which they contend was carried out in a “shameful rush.” That objection overlooks that Mr. Lee was sentenced more than 20 years ago, and his appeals and other permissible challenges failed, up to and including the day of his execution.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime?

General reference (not clearly pro or con).

John Gramlich, Senior Writer and Editor at Pew Research Center, in a July 19, 2021 article, “10 Facts about the Death Penalty in the U.S.,” available at pewresearch.org, stated:

“A majority of Americans have concerns about the fairness of the death penalty and whether it serves as a deterrent against serious crime. More than half of U.S. adults (56%) say Black people are more likely than White people to be sentenced to death for committing similar crimes. About six-in-ten (63%) say the death penalty does not deter people from committing serious crimes, and nearly eight-in-ten (78%) say there is some risk that an innocent person will be executed.” July 19, 2021

Charles Stimson, JD, Acting Chief of Staff and Senior Legal Fellow of the Heritage Foundation, in a Dec. 20, 2019 article, “The Death Penalty Is Appropriate,” available at heritage.org, stated:

“That said, the death penalty serves three legitimate penological objectives: general deterrence, specific deterrence, and retribution. The first, general deterrence, is the message that gets sent to people who are thinking about committing heinous crimes that they shouldn’t do it or else they might end up being sentenced to death. The second, specific deterrence, is specific to the defendant. It simply means that the person who is subjected to the death penalty won’t be alive to kill other people. The third penological goal, retribution, is an expression of society’s right to make a moral judgment by imposing a punishment on a wrongdoer befitting the crime he has committed. Twenty-nine states, and the people’s representatives in Congress have spoken loudly; the death penalty should be available for the worst of the worst.” Dec. 20, 2019

Armstrong Williams, Owner and Manager of Howard Stirk Holdings I & II Broadcast Television Stations, in a May, 25, 2021 article, “The Death Penalty Remains the Strongest Deterrent to Violent Crime,” available at thehill.com, stated:

“There must be some form to hold murderers accountable and, historically, the death penalty has been the most effective way of doing so. It could very well be that a firing squad is the most humane way, especially compared to lethal injection, where there have been cases of prisoners experiencing excruciating pain for sometimes over an hour. These examples are certainly worthy of our consideration and discussion. But one thing is clear: We still need the death penalty, if for no other reason, as a deterrent for other potential criminals.” May, 25, 2021

David Muhlhausen, PhD, Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis at the Heritage Foundation, stated the following in his Oct. 4, 2014 article “Capital Punishment Works: It Deters Crime,” available at dailysignal.com:

“Some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties – up to and including life sentences or even death. Most Americans recognize this principle as just… Studies of the death penalty have reached various conclusions about its effectiveness in deterring crime. But… the majority of studies that track effects over many years and across states or counties find a deterrent effect. Indeed, other recent investigations, using a variety of samples and statistical methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link between executions and reduced murder rates… In short, capital punishment does, in fact, save lives.” Oct. 4, 2014

Michael Summers, PhD, MBA, Professor of Management Science at Pepperdine University, wrote in his Nov. 2, 2007 article “Capital Punishment Works” in the Wall Street Journal :

“[O]ur recent research shows that each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year… The study examined the relationship between the number of executions and the number of murders in the U.S. for the 26-year period from 1979 to 2004, using data from publicly available FBI sources… There seems to be an obvious negative correlation in that when executions increase, murders decrease, and when executions decrease, murders increase… In the early 1980s, the return of the death penalty was associated with a drop in the number of murders. In the mid-to-late 1980s, when the number of executions stabilized at about 20 per year, the number of murders increased. Throughout the 1990s, our society increased the number of executions, and the number of murders plummeted. Since 2001, there has been a decline in executions and an increase in murders. It is possible that this correlated relationship could be mere coincidence, so we did a regression analysis on the 26-year relationship. The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place… We know that, for whatever reason, there is a simple but dramatic relationship between the number of executions carried out and a corresponding reduction in the number of murders.” Nov. 2, 2007

Paul H. Rubin, PhD, Professor of Economics at Emory University, wrote in his Feb. 1, 2006 testimony “Statistical Evidence on Capital Punishment and the Deterrence of Homicide” before the US Senate Judiciary Committee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights, available at judiciary.senate.gov:

“Recent research on the relationship between capital punishment and homicide has created a consensus among most economists who have studied the issue that capital punishment deters murder. Early studies from the 1970s and 1980s reached conflicting results. However, recent studies have exploited better data and more sophisticated statistical techniques. The modern refereed studies have consistently shown that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect, with each execution deterring between 3 and 18 murders… The literature is easy to summarize: almost all modern studies and all the refereed studies find a significant deterrent effect of capital punishment. Only one study questions these results. To an economist, this is not surprising: we expect criminals and potential criminals to respond to sanctions, and execution is the most severe sanction available.” Feb. 1, 2006

Hashem Dezhbakhsh, PhD, Professor of Economics at Emory University, and Joanna Shepherd, PhD, Associate Professor of Law at Emory University, wrote in their July 2003 study “The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a ‘Judicial Experiment'” in Economic Inquiry :

“[There is] strong evidence for the deterrent effect of capital punishment… Each execution results, on average, in eighteen fewer murders with a margin of error of plus or minus ten. Tests show that results are not driven by tougher sentencing laws and are robust to many alternative specifications… The results are boldly clear: executions deter murders and murder rates increase substantially during moratoriums. The results are consistent across before-and-after comparisons and regressions regardless of the data’s aggregation level, the time period, or the specific variable used to measure executions… [E]xecutions provide a large benefit to society by deterring murders.” July 2003

H. Naci Mocan, PhD, Professor and Chair of Economics at Louisiana State University, wrote in his 2003 study “Getting Off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment” in the Journal of Law and Economics :

“Controlling for a variety of state characteristics, we investigate the impact of the execution, commutation, and removal rates, homicide arrest rate, sentencing rate, imprisonment rate, and prison death rate on the rate of homicide. The models are estimated in a number of different forms, controlling for state fixed effects, common time trends, and state-specific time trends. We find a significant relationship among the execution, removal, and commutation rates and the rate of homicide. Each additional execution decreases homicides by about five, and each additional commutation increases homicides by the same amount, while one additional removal from death row generates one additional homicide.” 2003

Cass R. Sunstein, PhD, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, wrote in his Mar. 2005 paper “Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? The Relevance of Life-Life Tradeoffs” on papers.ssrn.com:

“[C]apital punishment may be morally required not for retributive reasons, but in order to prevent the taking of innocent lives… The foundation for our argument is a large and growing body of evidence that capital punishment may well have a deterrent effect, possibly a quite powerful one. A leading study [The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a ‘Judicial Experiment,’ Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Joanna Shepherd, July 2003] suggests that each execution prevents some eighteen murders, on average… If the current evidence is even roughly correct, then a refusal to impose capital punishment will effectively condemn numerous innocent people to death… Contrary to widely-held beliefs, based on partial information or older studies, a wave of recent evidence suggests the possibility that capital punishment saves lives… Capital punishment may well have strong deterrent effects; there is evidence that few categories of murders are inherently un-deterrable, even so-called crimes of passion; some studies find extremely large deterrent effects; error and arbitrariness undoubtedly occur, but the evidence of deterrence suggests that prospective murderers are receiving a clear signal.” Mar. 2005

George W. Bush, MBA, 43rd President of the United States, in an Oct. 17, 2000 debate with Al Gore at Washington University, said in response to the question “Do both of you believe that the death penalty actually deters crime?”:

“I do, that’s the only reason to be for it. I don’t think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don’t think that’s right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people’s lives.” Oct. 17, 2000

George E. Pataki, JD, 53rd Governor of New York State, in an Aug. 30, 1996 press release titled “Statement on Anniversary of Death Penalty by Governor Pataki,” stated:

“New Yorkers live in safer communities today because we are finally creating a climate that protects our citizens and causes criminals to fear arrest, prosecution and punishment. …This has occurred in part because of the strong signal that the death penalty sent to violent criminals and murderers: we won’t excuse criminals, we will punish them… I sponsored the death penalty laws because of my firm conviction that it would act as a significant deterrent and provide a true measure of justice to murder victims and their loved ones… I have every confidence that it will continue to deter murders, will continue to enhance public safety and will be enforced fairly and justly.” Aug. 30, 1996

Ernest Van Den Haag, PhD, late Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University, in an Oct. 17, 1983 New York Times Op-Ed article titled “For the Death Penalty,” wrote the following:

“Common sense, lately bolstered by statistics, tells us that the death penalty will deter murder, if anything can. People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death. Death is final. But where there is life there is hope… Wherefore, life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution — otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death. (Only an infinitesimal percentage of murderers are suicidal.) Therefore, a life sentence must be less deterrent than a death sentence. And we must execute murderers as long as it is merely possible that their execution protects citizens from future murder.” Oct. 17, 1983

Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., LLM, late Justice of the US Supreme Court, in a June 29, 1972 Furman v. Georgia dissenting opinion, stated:

“On the basis of the literature and studies currently available, I find myself in agreement with the conclusions drawn by the Royal Commission [Report on Capital Punishment, 1949-1953] following its exhaustive study of this issue: ‘The general conclusion which we reach, after careful review of all the evidence we have been able to obtain as to the deterrent effect of capital punishment, may be stated as follows. Prima facie, the penalty of death is likely to have a stronger effect as a deterrent to normal human beings than any other form of punishment, and there is some evidence (though no convincing statistical evidence) that this is in fact so.'” June 29, 1972

Emmaline Soken-Huberty, freelance author, in an undated article, “5 Reasons Why The Death Penalty is Wrong,” accessed on Sep. 2, 2021 and available at humanrightscareers.com, stated:

“The fact that it doesn’t prevent crime may be the most significant reason why the death penalty is wrong. Many people might believe that while the death penalty isn’t ideal, it’s worth it if it dissuades potential criminals. However, polls show people don’t think capital punishment does that. The facts support that view. The American South has the highest murder rate in the country and oversees 81% of the nation’s executions. In states without the death penalty, the murder rate is much lower. There are other factors at play, but the fact remains that no studies show that capital punishment is a deterrent. If the death penalty is not only inhumane, discriminatory, and arbitrary, but it often claims innocent lives and doesn’t even prevent crime, then why should it still exist? It’s disappearing from legal systems around the world, so it’s time for all nations (like the United States) to end it.” Sep. 2, 2021

Craig Trocino, JD, Director of the Innocence Clinic at the University of Miami School of Law, as quoted by Robert C. Jones Jr. in an Aug. 8, 2019 article, “The Impact of Reviving the Federal Death Penalty,” available at news.miami.edu, stated:

“The death penalty is not a deterrent despite the claims of its proponents. In 2012 the National Research Council concluded that the studies claiming it is a deterrence were fundamentally flawed. Additionally, a 2009 study of criminologists concluded that 88 percent of criminologists did not believe in the death penalties deterrence while only 5 percent did. Perhaps the most consistent and interesting data that the death penalty is not a deterrence is to look at the murder rates of states that do not have the death penalty in comparison to those that do. In states that have recently abolished the death penalty, there has been no increase in murder rates. In fact, since 1990 states without the death penalty have consistently had lower murder rates than states that have it.” Aug. 8, 2019

Nick Petersen, PhD, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Law at the University of Miami, as quoted by Robert C. Jones Jr. in an Aug. 8, 2019 article, “The Impact of Reviving the Federal Death Penalty,” available at news.miami.edu, stated:

“Social science research does not support the contention that the death penalty deters crime. In 1978, the National Research Council, one of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the nation and world, noted that “available studies provide no useful evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment.” A 2012 report by the National Research Council reached a similar conclusion. Citing a number of problems with deterrence research, the council reported that “claims that research demonstrates that capital punishment decreases or increases the homicide rate by a specified amount or has no effect on the homicide rate should not influence policy judgments about capital punishment.” Aug. 8, 2019

John J. Donohue III, JD, PhD, Professor of Law at Stanford University, stated the following in his Aug. 8, 2015 article “There’s No Evidence That Death Penalty Is a Deterrent against Crime,” available at theconversation.com:

“[T]here is not the slightest credible statistical evidence that capital punishment reduces the rate of homicide. Whether one compares the similar movements of homicide in Canada and the US when only the latter restored the death penalty, or in American states that have abolished it versus those that retain it, or in Hong Kong and Singapore (the first abolishing the death penalty in the mid-1990s and the second greatly increasing its usage at the same), there is no detectable effect of capital punishment on crime. The best econometric studies reach the same conclusion… [L]ast year roughly 14,000 murders were committed but only 35 executions took place. Since murderers typically expose themselves to far greater immediate risks, the likelihood is incredibly remote that some small chance of execution many years after committing a crime will influence the behaviour of a sociopathic deviant who would otherwise be willing to kill if his only penalty were life imprisonment. Any criminal who actually thought he would be caught would find the prospect of life without parole to be a monumental penalty. Any criminal who didn’t think he would be caught would be untroubled by any sanction.” Aug. 8, 2015

H. Lee Sarokin, LLB, former US District Court and US Court of Appeals Judge, wrote in his Jan. 15, 2011 article “Is It Time to Execute the Death Penalty?” on the Huffington Post website:

“In my view deterrence plays no part whatsoever. Persons contemplating murder do not sit around the kitchen table and say I won’t commit this murder if I face the death penalty, but I will do it if the penalty is life without parole. I do not believe persons contemplating or committing murder plan to get caught or weigh the consequences. Statistics demonstrate that states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates than states with it, but frankly I think those statistics are immaterial and coincidental. Fear of the death penalty may cause a few to hesitate, but certainly not enough to keep it in force.” Jan. 15, 2011

Michael L. Radelet, PhD, Sociology Professor and Department Chair at the University of Colorado-Boulder, wrote in his 2009 article “Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates?: The Views of Leading Criminologists” in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology :

“Our survey indicates that the vast majority of the world’s top criminologists believe that the empirical research has revealed the deterrence hypothesis for a myth… 88.2% of polled criminologists do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent… 9.2% answered that the statement ‘[t]he death penalty significantly reduces the number of homicides’ was accurate… Overall, it is clear that however measured, fewer than 10% of the polled experts believe the deterrence effect of the death penalty is stronger than that of long-term imprisonment… Recent econometric studies, which posit that the death penalty has a marginal deterrent effect beyond that of long-term imprisonment, are so limited or flawed that they have failed to undermine consensus. In short, the consensus among criminologists is that the death penalty does not add any significant deterrent effect above that of long-term imprisonment.” 2009

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in its Apr. 9, 2007 website presentation titled “The Death Penalty: Questions and Answers,” offered the following:

“The death penalty has no deterrent effect. Claims that each execution deters a certain number of murders have been thoroughly discredited by social science research. People commit murders largely in the heat of passion, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because they are mentally ill, giving little or no thought to the possible consequences of their acts. The few murderers who plan their crimes beforehand — for example, professional executioners — intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught. Some self-destructive individuals may even hope they will be caught and executed.” Apr. 9, 2007

Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States, wrote in his Apr. 25, 2012 article “Show Death Penalty the Door” on the website of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution :

“One argument for the death penalty is that it is a strong deterrent to murder and other violent crimes. In fact, evidence shows just the opposite. The homicide rate is at least five times greater in the United States than in any Western European country, all without the death penalty. Southern states carry out more than 80 percent of the executions but have a higher murder rate than any other region. Texas has by far the most executions, but its homicide rate is twice that of Wisconsin, the first state to abolish the death penalty. Look at similar adjacent states: There are more capital crimes in South Dakota, Connecticut and Virginia (with death sentences) than neighboring North Dakota, Massachusetts and West Virginia (without death penalties). Furthermore, there has never been any evidence that the death penalty reduces capital crimes or that crimes increased when executions stopped.” Apr. 25, 2012

John Lamperti, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Dartmouth College, wrote in his Mar. 2010 paper “Does Capital Punishment Deter Murder? A Brief Look at the Evidence,” published at math.dartmouth.edu:

“[I]f there were a substantial net deterrent effect from capital punishment under modern U.S. conditions, the studies we have surveyed should clearly reveal it. They do not… If executions protected innocent lives through deterrence, that would weigh in the balance against capital punishment’s heavy social costs. But despite years of trying, this benefit has not been proven to exist; the only certain effects of capital punishment are its liabilities.” Mar. 2010

Tomislav Kovandzic, PhD, Associate Professor of Economic, Political, and Policy Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas, wrote in his 2009 paper “Does the Death Penalty Save Lives?” in Criminology and Public Policy :

“Our results provide no empirical support for the argument that the existence or application of the death penalty deters prospective offenders from committing homicide… Although policymakers and the public can continue to base support for use of the death penalty on retribution, religion, or other justifications, defending its use based solely on its deterrent effect is contrary to the evidence presented here. At a minimum, policymakers should refrain from justifying its use by claiming that it is a deterrent to homicide and should consider less costly, more effective ways of addressing crime.” 2009

Jeffrey A. Fagan, PhD, Professor of Law and Epidemiology at Columbia University, said in his Feb. 1, 2006 testimony “Deterrence and the Death Penalty: Risk, Uncertainty, and Public Policy Choices” published on the website of the US Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights:

“Recent studies claiming that executions reduce crime… fall apart under close scrutiny. These new studies are fraught with numerous technical and conceptual errors: inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, failures to consider all the relevant factors that drive crime rates, missing data on key variables in key states, the tyranny of a few outlier states and years, weak to non-existent tests of concurrent effects of incarceration, statistical confounding of murder rates with death sentences, failure to consider the general performance of the criminal justice system… and the absence of any direct test of deterrence. These studies fail to reach the demanding standards of social science to make such strong claims… Social scientists have failed to replicate several of these studies, and in some cases have produced contradictory results with the same data, suggesting that the original findings are unstable, unreliable and perhaps inaccurate. This evidence, together with some simple examples and contrasts… suggest that there is little evidence that the death penalty deters crime.” Feb. 1, 2006

John J. Donahue III, JD, PhD, Professor of Law at Stanford University, wrote in his Dec. 2005 article “Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate” in the Stanford Law Review :

“Does the death penalty save lives? [T]he death penalty – at least as it has been implemented in the United States – is applied so rarely that the number of homicides that it can plausibly have caused or deterred cannot be reliably disentangled from the large year-to-year changes in the homicide rate caused by other factors. As such, short samples and particular specifications may yield large but spurious correlations. We conclude that existing estimates appear to reflect a small and unrepresentative sample of the estimates that arise from alternative approaches. Sampling from the broader universe of plausible approaches suggests… reasonable doubt about whether there is any deterrent effect of the death penalty… There are serious questions about whether anything useful about the deterrent value of the death penalty can ever be learned from… the data that are likely to be available.” Dec. 2005

People who view this page may also like:

• States with the Death Penalty and States with Death Penalty Bans
• US Executions by Race, Crime, Method, Age, Gender, State, & Year
• Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• History of the Death Penalty
• Top Pro & Con Quotes
• Historical Timeline
• Did You Know?
• States with the Death Penalty, Death Penalty Bans, and Death Penalty Moratoriums
• The ESPY List: US Executions 1608-2002
• Federal Capital Offenses
• Death Row Inmates
• Critical Thinking Video Series: Thomas Edison Electrocutes Topsy the Elephant, Jan. 4, 1903

Cite This Page

• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

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.

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 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 .

Hugo Adam Bedau (deceased) Austin Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, Tufts University Excerpts from “The Case Against The Death Penalty” (Copyright 1997, American Civil Liberties Union)

“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.

Essays About the Death Penalty: Top 5 Examples and Prompts

The death penalty is a major point of contention all around the world. Read our guide so you can write well-informed essays about the death penalty. 

Out of all the issues at the forefront of public discourse today, few are as hotly debated as the death penalty. As its name suggests, the death penalty involves the execution of a criminal as punishment for their transgressions. The death penalty has always been, and continues to be, an emotionally and politically charged essay topic.

Arguments about the death penalty are more motivated by feelings and emotions; many proponents are people seeking punishment for the killers of their loved ones, while many opponents are mourning the loss of loved ones executed through the death penalty. There may also be a religious aspect to support and oppose the policy. 

1. The Issues of Death Penalties and Social Justice in The United States (Author Unknown)

2. serving justice with death penalty by rogelio elliott, 3. can you be christian and support the death penalty by matthew schmalz, 4.  death penalty: persuasive essay by jerome glover, 5. the death penalty by kamala harris, top 5 writing prompts on essays about the death penalty, 1. death penalty: do you support or oppose it, 2. how has the death penalty changed throughout history, 3. the status of capital punishment in your country, 4. death penalty and poverty, 5. does the death penalty serve as a deterrent for serious crimes, 6. what are the pros and cons of the death penalty vs. life imprisonment , 7. how is the death penalty different in japan vs. the usa, 8. why do some states use the death penalty and not others, 9. what are the most common punishments selected by prisoners for execution, 10. should the public be allowed to view an execution, 11. discuss the challenges faced by the judicial system in obtaining lethal injection doses, 12. should the death penalty be used for juveniles, 13. does the death penalty have a racial bias to it.

“Executing another person only creates a cycle of vengeance and death where if all of the rationalities and political structures are dropped, the facts presented at the end of the day is that a man is killed because he killed another man, so when does it end? Human life is to be respected and appreciated, not thrown away as if it holds no meaningful value.”

This essay discusses several reasons to oppose the death penalty in the United States. First, the author cites the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, saying that the death penalty is inhumane and deprives people of life. Human life should be respected, and death should not be responded to with another death. In addition, the author cites evidence showing that the death penalty does not deter crime nor gives closure to victims’ families. 

Check out these essays about police brutality .

“Capital punishment follows the constitution and does not break any of the amendments. Specific people deserve to be punished in this way for the crime they commit. It might immoral to people but that is not the point of the death penalty. The death penalty is not “killing for fun”. The death penalty serves justice. When justice is served, it prevents other people from becoming the next serial killer. It’s simple, the death penalty strikes fear.”

Elliott supports the death penalty, writing that it gives criminals what they deserve. After all, those who commit “small” offenses will not be executed anyway. In addition, it reinforces the idea that justice comes to wrongdoers. Finally, he states that the death penalty is constitutional and is supported by many Americans.

“The letter states that this development of Catholic doctrine is consistent with the thought of the two previous popes: St. Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. St. John Paul II maintained that capital punishment should be reserved only for “absolute necessity.” Benedict XVI also supported efforts to eliminate the death penalty. Most important, however, is that Pope Francis is emphasizing an ethic of forgiveness. The Pope has argued that social justice applies to all citizens. He also believes that those who harm society should make amends through acts that affirm life, not death.”

Schmalz discusses the Catholic position on the death penalty. Many early Catholic leaders believed that the death penalty was justified; however, Pope Francis writes that “modern methods of imprisonment effectively protect society from criminals,” and executions are unnecessary. Therefore, the Catholic Church today opposes the death penalty and strives to protect life.

“There are many methods of execution, like electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, firing squad and lethal injection. For me, I just watched once on TV, but it’s enough to bring me nightmares. We only live once and we will lose anything we once had without life. Life is precious and can’t just be taken away that easily. In my opinion, I think Canada shouldn’t adopt the death penalty as its most severe form of criminal punishment.”

Glover’s essay acknowledges reasons why people might support the death penalty; however, he believes that these are not enough for him to support it. He believes capital punishment is inhumane and should not be implemented in Canada. It deprives people of a second chance and does not teach wrongdoers much of a lesson. In addition, it is inhumane and deprives people of their right to life. 

“Let’s be clear: as a former prosecutor, I absolutely and strongly believe there should be serious and swift consequences when one person kills another. I am unequivocal in that belief. We can — and we should — always pursue justice in the name of victims and give dignity to the families that grieve. But in our democracy, a death sentence carried out by the government does not constitute justice for those who have been put to death and proven innocent after the fact.”

This short essay was written by the then-presidential candidate and current U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris to explain her campaign’s stance on the death penalty. First, she believes it does not execute justice and is likely to commit injustice by sentencing innocent people to death. In addition, it is said to disproportionally affect nonwhite people. Finally, it is more fiscally responsible for abolishing capital punishment, as it uses funds that could be used for education and healthcare. 

This topic always comes first to mind when thinking of what to write. For a strong argumentative essay, consider the death penalty and list its pros and cons. Then, conclude whether or not it would be beneficial to reinstate or keep the policy. There is an abundance of sources you can gather inspiration from, including the essay examples listed above and countless other online sources.

People have been put to death as a punishment since the dawn of recorded history, but as morals and technology have changed, the application of the death penalty has evolved. This essay will explore how the death penalty has been used and carried out throughout history.

This essay will examine both execution methods and when capital punishment is ordered. A few points to explore in this essay include:

• Thousands of years ago, “an eye for an eye” was the standard. How were executions carried out in ancient history?
• The religious context of executions during the middle ages is worth exploring. When was someone burned at the stake?
• The guillotine became a popular method of execution during the renaissance period. How does this method compare to both ancient execution methods and modern methods?
• The most common execution methods in the modern era include the firing squad, hanging, lethal injections, gas chambers, and electrocution. How do these methods compare to older forms of execution?

Choose a country, preferably your home country, and look into the death penalty status: is it being implemented or not? If you wish, you can also give a brief history of the death penalty in your chosen country and your thoughts. You do not necessarily need to write about your own country; however, picking your homeland may provide better insight. 

Critics of the death penalty argue that it is anti-poor, as a poor person accused of a crime punishable by death lacks the resources to hire a good lawyer to defend them adequately. For your essay, reflect on this issue and write about your thoughts. Is it inhumane for the poor? After all, poor people will not have sufficient resources to hire good lawyers, regardless of the punishment. 

This is one of the biggest debates in the justice system. While the justice system has been set up to punish, it should also deter people from committing crimes. Does the death penalty do an adequate job at deterring crimes? 

This essay should lay out the evidence that shows how the death penalty either does or does not deter crime. A few points to explore in this essay include:

• Which crimes have the death penalty as the ultimate punishment?
• How does the murder rate compare to states that do not have the death penalty in states with the death penalty?
• Are there confounding factors that must be taken into consideration with this comparison? How do they play a role?

This is one of the most straightforward ways to explore the death penalty. If the death penalty is to be removed from criminal cases, it must be replaced with something else. The most logical alternative is life imprisonment. 

There is no “right” answer to this question, but a strong argumentative essay could take one side over another in this death penalty debate. A few points to explore in this essay include:

• Some people would rather be put to death instead of imprisoned in a cell for life. Should people have the right to decide which punishment they accept?
• What is the cost of the death penalty versus imprisoning someone for life? Even though it can be expensive to imprison someone for life, remember that most death penalty cases are appealed numerous times before execution.
• Would the death penalty be more acceptable if specific execution methods were used instead of others?

Few first-world countries still use the death penalty. However, Japan and the United States are two of the biggest users of the death sentence.

This is an interesting compare and contrast essay worth exploring. In addition, this essay can explore the differences in how executions are carried out. Some of the points to explore include:

• What are the execution methods countries use? The execution method in the United States can vary from state to state, but Japan typically uses hanging. Is this considered a cruel and unusual punishment?
• In the United States, death row inmates know their execution date. In Japan, they do not. So which is better for the prisoner?
• How does the public in the United States feel about the death penalty versus public opinion in Japan? Should this influence when, how, and if executions are carried out in the respective countries?

In the United States, justice is typically administered at the state level unless a federal crime has been committed. So why do some states have the death penalty and not others?

This essay will examine which states have the death penalty and make the most use of this form of punishment as part of the legal system. A few points worth exploring in this essay include:

• When did various states outlaw the death penalty (if they do not use it today)?
• Which states execute the most prisoners? Some states to mention are Texas and Oklahoma.
• Do the states that have the death penalty differ in when the death penalty is administered?
• Is this sentence handed down by the court system or by the juries trying the individual cases in states with the death penalty?

It might be interesting to see if certain prisoners have selected a specific execution method to make a political statement. Numerous states allow prisoners to select how they will be executed. The most common methods include lethal injections, firing squads, electric chairs, gas chambers, and hanging. 

It might be interesting to see if certain prisoners have selected a specific execution method to make a political statement. Some of the points this essay might explore include:

• When did these different execution methods become options for execution?
• Which execution methods are the most common in the various states that offer them?
• Is one method considered more “humane” than others? If so, why?

One of the topics recently discussed is whether the public should be allowed to view an execution.

There are many potential directions to go with this essay, and all of these points are worth exploring. A few topics to explore in this essay include:

• In the past, executions were carried out in public places. There are a few countries, particularly in the Middle East, where this is still the case. So why were executions carried out in public?
• In some situations, individuals directly involved in the case, such as the victim’s loved ones, are permitted to view the execution. Does this bring a sense of closure?
• Should executions be carried out in private? Does this reduce transparency in the justice system?

Lethal injection is one of the most common modes of execution. The goal is to put the person to sleep and remove their pain. Then, a cocktail is used to stop their heart. Unfortunately, many companies have refused to provide states with the drugs needed for a lethal injection. A few points to explore include:

• Doctors and pharmacists have said it is against the oath they took to “not harm.” Is this true? What impact does this have?
• If someone is giving the injection without medical training, how does this impact the prisoner?
• Have states decided to use other more “harmful” modes of execution because they can’t get what they need for the lethal injection?

There are certain crimes, such as murder, where the death penalty is a possible punishment across the country. Even though minors can be tried as adults in some situations, they typically cannot be given the death penalty.

It might be interesting to see what legal experts and victims of juvenile capital crimes say about this important topic. A few points to explore include:

• How does the brain change and evolve as someone grows?
• Do juveniles have a higher rate of rehabilitation than adults?
• Should the wishes of the victim’s family play a role in the final decision?

The justice system, and its unjust impact on minorities , have been a major area of research during the past few decades. It might be worth exploring if the death penalty is disproportionately used in cases involving minorities. 

It might be worth looking at numbers from Amnesty International or the Innocence Project to see what the numbers show. A strong essay might also propose ways to make justice system cases more equitable and fair. A few points worth exploring include:

• Of the cases where the death penalty has been levied, what percentage of the cases involve a minority perpetrator?
• Do stays of execution get granted more often in cases involving white people versus minorities?
• Do white people get handed a sentence of life in prison without parole more often than people of minority descent?

If you’d like to learn more, our writer explains how to write an argumentative essay in this guide.

For help with your essay, check our round-up of best essay writing apps .

Martin is an avid writer specializing in editing and proofreading. He also enjoys literary analysis and writing about food and travel.

View all posts

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

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

kibirango patrick

Isaac Ehrlich

Jowell H H Beh

Spectrum, Annual Magazine

Aabid Firdausi

Editorial Department , Hantao Hu

Boaz Amoro Nyakeri

laura walls

Bruce Ledewitz

Iqrak Sulhin

The Asian Conference on Ethics, Religion & Philosophy (ACERP2019)

Reynaldo A . Reyes

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Essay Service Examples Social Issues Death Penalty

Is the Death Penalty Really Effective: Argumentative Essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Capital Punishment
• Death Penalty
• Perspective

Is there really a right or wrong answer when it comes to choosing a side for capital punishment?...

Capital punishment is a conclusive or ultimate discipline. There is no harsher discipline than...

Deterrence is probably the most commonly expressed reason for maintaining death penalty but in...

While talking about the opinion of Plato on death penalty, what comes to understand is that he is...

The debate over capital punishment argues, does the state have the right to pick and choose the...

This paper shows the correlation between society and capital punishment. Many people examine the...

The death penalty is barbaric and profound, defined through killing being a more economically and...

Why is it that we believe that only by taking away a life we can pay for another life? Executing...

Imagine you are walking through the corridors of a jail with a guard on both sides. For your last...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction
• Historical considerations

Moral arguments

Utilitarian arguments, practical arguments, the abolition movement.

• Capital punishment in the early 21st century

Arguments for and against 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.

Supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit murder , because they have taken the life of another, have forfeited their own right to life. Furthermore, they believe, capital punishment is a just form of retribution , expressing and reinforcing the moral indignation not only of the victim’s relatives but of law-abiding citizens in general. By contrast, opponents of capital punishment, following the writings of Cesare Beccaria (in particular On Crimes and Punishments [1764]), argue that, by legitimizing the very behaviour that the law seeks to repress—killing—capital punishment is counterproductive in the moral message it conveys. Moreover, they urge, when it is used for lesser crimes, capital punishment is immoral because it is wholly disproportionate to the harm done. Abolitionists also claim that capital punishment violates the condemned person’s right to life and is fundamentally inhuman and degrading.

Although death was prescribed for crimes in many sacred religious documents and historically was practiced widely with the support of religious hierarchies , today there is no agreement among religious faiths, or among denominations or sects within them, on the morality of capital punishment. Beginning in the last half of the 20th century, increasing numbers of religious leaders—particularly within Judaism and Roman Catholicism—campaigned against it. Capital punishment was abolished by the state of Israel for all offenses except treason and crimes against humanity, and Pope John Paul II condemned it as “cruel and unnecessary.”

Supporters of capital punishment also claim that it has a uniquely potent deterrent effect on potentially violent offenders for whom the threat of imprisonment is not a sufficient restraint. Opponents, however, point to research that generally has demonstrated that the death penalty is not a more effective deterrent than the alternative sanction of life or long-term imprisonment.

There also are disputes about whether capital punishment can be administered in a manner consistent with justice . Those who support capital punishment believe that it is possible to fashion laws and procedures that ensure that only those who are really deserving of death are executed. By contrast, opponents maintain that the historical application of capital punishment shows that any attempt to single out certain kinds of crime as deserving of death will inevitably be arbitrary and discriminatory. They also point to other factors that they think preclude the possibility that capital punishment can be fairly applied, arguing that the poor and ethnic and religious minorities often do not have access to good legal assistance, that racial prejudice motivates predominantly white juries in capital cases to convict black and other nonwhite defendants in disproportionate numbers, and that, because errors are inevitable even in a well-run criminal justice system, some people will be executed for crimes they did not commit. Finally, they argue that, because the appeals process for death sentences is protracted, those condemned to death are often cruelly forced to endure long periods of uncertainty about their fate.

Under the influence of the European Enlightenment , in the latter part of the 18th century there began a movement to limit the scope of capital punishment. Until that time a very wide range of offenses, including even common theft, were punishable by death—though the punishment was not always enforced , in part because juries tended to acquit defendants against the evidence in minor cases. In 1794 the U.S. state of Pennsylvania became the first jurisdiction to restrict the death penalty to first-degree murder, and in 1846 the state of Michigan abolished capital punishment for all murders and other common crimes. In 1863 Venezuela became the first country to abolish capital punishment for all crimes, including serious offenses against the state (e.g., treason and military offenses in time of war). San Marino was the first European country to abolish the death penalty, doing so in 1865; by the early 20th century several other countries, including the Netherlands, Norway , Sweden , Denmark , and Italy , had followed suit (though it was reintroduced in Italy under the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini ). By the mid-1960s some 25 countries had abolished the death penalty for murder, though only about half of them also had abolished it for offenses against the state or the military code. For example, Britain abolished capital punishment for murder in 1965, but treason, piracy, and military crimes remained capital offenses until 1998.

During the last third of the 20th century, the number of abolitionist countries increased more than threefold. These countries, together with those that are “de facto” abolitionist—i.e., those in which capital punishment is legal but not exercised—now represent more than half the countries of the world. One reason for the significant increase in the number of abolitionist states was that the abolition movement was successful in making capital punishment an international human rights issue, whereas formerly it had been regarded as solely an internal matter for the countries concerned.

In 1971 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that, “in order fully to guarantee the right to life, provided for in…the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” called for restricting the number of offenses for which the death penalty could be imposed, with a view toward abolishing it altogether. This resolution was reaffirmed by the General Assembly in 1977. Optional protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights (1983) and to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1989) have been established, under which countries party to the convention and the covenant undertake not to carry out executions. The Council of Europe (1994) and the EU (1998) established as a condition of membership in their organizations the requirement that prospective member countries suspend executions and commit themselves to abolition. This decision had a remarkable impact on the countries of central and eastern Europe , prompting several of them—e.g., the Czech Republic , Hungary , Romania , Slovakia , and Slovenia—to abolish capital punishment.

In the 1990s many African countries—including Angola, Djibouti, Mozambique, and Namibia—abolished capital punishment, though most African countries retained it. In South Africa , which formerly had one of the world’s highest execution rates, capital punishment was outlawed in 1995 by the Constitutional Court, which declared that it was incompatible with the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment and with “a human rights culture.”

Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > The Death Penalty's Denial of Fundamental Human Rights
• > Conclusion

Book contents

• The Death Penalty’s Denial of Fundamental Human Rights
• ASIL Studies in International Legal Theory
• Frontispiece
• Copyright page
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 The Death Penalty
• 2 The Abolitionist Movement
• 3 Death Threats and the Law of Torture
• 4 Human Dignity and the Law’s Evolution
• Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2022

The Conclusion summarizes the book's major themes and arguments, concluding that the death penalty has the immutable characteristics and indicia of torture. The Conclusion asserts that capital punishment violates fundamental human rights, including the right to be free from torture. Non-lethal corporal punishments and mock executions have already been prohibited by law, and the Conclusion asserts that capital punishment should be barred by an existing jus cogens norm--the peremptory norm of international law absolutely prohibiting torture--to stigmatize the practice of capital punishment as a torturous one that has no place in the twenty-first century or in law.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• John Bessler , University of Baltimore
• Book: The Death Penalty's Denial of Fundamental Human Rights
• Online publication: 01 December 2022
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108980159.007

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Is the Death Penalty Effective

How it works

This paper focuses on whether or not capital punishment is effective and righteous. This is to be done from a biblical perspective and a research perspective based on whether or not capital punishment deters crime. Based on the purpose of this paper the definition of Capital punishment “refers to the process of sentencing convicted offenders to death for the most serious crimes (capital crimes) and carrying out that sentence. The specific offenses and circumstances which determine if a crime (usually murder) is eligible for a death sentence.

” (Capital Punishment Statistics)

The Lord used capital punishment when he used the flood to wipe out those who had sinned; only Noah and his family along with a pair of each animal survived; this was a form of capital punishment directly from the Lord. There are also other examples of capital punishment from the Bible. In Genesis 7 “The LORD then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.” For all of those the Lord did not find righteous like Noah and through Noah, his family, he essentially implemented capital punishment which is seen and written for in in Genesis 17 through 23 “For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.

20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.” (Genesis 7-17:23 NIV). God cleansed the land and spared only the righteous, it seems only fitting that this is the model that should be followed. It can also be said that God is merciful, and that Jesus dies for our sins, both of which are true, however, when it comes to heinous crimes, capital punishment should be enforced and that can be seen and modeled for in the Bible as well-for serious crimes capital punishment was used and enforced. Appointed judges made those decisions.

• 1 How should a Christian view the death penalty?
• 2 Current Statistics and Effectiveness of the Death Penalty
• 3 Conclusion

How should a Christian view the death penalty?

God has instituted capital punishment in His Word; and has given government the authority to institute capital punishment which states “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder, adultery, homosexuality, false prophets, promiscuity-see Exodus 21-22, Leviticus 20, and Deuteronomy 13. (BibleGateway)

It is not something to be happy about when someone dies, even someone who has done wrong, as it is a lost soul from the perspective of a Christian. However, in that same token, a Christian should also not be fighting against the governments God given right to institute the death penalty. Christians should educate others as to what the Bible does teach about sin, salvation, and the capital punishment. Division among the effectiveness and righteousness of the death penalty is not just between geographical regions, political lines, races, but also religion and even Christian denominations. Not many people are excited about death or excited to institute death as a penalty which is why the rates of death penalties as a punishment and those on death row are not very high in comparison to the population of the United States.

Current Statistics and Effectiveness of the Death Penalty

The rates of actual executions seem to be moving at a snail’s pace. According to Capital Punishment Statistics “at year-end 2016, a total of 32 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) held 2,814 prisoners under sentence of death, which was 58 (2%) fewer than at year-end 2015.” In relation to the total population of the United States, this is an extremely small percentage, and seems many are getting off with a so-called slap on the wrist, life sentences all of which the United States government cannot continue to sustain from a financial perspective and our innocents cannot be allowed to be targeted as repeat victims any longer. In 2016, the number of prisoners under sentence of death decreased for the sixteenth consecutive year. (Capital Punishment Statistics) Five states executed a total of 20 prisoners in 2016, with Georgia and Texas accounting for 80% of executions. (Capital Punishment Statistics).

Based on this statistic, it can be inferred that the majority of the executions are done in the south. About 2000 men, women, and teenagers currently wait on America’s ‘death row.’ (Santa Clara University). For those that are on death row and have had a chance to appeal their case thoroughly, then execution should follow; the innocent men, women and children should not be put at risk. The people of America when thinking of capital punishment must also think about the victims that have suffered so egregiously; are the lives of the murders and rapists to be favored over the lives of those who cannot even protect themselves such as children? These are true questions up for discussion, if risks are to be made, let it not be on the innocent.

In the United States many people believe that the death penalty is not righteous and is wrong, that all persons must be protected regardless of their wrongdoings or sins. Some may even site when Jesus showed mercy to David when he committed adultery or to the woman who was caught in the act of adultery when the pharisees brought her before him and asked him to stone her, yet he showed mercy. It is true, Jesus did show mercy and sometimes our earthly judges show mercy. However, there are times when capital punishment must be enforced. Currently prisons are overpopulated, and criminals continue to be repeat offenders. There is no seeming consistent deterrent to criminal behavior of felony crimes such as rape, murder, and child abuse. Consistent capital punishment would be effective if instituted across America.

As mentioned above, the Lord did institute capital punishment Himself, so it would be untrue to state that capital punishment is unrighteous. It is not completely clear on a wholistic level yet if capital punishment is effective on a national level until that implementation takes effect. However, the rates of criminals coming back to prison is increasing and the budgets for prison systems are skyrocketing. Holding prisoners on death row for crimes such as murder for years upon years is not effective or sensible for any involved.

Cite this page

Is the Death Penalty Effective. (2021, Apr 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/is-the-death-penalty-effective/

"Is the Death Penalty Effective." PapersOwl.com , 12 Apr 2021, https://papersowl.com/examples/is-the-death-penalty-effective/

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Is the Death Penalty Effective . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/is-the-death-penalty-effective/ [Accessed: 8 Jun. 2024]

"Is the Death Penalty Effective." PapersOwl.com, Apr 12, 2021. Accessed June 8, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/is-the-death-penalty-effective/

"Is the Death Penalty Effective," PapersOwl.com , 12-Apr-2021. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/is-the-death-penalty-effective/. [Accessed: 8-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2021). Is the Death Penalty Effective . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/is-the-death-penalty-effective/ [Accessed: 8-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• AI Content Shield
• AI KW Research
• AI Assistant
• SEO Optimizer
• AI KW Clustering
• Customer reviews
• The NLO Revolution
• Press Center
• Help Center
• Content Resources
• Facebook Group

Death Penalty Essay Introduction — a Quick Guide

Table of Contents

The death penalty is a state-sanctioned practice where an individual is executed for an offense punishable through such means. Death penalty essay is a common topic given to students where the essay writer argues this controversial issue and takes a stand. The death penalty essay intro consists of the opening sentence, the background information, and the thesis statement.

Writing a compelling introduction isn’t easy. But with the tips and examples in this guide, you’ll be able to write a captivating introduction.

What Is a Death Penalty Essay?

The death penalty is the practice of executing a person guilty of capital murder, a crime in which the loss of life is intentional. This method of punishment has been around for as long as human civilization.

The death penalty has been controversial for a long time, with people on both sides of the fence. Supporters claim it works to deter crime, but there is no evidence to prove it. Opposers claim it is cruel and is not the best way to serve justice. 

A death penalty essay argues for or against the death penalty. This essay topic is a typical assignment given to college students. Common death penalty essay topics are as follows:

• About the Death Penalty
• Does the Death Penalty effectively deter crime?
• The Death Penalty should not be legal
• The Death Penalty should be abolished.
• Death Penalty and Justice
• Pro-Death Penalty
• Is the Death Penalty Morally Right?
• Death Penalty is Immoral
• Religious Values and Death Penalty
• Ineffectiveness of Death Penalty
• Punishment and the Nature of the Crime
• The Death Penalty and Juveniles.
• Is the Death Penalty Effective?
• The Death Penalty is Politically Just
• The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?
• Abolishment of the Death Penalty
• The Death Penalty and People’s Opinions
• Is Death Penalty Humane?

How to Write an Interesting Death Penalty Essay Intro

Like other essays, the death penalty essay intro comprises three parts. The hook, a strong opening sentence, grips the reader, sparks their curiosity, and compels them to read the rest of the piece.

Subsequent sentences provide background information on the topic and define the argument’s terms. The last part is the thesis statement, which summarizes the central focus of the essay.

1. the Opening Sentence/Hook

The hook is a statement that grips the reader’s attention and makes them want to read on . The hook should be an exciting statement that sparks the readers’ curiosity, and sets the tone for the essay. It should give an overview of the topic. You could begin with a thought-provoking question, an interesting quote, an exciting anecdote, or a shocking statistic or fact. 

2. Background Information

Provide more information about the subject you are discussing. Create context and give background information on the topic. It could be a social or historical context. Define key terms that the reader might find confusing and clearly but concisely state why the issue is important.

3. Thesis Statement

The thesis statement is the overarching idea – the central focus of the essay. It summarizes the idea that you’ll be explaining throughout the entirety of the piece. Once this statement has been established, you’ll smoothly transition into the main body of your essay. Make the thesis clear and concise. 

Death Penalty Essay Introduction Example

Does the death penalty deter crime, especially murder? The death penalty has been controversial for years. Over the years, public opinion about the death penalty seems to have changed. But there are still people who think it is a proper punishment. I have heard the phrase “An eye for an eye” most of my life. Most people firmly believe that if a criminal took someone’s life, their lives should be taken away too. But I don’t think that will discourage anyone from committing crimes. I believe that the criminal should be given a lighter punishment. 

The death penalty or capital punishment is the execution of a criminal by a government as punishment for a crime. In the United States, the death penalty is the most common form of sentence in murder cases.

A death penalty essay argues for or against the death penalty. The essay introduction begins with an attention-grabber , followed by background information on the topic and then the thesis statement.

Abir Ghenaiet

Abir is a data analyst and researcher. Among her interests are artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing. As a humanitarian and educator, she actively supports women in tech and promotes diversity.

Explore All Essay Intro Generator Articles

The different ways to start a comparative essay.

Some writers intend to compare two specific things or ideas through their articles. They write these essays to compare and…

• Essay Intro Generator

Know The Best Way to Start an Expository Essay

Are you into writing essays that tackle a still-unknown fact? Do you know how to write an expository essay? Before…

Writing an Opinion Essay? Read This First!

Students are required to express their opinions on a topic in an opinion essay. Pertinent illustrations and explanations support their…

Identifying the Best Transitions to Start an Essay

A typical academic assignment is the essay, which must meet certain requirements in order to be written properly. Even students…

How to Write Introductions for Synthesis Essays

One of the most exciting assignments you could have is writing a synthesis essay. For a college or university student,…

How to Write Introductions for Music Essays

Music is food for the soul, or so they say. A music essay analyzes or describes a piece of music,…

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Death Penalty — The Death Penalty: Pros and Cons

The Death Penalty: Pros and Cons

• Categories: Capital Punishment Death Penalty

About this sample

Words: 2398 |

12 min read

Published: Oct 11, 2018

Words: 2398 | Pages: 5 | 12 min read

Table of contents

Pros and cons of death penalty, works cited.

• Bedau, H. A., & Cassell, P. G. (Eds.). (2016). Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? Oxford University Press.
• Fagan, J., & Zimring, F. E. (2019). Death Penalty, Deterrence, and Homicide Rates: Empirical Evidence Contradicting Many Years of Research. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 16(2), 221-243.
• Garvey, S. P. (2017). The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. Oxford University Press.
• Haag, E. V. D. (1983). A defense of capital punishment. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 11, 1-28.
• Kastenberger, C., & Weyringer, M. (2017). The Impact of Capital Punishment on the Social Fabric of American Society: The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty. Lambert Academic Publishing.
• Liebman, J. S., & Clarke, P. (2013). The Fallibility of Fairness: An Analysis of Louisiana's Death Penalty as a Case Study in How a Death Penalty Jurisdiction Can Get It Wrong. American Journal of Criminal Law, 40, 207-251.
• Marzilli, A. (2017). Reassessing the Proportionality Requirement for Death Penalty Cases. Notre Dame Law Review, 92(5), 1989-2026.
• Peterson, A., & Bailey, W. C. (2019). The Relationship between Poverty and the Death Penalty. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(3), 317-333.
• Schabas, W. A. (2015). The Death Penalty as Cruel Treatment and Torture: Capital Punishment Challenged in the World's Courts. Harvard University Press.
• Zimring, F. E. (2019). The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment. Oxford University Press.

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

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 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

2 pages / 692 words

4 pages / 1775 words

2 pages / 760 words

1 pages / 540 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

Should the death penalty be abolished? Essay on this question can be quite controversial, no matter what side of the argument is chosen. But it is important to understand the reasons why the death penalty should be abolished. [...]

The legality of the death penalty remains one of the most contentious issues in modern society. As a form of capital punishment, it is intended to serve as the ultimate deterrent against heinous crimes such as murder and [...]

The death penalty is a highly controversial topic that has sparked debate and discussion for centuries. It refers to the legal process of sentencing an individual to death as punishment for a crime they have committed. This [...]

Marzilli Eric, J. (2019). The death penalty deters crime and saves lives. Boston Herald. Retrieved from

The "death penalty" should never exist in the first place. The "death penalty" is wrong.. It should not be given to anybody, whether they are under the age of 18 or not. It is morally wrong and will be the doom of America, The [...]

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 [...]

Related Topics

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

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

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