opinion essay about capital punishment

History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
Games & Quizzes
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

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Capital Punishment
Santa Clara University - Capital Punishment: Our Duty or Our Doom?
Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - Death penalty
capital punishment - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
capital punishment - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
Table Of Contents

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.

Recent News

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.”

Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments

Life without Parole

Retribution

Victims’ Families

Methods of Execution

Medical Professionals’ Participation

Federal Death Penalty

1. Legality

The United States is one of 55 countries globally with a legal death penalty, according to Amnesty International. As of Mar. 24, 2021, within the US, 27 states had a legal death penalty (though 3 of those states had a moratorium on the punishment’s use).

Proponents of the death penalty being legal argue that such a harsh penalty is needed for criminals who have committed the worst crimes, that the punishment deters crime, and that the US Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty as constitutional.

Opponents of the death penalty being legal argue that the punishment is cruel and unusual, and, thus, unconstitutional, that innocent people are put to death for crimes they did not commit, and that the penalty is disproportionately applied to people of color.

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]

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.]

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.

13 Facts about Child Labor

Environmental Racism 101: Definition, Examples, Ways to Take Action

11 Examples of Systemic Injustices in the US

Women’s Rights 101: History, Examples, Activists

What is Social Activism?

15 Inspiring Movies about Activism

15 Examples of Civil Disobedience

Academia in Times of Genocide: Why are Students Across the World Protesting?

Pinkwashing 101: Definition, History, Examples

15 Inspiring Quotes for Black History Month

10 Inspiring Ways Women Are Fighting for Equality

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Clean Water

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.

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

Facebook Share
Tweet Tweet
Email Email

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 .

“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.

My Opinion on the Capital Punishment

An exploration of personal beliefs and reasons concerning the legitimacy and morality of capital punishment. Reflecting upon ethical, legal, and emotional facets to determine whether it serves as a justified form of retribution or presents more problems than solutions. Additionally, PapersOwl presents more free essays samples linked to Capital Punishment topic.

How it works

I believe the laws of the death penalty can go both ways as of why it should be loosened but retained for serial killers. I think the death penalty should be banned because it’s not the best way to punish killers because it doesn’t reduce the crime rate. Not only does it not reduce crime rate but it also isn’t equal throughout the United States because only twenty states have abolished capital punishment.

The death penalty cost the United States 5 million dollars to execute one person, but that’s including their food, trials, court appearances, clothing, and the medicines they used to kill them.

To keep them in prison until death cost approximately 1 million dollars. So executing the inmates on death row cost the US more money, so the government is slowly running out of money by choosing to kill inmates. It cost the US citizen taxpayers 90,000 dollars more per year. In my personal opinion, I think it’s ridiculous to kill someone for five million dollars because, in the end, it’s not worth what it is. So I think they should just sit in jail because then they think about what they’ve done so then they feel bad and depressed, it’s actually harder on them then executing them.

The death penalty is taking taxpayers money so the citizens that aren’t very wealthy are becoming poor. It also doesn’t change the crime rate taking place each day. People that kill others in states having the death penalty are going to expect to get caught and sit in death row until they are executed, so it’s their own fault. I think the death penalty does really do anything because those who get killed aren’t affecting others that don’t know them. I believe that if the US chooses to execute someone they shouldn’t rely on their citizens to pay for some guy that chose to do wrong because some of us aren’t as wealthy as others so they live on tight budgets monthly for items they may be in need of at the time.

The death penalty makes the United States look bad compared to some countries because a lot of the other countries have banned the death penalty because they don’t think it’s right. I think the US shouldn’t be after what others think of us because clearly the US has awful people that chose to do wrong and I’m not saying it’s everyone, there are just people that don’t like to use their brain and think. It has also been shown that the death penalty can be really difficult for families. I think it’s the appropriate punishment for serial killers, but if someone accidentally kills someone and is proven guilty shouldn’t have to be killed. I also think it will eventually become banned in all fifty states, but it won’t be coming quickly or easily. Once someone is killed they close the case and don’t oven it again.

In conclusion, I believe the death penalty should be weakened but retained for serial killers. I think the United States needs to get rid of the death penalty for a few people that don’t murder others on purpose because Europe has decided to stop transporting the lethal drugs to the United States. Another reason I think it should be abolished is that humans have the right to life because have the right to life is the most basic human right. I also believe by 2075 the death penalty will be abolished throughout the United States and any other countries that are still serving it. In the future, I want to see Capital Punishment be banned unless it’s for serious life-threatening cases against other citizens.

Cite this page

My Opinion on the Capital Punishment. (2019, Apr 08). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/my-opinion-on-the-capital-punishment/

"My Opinion on the Capital Punishment." PapersOwl.com , 8 Apr 2019, https://papersowl.com/examples/my-opinion-on-the-capital-punishment/

PapersOwl.com. (2019). My Opinion on the Capital Punishment . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/my-opinion-on-the-capital-punishment/ [Accessed: 13 Sep. 2024]

"My Opinion on the Capital Punishment." PapersOwl.com, Apr 08, 2019. Accessed September 13, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/my-opinion-on-the-capital-punishment/

"My Opinion on the Capital Punishment," PapersOwl.com , 08-Apr-2019. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/my-opinion-on-the-capital-punishment/. [Accessed: 13-Sep-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2019). My Opinion on the Capital Punishment . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/my-opinion-on-the-capital-punishment/ [Accessed: 13-Sep-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

Letters to the Editor
Submit Letter
Opinion Columnists
Guest Columns

Could you vote to execute him? I was a potential juror in Tisdale death penalty sentencing.

It’s one thing to debate the death penalty at the dinner table or, in my case, at newspaper editorial board meetings. It’s quite another to be asked, in the presence of a convict whose life is at stake, whether you could vote to execute him.

“This is as serious as it gets,” a lawyer for Eriese Tisdale said to me and other prospective jurors gathered recently at the St. Lucie County Courthouse. We nodded in agreement.

Tisdale was convicted of first-degree murder for gunning down Sheriff’s Sgt. Gary Morales after a traffic stop in 2013 . Now, after a long and winding journey through the legal system, a sentencing jury was being chosen to determine Tisdale’s fate.

It’s true, as one of the prosecutors pointed out, that no one makes movies or TV shows about jury selection. Our three days of voir dire , as the process of choosing impartial jurors is formally known, were punctuated by hours of tedium. But for the most part the process was as intense and interesting as it was important.

When it comes to the death penalty, could you fairly follow the law?

Predictably, much of the questioning from the prosecutors and defense attorneys dealt with views on the death penalty, and whether we could fairly follow the law. As Tisdale, now 37, sat impassively at the defense table wearing a dress shirt and tie, several prospective jurors said they couldn’t sentence someone to death, regardless of the circumstance. Others, recognizing that firm opposition to the death penalty was a ticket out of jury duty, seemed to discover newfound moral qualms about capital punishment.

Death penalty resentencing: Jurors on Tuesday began hearing evidence in death penalty resentencing of Eriese Tisdale

Under questioning from Assistant Public Defender Stanley Glenn, I took the position I had as a member of the USA TODAY editorial board: Because it is irreversible, the death penalty should be used very sparingly, but it can be appropriate in cases involving heinous crimes and incontrovertible guilt.

Some of my colleagues on the board disagreed, arguing that government shouldn’t be in the killing business and noting that there have been racial disparities in how the death penalty has been applied in the United States. Life in prison without the possibility of parole, they said, is a fate worse than death ― a viewpoint that seemed contradicted by the vigor with which Tisdale and his legal team were arguing for life in prison as an alternative to execution.

Despite the seriousness of the jury selection process, there were moments of levity. Tired of waiting on hard benches in an empty courtroom one morning, some people in the jury pool went rogue and plopped themselves down in the cushioned chairs reserved for the lawyers. As the saying goes, the mind can absorb only what the butt can endure. “It would be considerably helpful if there were padding on the seats,” one prospective juror told the court.

Taking civic duty seriously

Other grousing involved the paltry $15 a day given to jurors (which goes up to $30 after three days). It ought to be $15 an hour , several prospective jurors agreed. Jury duty shouldn’t be a money-making opportunity, but the compensation should at least cover gas and lunch money.

Your view: Florida state parks saved, or not? Vero Beach Three Corners next? Stuart needs Brightline

One woman told the court she is a “psychic medium.” Presumably, she already knows what the verdict will be. Another woman noted that she was getting married in a few days; Circuit Judge Lawrence Mirman asked whether she and her fiance wanted to be married in his courtroom. One man, with a long commute and an unexciting job, allowed that “I’d rather be here than at work.”

Nearly everyone in the diverse jury pool seemed to take their civic duty seriously and showed up on time (7:30 a.m. the first day). One woman, without access to a car, took Uber to and from the courthouse each day. Another had her mother come from Tampa to help out with child care.

Shortly before 6 p.m. on the Friday before Labor Day weekend, the names of those who’d made the final cut were announced, and I was excused. Maybe it had something to do with my journalism career, or my loss of a son to an opioid overdose (Tisdale was involved with drugs), or simply because I had a doctor’s appointment on the morning the trial was scheduled to begin. Whatever the reason, I was a both a little disappointed and a little relieved.

The trial is expected to last through this week, at which point the jury will be instructed to either give Tisdale the death penalty or sentence him to life in prison without parole for murdering Morales, a 35-year-old police officer who left behind a wife and two daughters. The jurors are being asked to weigh aggravating factors and potential mitigating circumstances. Under Florida law, at least 8 of the 12 jurors must vote for the death penalty for it to be imposed.

Based on what I saw at the courthouse, the interests of the state and the defendant are being ably represented, and the citizens chosen for the jury will approach the decision with the thoughtfulness and gravity it deserves.

Bill Sternberg is a retired journalist and the former editorial page editor of USA TODAY. He moved to Port St. Lucie last year.

Guest Columns

Oklahoma's capital punishment system is broken; reforms needed before new executions | Guest

The capital punishment system in Oklahoma is broken. It does not work as it should. From start to finish, it is so badly broken that we cannot know whether someone who has been condemned to death is actually deserving of the ultimate penalty.

Several years ago, I co-chaired — along with former Gov. Brad Henry and former Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Reta Strubhar — the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission. A private, non-partisan group of 11 Oklahoma residents, we reviewed the entire death penalty process, from the initial arrest and interrogation all the way through, and even beyond, execution. Some supported capital punishment. Some were opposed.

More: Oklahoma's death penalty system is broken, commission tells lawmakers

For over a year, commissioners took testimony and received and reviewed evidence. We heard from law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, families of murder victims and families of the wrongfully convicted. We gathered data, reviewed scholarly articles, commissioned studies and conducted interviews.

After much deliberation, we reached a consensus that led to an almost 300-page, detailed report, which is available online ( https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OklaDeathPenalty.pdf ). Its 10 chapters cover a general overview, forensics, innocence protection, the role of the prosecution, the role of the defense, jury issues, the role of the judiciary, death eligibility, clemency and the execution process.

The report takes no position on the death penalty itself. But it made 45 specific recommendations and one general recommendation, which is its centerpiece:

“In light of the extensive information gathered from this year-long, in-depth study, the Commission members unanimously recommend that the current moratorium on the death penalty be extended until significant reforms have been accomplished.”

Our examination of all aspects of Oklahoma’s implementation of the death penalty left us all with deep concerns about whether the state administers capital punishment fairly, consistently and humanely. That is why we unanimously recommended that executions not take place until significant reforms occur.

Unfortunately, the moratorium that was in place in 2017, when the commission published its report, no longer exists. Yet, the state has implemented virtually none of the commission’s recommended reforms. As a result, we cannot be sure that those who receive the death penalty are guilty of a capital offense.

Last month, the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board recommended clemency for Emmanuel Littlejohn, whose execution date is Sept. 26. His case seems to demand re-examination.

We know that only one shot was fired. Prosecutors obtained a conviction of Littlejohn’s co-defendant after telling jurors that he fired the fatal shot. That co-defendant was sentenced to life without parole. The same prosecutors later told Littlejohn’s jurors that Littlejohn fired the fatal shot. Littlejohn was sentenced to death. Littlejohn’s jurors were never told his co-defendant received a sentence of less than death.

More: There are three things that need to happen before our system can render 'Justice for All.'

At his re-sentencing, jurors asked the judge whether Littlejohn could be released on parole even if he was sentenced to life without parole. The judge did not answer, leaving jurors confused. Oklahoma’s Court of Criminal Appeals later ruled that future juries should receive guidance in response to such questions. But that does not help Littlejohn.

Oklahomans certainly agree that, before we execute someone, we must know for certain that person deserves the death penalty. We cannot know that in this case. When Gov. Stitt reviews Littlejohn’s case, let’s hope he strongly considers the Parole Board’s recommendation.

Andy Lester is a partner in the Oklahoma City office of the law firm, Spencer Fane LLP. He previously served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma.

Critical Stack

My response to Gabor Maté's "We each have a Nazi in us" essay: A better model to explain fascism than psychological trauma.

If you like this article, please don’t hesitate to click like♡ and restack🗘 ! It’s a quick way to make sure more people will get to enjoy it too. And don’t hesitate to subscribe to my newsletter for free to receive my new articles right in your inbox!

On September 6 2024, The Guardian published an essay authored by Gabor Maté (father to Aaron Maté, whom you might know if you follow me), titled We each have a Nazi in us. We need to understand the psychological roots of authoritarianism .

The headline was sensationalized, most likely by the publisher (in this case the Guardian), and the article was taken seemingly at face value by the Internet who rejected the assertion that they had the root of a fascist in them — as they should.

In that sense, I don’t hold it to Maté’s writing. It’s likely that he had no choice in the title and maybe even in some of what the article is saying. Traditional newspapers treat one’s writing like a commodity that they own, which is legally what it is. Thus, even though there is only one name on the essay, it’s probable that as many as three or four people actually contributed to it in some way.

It’s not a long article so I urge you to read it too.

I said the headline was sensationalized, but not by as much as one might think. On Twitter, there have been essentially two camps when the promo dropped: one side read the headline and purportedly jumped to conclusions, and the other purportedly read through the article and decries the other side.

With all respect to Mr. Maté, I find the first side to be correct, even if inadvertently correct. There was some sensationalization in the headline, but not by that much.

Though the essay concludes with a more measured theory, saying (emphasis mine):

Fascism, in that sense, is an all too human phenomenon, an outcome of many influences salient among which , on the personal scale, is the unspeakable suffering of the child.

The essay does spend the bulk of it trying to convince the reader to at the very least entertain the psychological factors as a factor of fascism. This puts it, in my opinion, somewhat at odds with this conclusion. Read as is, the conclusion is that child abuse is one factor of fascistic tendencies, equal among others. If there are four factors, all four can equally lead to fascism (25%/25%/25%/25%). But the essay itself, focusing solely on psychological and child developmental factors, seems to consider it as the primary factor, above any other (say 50%/18.75%/18.75%/18.75%).

In that regard, I find the headline sensationalized… but not by that much.

However, I know all too well the disappointment of an essayist when people stop at the headline and don’t read the sources provided to form their own opinion. For this reason (and because I’m kind of a contrarian too), I wanted to give my perspective on Gabor Maté’s thesis.

We often see critique as “lesser” than ourselves. We see it as something that does not concern us (unless it’s critique made directly at us), but there is a lot we can learn from critique. By reading Maté’s essay, for example, I have reinforced my arguments that fascism is not adequately explained by psychological factor. By reading this response, I hope that you the reader will be able to reinforce your own view of fascism, even if you disagree with both Mr. Maté and me.

Is fascism psychological?

The headline used a quote that was not said by the author; “We each have a Nazi within”. What Auschwitz survivor Edith Eger meant by this is that Nazism was perpetrated by humans. I think the reason people reacted poorly to the Guardian’s tweet of this headline was the messenger it came from: the Guardian is not exactly the epitome of anti-fascist reporting. The resentment was that they should look within themselves before passive-aggressively accusing others of being fascists (understandably, people are also tense from the past year of genocide going on in Palestine).

I find the central theory of the essay… incomplete. Many have tried to explain fascism by the psychological factors, but always come up short. In the 60s, the “authoritarian personality” was studied (and found to be mostly bunk).

The shortcomings of the psychological theories are that they’re essentially saying the millions of Germans who gleefully participated in propping up the Nazi regime were all abused in childhood, or all had the same personality.

And what about the many people who were abused in childhood but did not turn out fascist?

Accordingly, we have to look deeper for the causes of fascism.

How come fascism only appeared in the 20th century? Certainly we could make the case that fascism existed in the past, such as Julius Caesar’s genocide in the British Isle, but this would be projecting our modern-day sensibilities on structures that did not operate on them. By which I mean not that we cannot recognize past genocides, but that if fascism can apply easily to the (ancient) past, then how can we properly understand it in the modern-day, when we contend with fascists still?

For example, the article states that:

Neuroimaging studies have shown that the amygdala, the tiny almond-shaped brain structure that mediates fear, is larger in people with more rightwing views.

But this is a chicken and egg situation. Does being a fascist lead to a bigger amygdala, or does a bigger amygdala lead to being a fascist? The implications of each are widely different: in the first case, being a fascist creates fear in an individual. In the second, people who are fearful are more prone to becoming fascists.

I am not sure towards which proposal Gabor Maté leans. He ends the above paragraph with:

This is a telling finding, because we know that the development of the circuitry of the brain is decisively influenced by the child’s emotional environment in the early years.

Which, from my several readings, can be interpreted both ways.

A better model of fascism

For a more thorough understanding of fascism, I turn to those who fought against it.

Fascism has long been described by Marxists as “capitalism in decay, a counter-revolutionary reactionary movement led by finance capital, and a form of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which emerged during periods of economic crisis in imperialist countries.” The Third International described fascism as the "open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialist elements of finance capital."[ 1 ]

Capitalism in decay being that when capital is threatened — in the modern-day, by socialism — attack dogs will emerge to restore the “balance”, by any means necessary to do so.

When capitalism, the hegemonic mode of production in the world, is in crisis and at risk of dying, it lashes out in a last-ditch effort to save itself — or rather, save its bourgeoisie and capital.

This model might not be the most objectively true, by which I mean it may be the best model we have available so far, but might not yet have reached the objective truth of fascism. I still find it much more convincing and powerful than reducing fascism to a set of psychological factors developed in childhood.

I find the Marxist model more powerful because we can apply it to all cases of fascism that have not only historically emerged, but emerged even after the model was conceived.

Italy, Germany, Spain and Portugal — countries at one point ruled by a fascist party — were severely hit by the Great Depression in the 30s. More so than other capitalist countries, as imperialist states such as France, the UK or the US had colonial reserves to draw upon. All developed some homegrown fascism, but only a few ever went through with it.

Italy, Germany and Spain had lost their meager colonial holdings to the Allies after World War 1, a war waged to redistribute colonial possessions that heavily favored France and the UK.

Why did they turn to fascism, but powerful countries like the US did not, while all the same abject poverty was forced onto the people of the United States?

Because fascism only happens at the say-so of the bourgeoisie when it feels threatened. It is not an organic movement.

Both of these countries had a large communist movement present and agitating, with Germany even having an attempt at a revolution (the Spartacus League). It shouldn’t come as a surprise that in the case of European fascism at least, the first two things any fascist in power did was A- ban all socialist movements and exterminate all socialists, and B- reinforce the power of the bourgeoisie through abolishing unions, welfare programs, labor rights, etc.

Pinochet’s regime in Chile, which was promoted by neoliberals such as Reagan and Thatcher, was mainly a response to Salvador Allende’s election. He was a socialist.

But we shouldn’t confuse cause and effect. The economic situation in these countries was already bad, which is what led people to socialism and strengthened communist parties. In capitalism, there is a class for whom capitalism works great: the bourgeoisie, who own the means of production. They are the ones employing us for a wage, and through garnishing some of that wage for themselves (which you never see but still produce), are able to create profit. Nobody would employ anyone in capitalism if they had to pay you exactly for the money you make them.

Thus, when the bourgeoisie feels existentially threatened, it leverages attack dogs in the form of fascists — in the case of capitalism specifically — to attack the threat to its privilege.

Even today, this is what the fascist coup in Ukraine (propped up with US help) did. Ukraine has lost more than a fifth of its population through emigration since the overthrow of the USSR in 1991. It was known as the most corrupt country in Europe. When Porochenko got into power in 2014, the first thing he did was rein in the stormtroopers who had been occupied terrorizing socialists and civilians in the Donbass. Then he further destroyed social nets through austerity measures (this time with the help of the IMF.) Porochenko was a huge capitalist and millionaire.

I also wrote previously about the fascism of “Israel” and why it developed. In their case, the crisis of their system is colonialism (in a capitalist framework).

There are more examples but the bottom line is that fascism is capitalism in crisis. If we can’t find this crisis and existential threat, then we might not be able to describe a regime as fascist. I find this model much more complete and thorough than simply saying “if you were abused, you might turn out to be a fascist” because with that stronger model, we can also correctly predict the rise of fascism before it’s too late .

I remember meeting a psychiatrist at an event not long ago, and I asked them: “I always heard that once you’ve been depressive, it never truly goes away. Is that true?”

She didn’t share my opinion. She said, “I think it’s possible to overcome it.”

I didn’t get to tell her, but I found that perspective refreshing in its positivity. We should believe that humans are better than their base psychological drives, that what happened to us in our past doesn’t define us. It is defeatist, in my opinion, to say that because one went through abuse in childhood, they have a higher propensity to become a certain way. It is defeatist to even hint that this might be the case, which is why I find Mr. Maté’s model and essay incomplete.

It also leads to some dangerous thinking if we went to the logical conclusion of it.

Actually, Gabor hints to a positive conclusion for fascists:

“There was significantly more support for the capital punishment, opposition to abortion and the use of military force, particularly among males who had experienced high levels of physical punishment, especially if they had never had psychotherapy.” I was intrigued by that last finding.

Unfortunately, he doesn’t expand on it, perhaps because getting fascists help was not the subject of the essay. What he’s saying here basically, as I understand it, is: you can overcome your fascist tendencies, if you have them, by getting therapy. It’s not a fatality, and it can be better.

However, this is my personal addition that I read through the lines. It wasn’t transparently made in the original essay.

The quote above comes from Michael Milburn, quoted in the original article, who conducted research that:

… confirms that the harsher the parenting atmosphere people were exposed to as young children, the more prone they are to support authoritarian or aggressive policies, such as foreign wars, punitive laws and the death penalty.

I find these results interesting in the sense that they certainly would support the author’s theory. But unfortunately, no link to a study or book is made available — and I’ve been burned too many times by shoddy research, or even outright fabricated results! If the results are true and factually reported, it would certainly give credence to the central theory.

The fascister and the fascistee

The article opens with fascist leaders, talking about Hitler and Trump’s similarities in their personalities. However, the author correctly sees that to focus solely on high-profile figures would be doing only one half of the equation. Leaders have followers, so the essay sets aside some time to those followers and how they come to follow the leader.

Already though, some cracks appear. Everything seems reducible to psychology. This is perhaps why some people had such a strong response to this essay when it was published on Twitter; it makes a bold opening claim and then slowly softens it throughout the essay. Having had to read it several times to write this response, I think the author is actually very tempered — perhaps too much even. At the time of writing these lines, the Guardian essay reads to me as very milquetoast, as wanting to get the reader to follow a very specific claim, but not actually insisting too much upon that claim. This is a matter of preference to some level; I appreciate articles that don’t shy away from making the point they want to make, come what may.

I find that at most, Maté’s essay is essentially saying, whether that was the intent or not: Don’t hit your children. Love everyone. Don’t be scared of the unknown.

In any case, the theory imputes to the leader and follower the same origin: both lived through abusive events in childhood which formed their personality in later years.

But this, much like I already pointed out in the opening of my essay, is an incomplete observation. It’s not a theory yet. The observation doesn’t explain why one is a leader and the other is a follower. It can’t explain it: clearly, there is something other than simply psychological components. The author knows this, of course — it’s a very simple critique — and talks about “political-economic-ideological climates” in the opening paragraph to allude to those more complex factors, but doesn’t go into them. At least, not as much as an essay like this should have.

What we see historically and even contemporarily is that fascist leaders are handpicked by the bourgeoisie — the same bourgeoisie that deploys its attack dogs to safeguard their capital. Hitler was funded by capitalists. Remember what we said earlier: fascism happens at the say-so of the bourgeoisie. When Hitler was handed power by Hindenburg, it was at the pressure of capitalists. When he proclaimed himself dictator, he quickly set to destroy all labor protections — despite all his racial theories about the superiority of Germans, he certainly saw German workers as nothing more than pawns that should obey their masters, the capitalists. The racial theories only aimed to make it so that the workers would willingly, eagerly work longer hours for a lesser wage and thus collaborate with capitalists.

He further created the MEFO bills, which couldn’t have come from his tiny mind alone, as a form of currency that allowed weapon industrialists to trade unconditionally with the state, thus emptying all public funds into their own bank accounts.

Newspapers often give their writers (even opinion writers) a set amount of characters they can work with, and they have to stay within that limit. To that extent, I think it’s unfair to judge Gabor Maté, like some did, based on this one piece. We can opine on the essay without transferring that to the author as a person. We can also, through critical reading, understand that he’s not saying trauma is the only factor of fascism but that we should consider it one but , where the essay fails, is that it very strongly alludes to the first conclusion. This is an objective failure of the intent, but doesn’t make the essay uninteresting by default or dismissive. It remains helpful to read things we disagree with critically so that we can reinforce our own arguments as to why we are not convinced.

Liked by CriticalResist (Crit)

I've witnessed the lasting damage of childhood trauma and intergenerational trauma into adulthood first hand in myself and family. My parents survived the Bangladeshi genocide by US backed Western Pakistan in 1971 and before that the brutality, looting and violence of British colonisation of India creating multiple Bengal famines, partition etc. So that trauma did cause narcissism and violence in my father and my uncles, to this day he hasn't changed much.

I do think the science shows us that with some conditions mainly caused by childhood trauma it's near impossible to change like narcissism and sociopathy. The personal is political and ultimately oppressive systems like patriarchy, capitalism, imperialism are perpetuated against children in the family unit as a microcosm of the wider society. We need to heal ourselves to transform the world I believe. Staci Haines and Prentis Hemphill have done great work about need for healing as individual and collective to transform our society to a more fair and equal one.

Liked by CriticalResist (Crit)

I did have a critique of this part "We should believe that humans are better than their base psychological drives, that what happened to us in our past doesn’t define us. It is defeatist, in my opinion, to say that because one went through abuse in childhood, they have a higher propensity to become a certain way."

Neuroscience, neurobiology tell us that what happens in our childhood can affect us for the rest of our lives and literally causes physical brain structure changes. Our early environment plays a bigger role than our genetics in shaping who we are, but both play a part. It's obvious when you look at it - our early years are when our brains are developing the fastest, the brain doubles in size in the first year and by age 3 it is 80% of our adult size. If you look up the Adverse Childhood Experience Study and anything by Dr Bruce Perry, Dr Bessel Van Der Kolk, Dr Ramani, Daniel Siegel amongst many, many others. The evidence is there. We can change as adults, but it is very hard as our survival responses to trauma (fight/flight/freeze/fawn) are instinctive responses that are unconscious, we share this with reptiles and all mammals, hence it's called the 'reptilian brain.' It is hard to change from the top down alone i.e. cognitively and needs body-based healing such as retraining your nervious system to be regulated through meditation, exercise, co-regulation in therapy, somatic therapy etc. Narcissism is a personality trait caued by early childhood trauma and it is very hard for narcississts to change.

Ready for more?

Read The Diplomat , Know The Asia-Pacific

Central Asia
Southeast Asia
Environment
Asia Defense
China Power
Crossroads Asia
Flashpoints
Pacific Money
Tokyo Report
Trans-Pacific View
Photo Essays
Write for Us
Subscriptions

Is It Time to Declare a Moratorium on the Death Penalty in Bangladesh?

Recent features.

The Logic of China’s Careful Defense Industry Purge

The Ko Wen-je Case Points to Deeper Problems in Taiwan Politics

Anarchy in Anyar: A Messy Revolution in Myanmar’s Central Dry Zone

The Complex Legacy of Ahmad Shah Massoud

Diplomacy Beyond the Elections: How China Is Preparing for a Post-Biden America

Sri Lanka’s Presidential Manifestos: What’s Promised for Women?

The Global Battle for Chip Talent: South Korea’s Strategic Dilemma

Bangladesh’s New Border Stance Signals a Shift in Its Approach to India

The Solomon Islands-China Relationship: 5 Years On

Finding Home in Bishkek: Kyrgyzstan’s South Asian Expats

Kashmir at the Boiling Point as Elections Loom

Kim Jong Un Abandoned Unification. What Do North Koreans Think?

The debate | opinion.

With the interim government’s commitment to investigate enforced disappearances, another form of state-sanctioned killing, the practice of the death penalty, ought to face the same scrutiny.

Is It Time to Declare a Moratorium on the Death Penalty in Bangladesh?

On October 10, 2024, the 22nd World Day Against the Death Penalty will be marked across the globe. This year’s theme – “The death penalty protects no one” – is dedicated to challenging the misconception that the death penalty makes people and communities safer.

This year, World Day Against the Death Penalty merits special attention in Bangladesh. In light of the end of Sheikh Hasina’s rule, and the commitments the interim government has made to form a Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations of enforced disappearances, now is a good time to ask: Is it time to declare a moratorium on the death penalty in Bangladesh?

The death penalty is part of a state’s toolkit of sanctioned killings – the ways that a government can end the life of an individual. While the death penalty is legitimized by law, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and deaths in custody are perpetrated with the authorities’ tacit consent, complicity, or acquiescence. These actions are carried out blatantly violating the human right to life enshrined in the Constitution of Bangladesh as well as in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Bangladesh acceded to in 2000.

With the interim government’s commitment to investigate enforced disappearances, another form of state-sanctioned killing, the practice of the death penalty, ought to face the same scrutiny.

The death penalty is a topic that is not discussed widely in Bangladesh, unless there are public calls demanding the death of someone. It is an emotional and sensitive topic that rouses hatred and anger. Like many Commonwealth countries, the death penalty found its way into Bangladesh’s Constitution post-independence and as such, it has become part of the foundational furniture. Penal laws in Bangladesh provide capital punishment for 33 offenses ranging from drug offenses, murder, arms offenses and rape – all crimes contained in at least 15 Acts of Parliament. There are several criminal laws where either the maximum punishment or only punishment for an offense is the death penalty, such as in the Special Powers Act 1974 , where the death penalty is the maximum punishment for crimes such as hoarding, smuggling, and adulteration of food.

According to the Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 36 on Article 6 of the ICCPR, a “sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.” The term “most serious crimes” must be read restrictively, only in relation to “ crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing .”

In 2023, human rights organization Odhikar reported that there were a total of 390 persons sentenced to death by the lower courts in Bangladesh, and five executions were carried out. Most of these sentences were passed against offenses beyond the international law threshold, including rape, drug offenses and robbery.

In March 2023, a court in Madaripur simultaneously sentenced 23 persons to death in one case. Group sentences like this raise questions as to whether all 23 people accessed their rights to a fair trial as set out in Article 14 of the ICCPR – “everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” Reports of forced confessions due to torture while in police custody also raise significant fair trial concerns.

Beyond the actual practice of imposing the sentence of death, the reality is that many individuals spend years on death row in Bangladesh awaiting the appeal process due to a high backlog of cases. According to a March 2022 report, there were 2,213 death row inmates in the condemned cells in 68 prisons across the country – some incarcerated therein for over 10 years. Those sentenced to death are kept in solitary confinement, which is a violation of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules).

There is a myth that the death penalty makes people feel safer. To debunk this misguided notion, we need to look at who the persons living on death row are. “ Living Under Sentence of Death ,” a 2022 study by the University of Dhaka, supported by the Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and The Death Penalty Project, studied 39 people on death row, noting that due to the sample size, its findings only apply to those surveyed. Of that sample, they confirmed that the majority of persons had not completed schooling past the age of 14 (87 percent), were in low-paid work or unemployed (53 percent), were under 30 years old at the time of their arrest (74 percent), and had no prior convictions (74 percent). As over half of those surveyed were married at the time of their arrest, and one-third had children, the impact of their prolonged incarceration had dire economic effects on their families too.

This profile of a person on death row – young, impoverished, uneducated, and with no prior criminal convictions – is far from the scary “drug kingpin” images of death row prisoners that television and movie depictions have led us to believe is the norm.

So, why does the death penalty remain in place? Many believe that the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent to the crime of homicide. Circling back to the theme of World Day Against the Death Penalty , this belief is not supported by research. In 2012, the United States National Academies of Sciences conducted the “ Deterrence and the Death Penalty ” study, an extensive review of over 30 years of studies. The study concluded that there was absolutely no conclusive research on the topic. Thus, the researchers said, “[C]laims 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 judgements about capital punishment.”

Following the events that transpired on August 5, when long-time Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was forced to resign, Bangladesh is on a new path. The interim government is open to stronger ties and cooperation with the United Nations, including its human rights mechanisms. The interim government, having taken the significant step of acceding to the U.N. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance , in addition to establishing its own Commission of Inquiry, must continue to move forward.

At this point of introspection and accountability, now is the time for the government of Bangladesh to declare a moratorium on the death penalty. Meaningfully investigating other forms of state-sanctioned killing and human rights breaches is at odds with implementing the death penalty.

It is clear from the data that people are living for years on death row in solitary confinement, with court processes drawn out due to excessive delays. Those sentenced to death are predominately poor people, who were likely convicted for an offense that is not within the scope of “most serious crimes,” breaching Bangladesh’s ICCPR obligations. In no way is this justice.

Declaring a moratorium is a way for Bangladesh to formally pause and stop any further executions from being carried out. This would allow the interim government to conduct a proper review of the cases of those on death row now, to ensure that they are afforded their fair trial rights (such as access to a lawyer) and that their cases are determined by an impartial court. A proper review of the conditions of those housed on death row, along with transparent data on the profiles of the wider death row population, is also needed.

A moratorium will guarantee the right to life as enshrined in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR. After that, the decision regarding full abolition can be made with a frank, factual, and honest dialogue about the myth of the effectiveness of the death penalty and consideration of alternative solutions to combat crime in the country.

Capital punishment is incompatible with human rights and human dignity for indeed the death penalty protects no one.

On Day of the Disappeared, US Has Eyes on Bangladesh

By carolyn nash.

Bangladesh’s ‘Fake News’ Law Is Used to Stifle Dissent

By saad hammadi.

Bangladesh Silencing Teenage Dissent

By tasnim nazeer.

The Network of Professors Behind Bangladesh’s Revolution

By fahmidul haq.

Arakan Army Commander-in-Chief Twan Mrat Naing on the Future of Rakhine State

By rajeev bhattacharyya.

US Air Force Deploys More Stealth Jets to Southeast Asia

By christopher woody.

Islamic Fundamentalism Raises Its Head in Post-Hasina Bangladesh

By snigdhendu bhattacharya.

By Kwangbaek Lee and Rose Adams

By K. Tristan Tang

By James Baron

By Naw Theresa

By Freshta Jalalzai

Capital Punishment: A Critical Evaluation of Its Appropriateness in Modern Society 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

The public reflection on the legality and morality of capital punishment has over the years been well documented by historians, philosophers and other theorists amid the complexities and controversies the debate continues to attract.

Although the practice is institutionalized and practiced in some countries, the raging debate about its appropriateness demonstrates a subtle balance of thought among critics and advocates that continues to be analyzed under the rubric of moral, legal, philosophical and political underpinnings (Homans 44).

It is therefore the purpose of this essay to critically examine recent arguments in support and against the practice of capital punishment with a view to elucidating facts about its appropriateness or inappropriateness in modern society.

It is indeed true that a growing number of countries across the world are abolishing capital punishment, which basically implies the lawful infliction of death as a form of punishment (Arguments para. 1).

However, supporters of the practice continue to echo their concerns in popular media using deep-seated rationalistic arguments and counterarguments that aim to widen the focus and the historical framework of capital punishment.

One school of thought argues that damages caused by some egregious behavior such as murder and rape cannot be sufficiently compensated, hence the need to formulate legislation that will provide optimum deterrence to the offender in the form of capital punishment (Baron 855).

Undeniably, the stakes in support of capital punishment are even higher if such egregious conduct is proved beyond reasonable doubt by a court of law, or if the perpetrator readily admits to taking part in the murder or rape of the victim.

In such scenarios, the upholding of capital punishment is seen as a necessary antidote to such uncivilized and inhuman behavior (Steiker & Stetker 649).

In line with the above argument, supporters of capital punishment argue that the practice permanently removes thieves, murderers, rapists, and other criminals from the face of society, in the process making it safer for compliant members of society to leave in peace (Steiker & Stetker 651).

This rationalistic argument is founded on the fact that dead criminals cannot in anyway engage in further criminal activities, either within prison or after being released into the public domain (Arguments para 9).

This is, in my view, a flawed argument since it does not only lack any moral justification, but it denies the murderer or rapist the chance to reform and look upon life from a positive standpoint.

Assuming a rather economic perspective, some pro-capital punishment advocates argue that limited state resources should be used on important issues rather than on long-term incarceration of murderers, rapists, and other criminals (Arguments para 10). Supporters of this school of thought argue that countries should not use an inexhaustible commodity such as money to cater for individuals condemned for murdering or raping innocent victims.

However, this argument can be challenged from the viewpoint that some techniques used to execute condemned criminals are as a matter of fact more expensive than putting such individuals on long-term imprisonment. In consequence, the issue of cost does not hold much water.

Still, other proponents of capital punishment argue that the criminal must be made to suffer the full consequences in proportion to the offence he or she might have committed, otherwise known as retributive justice (Baron 855; Arguments para. 11). As such, a murderer must meet the full force of the law by being executed instead of undergoing some form of rehabilitative treatment.

However, this standpoint, in my own view, is faced with a serious challenge because it does not only assumes the old-fashioned logic of an ‘eye for an eye’, but it also lacks in establishing effective standards for punishing offenders in as far as crimes such as rape, robbery with violence, and other odious criminal activities are concerned (Baron 856).

For instance, a rapist cannot in anyway be raped under the instruction of the criminal justice system just to make sure that such a criminal is made to suffer in proportion to the crime committed. In consequence, this argument is a non-starter.

Lastly, pro-capital punishment advocates argue that the practice has been effectively used to deter serious criminal activities in countries such as Singapore, China, and Iran, among others. Indeed, consecutive studies reveal that there are far less serious crimes in countries that practice capital punishment, and the opposite is almost always true in countries that don’t (Arguments para. 12).

Indeed, “…those in favor of capital punishment believe that the threat of severe punishment should bring the crime rates down and that capital punishment or the death penalty is the ultimate crime deterrent” (Cox para. 1).

But as observed by this particular author, capital punishment is no longer effective in deterring crime, in part, due to the fact that it is neither swift nor certain as it used to be in early days.

For instance, one can be convicted for a capital offence but the swiftness of taking the convict to the gallows or firing squad is no longer present, thus it cannot be used to deter other members of society from committing crime.

In equal measure, the practice lacks certainty in countries such as the U.S. by virtue of the fact that different states apply the law regarding capital punishment differently (Steiker & Stetker 650).

Critics of capital punishment employ both moral and pragmatic justifications to argue their case. Pragmatically, critics argue that capital punishment lacks any reformative purpose in as far as re-establishing ‘a good citizen’ is concerned, thus the case for its application relies on retribution and deterrence (Homans 43).

This further implies that the death penalty cannot in any valid way be used to reform society; on the contrary, it can only be used to protect society from individuals perceived to be deviating from the norm.

In consequence, capital punishment fails to serve one of the basic tenets of the criminal justice system – that of reforming individuals to comply with the norms and values set by society.

The moral argument against the death penalty holds that killing an individual for the sole purpose of letting justice take its course is unequivocally wrong.

The basic premise for this argument is that the murderer or rapist is wicked to kill or to rape, but so is the state or the criminal justice system (Homans 43). This is a valid argument in as far as the American Constitution and many religions protect the sanctity of life.

Indeed, many religions worldwide are of the opinion that life is God-given and that it is only the Almighty who can take away the life of someone. Consequently, it is morally and spiritually wrong for the state and the criminal justice system to assume the role of God (Styers 99).

Moving on, critics of capital punishment postulates that it is often awarded in an inconsistent manner, not mentioning the fact that there exist a real possibility of executing the innocent (Homans 46). This incontrovertible point of view further argues that there is no possible way of compensating the innocent in the eventuality that justice was miscarried, thus the legislation does not carry much weight.

In the case of murder, the shallowness of slapping capital offenders with the death penalty is further demonstrated by the fact that it is only the culprit and the victim who knows what really happened, not the prosecution and defense lawyers in a court of law. As such, it is not out of the ordinary for an individual to be convicted for murder when he should actually have only being convicted for a lesser charge such as manslaughter (Styers 115). This is undeniably wrong.

Capital punishment is a cruel and unusual form of punishment. Indeed, many countries are abolishing capital punishment due to its very own inhuman nature, not mentioning the fact that international law and treaties are edging towards declaring the death penalty to be a human rights violation (Styers 117).

It is interesting to note that none of the various international criminal courts and treaties provides for capital punishment, and some regional and international bodies such as the Council of Europe and the European Union are advocating for the abandonment of capital punishment as a precondition for membership.

Indeed, not only does capital punishment projects a negative image for any country that puts it into practice, but it also seriously dents the image and esteem of innocent family members and friends of criminals lined up for executions (Homans 45). This must never be allowed to continue.

To conclude, it is evidently clear from the discussion that capital punishment does not only assume a backward trajectory, but it also raises critical moral and ethical challenges that must be answered for the practice to gain credence.

Yet, proponents of the death penalty have failed to provide satisfactory answers to the questions asked, not mentioning the fact that their own justifications as can be observed above rests on shallow waters.

It is indeed true that no one in his sane mind can possibly deny the anguish of the victim’s family in a murder or rape case, but the anguish and despair of the murderer’s or rapist’s family must also be taken into consideration (Homans 47).

In addition, knowledge about the poor administration of capital punishment by most countries is in the public domain. What’s more, it must be remembered that murderers, rapists and other criminals are ordinary mortals who have a life and with it the capability to experience pain, fright and the loss of family members and friends.

It should also be remembered that there is no such thing as a compassionate technique of executing a criminal irrespective of what the state may claim because every form of execution is a horrendous ordeal for the criminal. As such, it is only right that capital punishment be abandoned.

Works Cited

Arguments for and Against Capital Punishment . (n.d.). Web.

Baron, J.C. The “Monstrous Heresy” of Punitive Damages: A Comparison to the Death Penalty and Suggestions for Reform. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 159.3(2007): 853-891. Web.

Cox, E.V. Why Capital Punishment Doesn’t Deter Crime. 2006. Web.

Homans, L. Swinging Sixties: The Abolition of Capital Punishment. History Today 58.12 (2008): 43-49. Web.

Steiker, C.S., & Stetker, J.M. Capital Punishment: A Century of Discontinuous Debate. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 100.3 (2010): 643-689. Web.

Styers, R. Capital Punishment, Atonement, and the Christian Right. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 18.3 (2007): 97-127. Web.

Capital Punishment: Proponents and Opponents Arguements
Acceptance of Death Penalty in the United States
The Appropriateness of Classroom Routines
Rape Victims Rights Legislation
Rape in Ancient Societies
Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty
Bill Clinton’s Foreign Policies
Fascism in the Western States: UK and US
Gambling Should Be Illegal
Developing a Global Biodiesel Industry
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, May 28). Capital Punishment: A Critical Evaluation of Its Appropriateness in Modern Society. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-a-critical-evaluation-of-its-appropriateness-in-modern-society/

"Capital Punishment: A Critical Evaluation of Its Appropriateness in Modern Society." IvyPanda , 28 May 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-a-critical-evaluation-of-its-appropriateness-in-modern-society/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Capital Punishment: A Critical Evaluation of Its Appropriateness in Modern Society'. 28 May.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Capital Punishment: A Critical Evaluation of Its Appropriateness in Modern Society." May 28, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-a-critical-evaluation-of-its-appropriateness-in-modern-society/.

1. IvyPanda . "Capital Punishment: A Critical Evaluation of Its Appropriateness in Modern Society." May 28, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-a-critical-evaluation-of-its-appropriateness-in-modern-society/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Capital Punishment: A Critical Evaluation of Its Appropriateness in Modern Society." May 28, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-a-critical-evaluation-of-its-appropriateness-in-modern-society/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

Basic site functions
Ensuring secure, safe transactions
Secure account login
Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
Remembering privacy and security settings
Analyzing site traffic and usage
Personalized search, content, and recommendations
Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

Remembering general and regional preferences
Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Human Rights — Capital Punishment

Essays on Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is a controversial and thought-provoking topic that has been debated for decades. Writing an essay on capital punishment can be a challenging task, especially when it comes to choosing the right topic. In this article, we will discuss the importance of the topic, provide advice on choosing a topic, and present a detailed list of recommended essay topics, divided by category.

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a highly divisive issue that has sparked fierce debate around the world. It raises questions about morality, justice, and the role of the state in taking the life of a convicted criminal. Writing an essay on capital punishment allows students to explore these complex issues and develop critical thinking skills. Moreover, it provides an opportunity to examine the social, ethical, and legal implications of the death penalty, making it an important and relevant topic for academic study.

When choosing a topic for a capital punishment essay, it is important to consider your interests and the specific aspects of the death penalty that you find compelling. You may want to explore the history of capital punishment, its ethical implications, its effectiveness as a deterrent, or its impact on society. Additionally, consider the current debates and controversies surrounding the death penalty, as these can provide a rich source of material for your essay.

Ethical and Moral Considerations

The morality of the death penalty
Religious perspectives on capital punishment
The rights of the condemned
The ethics of executing the innocent

Effectiveness and Deterrence

The effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent
Comparing crime rates in states with and without the death penalty
The psychological impact of the death penalty on society
Alternatives to capital punishment

Legal and Social Justice Issues

Racial disparities in death penalty sentencing
The role of capital punishment in the criminal justice system
International perspectives on the death penalty
The impact of capital punishment on victims' families

Contemporary Debates and Controversies

The use of lethal injection as an execution method
The debate over capital punishment for juveniles
The role of the media in shaping public opinion on the death penalty
The impact of public opinion on the future of the death penalty

These are just a few examples of the many possible essay topics related to capital punishment. Regardless of the specific topic you choose, it is important to approach the subject with an open mind and a willingness to engage with different perspectives. By considering the historical, ethical, legal, and social aspects of the death penalty, you can develop a well-rounded and insightful essay that contributes to the ongoing discourse on this important issue.

Why Capital Punishment Should Be Legalized

The capital punishment and the society's self defense by amber young, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Role of Capital Punishment in Lessening Crime

A history of capital punishment in america, abolishment of capital punishment, different arguments on whether capital punishment can be justified, 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

The Best Solution to The Views of Capital Punishment in Our Society

The death penalty: pros and cons, the ethics of capital punishment: death is not a right decision, against the death penalty: a persuasive argument for abolition, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Reasoning Against The Death Penalty in America

Justice and death penalty: views of edward i. koch and david von drehle, analysis of the effect of death penalty on crime rates in iran, evaluation of the justification of the death penalty, controversial topic of the death sentence, analysis of "death and justice: how capital punishment affirms life" by edward koch, revisiting the debate on capital punishment: an ielts perspective, emotivism and social darwinism and its ethical applications, analysis of edward koch’s argument in death and justice, capital punishment: legality, effectiveness, and availability of alternatives, the conflict theory perspective on poverty, death penalty: a cruel and unusual punishment or justice in work, the death penalty: is it ethical and effective in crime prevention, how the death penalty violates human rights, thesis statement is capital punishment constitutional, death penalty as a cruel and unusual punishment, how the death penalty violates the 8th amendment, the death penalty's ineffectiveness as a crime deterrent, the pros of the death penalty: a comprehensive analysis, the morality of capital punishment: is it ethical, relevant topics.

Death Penalty
Gun Control
Police Brutality
Human Trafficking
Gay Marriage
Aggressive Driving
Breastfeeding in Public

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!

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

Share full article

Supported by

Should We Refrain From Gossip?

Quiz: Do You Have Healthy Brain Habits?

These 12 questions can help assess your risk for dementia, stroke and depression, and identify ways to reduce it.

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 .

IMAGES

capital punishment essay final version
Essay on Capital Punishment
Arguments for and against Capital Punishment Essay
Capital Punishment (Essay)
Essay on capital punishment should not be banned. should capital
Capital Punishment: Advantages and Disadvantages

VIDEO

Essay writing for both crimes?? injustice!!! #essay #crime #punishment #injustice #school #student
Your Punishment For Dying
Different methods of capital punishment #information #viralvideo #viral #foryou #youtube
What is Capital Punishment?

COMMENTS

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?
In the July Opinion essay "The Death Penalty Can Ensure 'Justice Is Being Done,'" Jeffrey A. Rosen, then acting deputy attorney general, makes a legal case for capital punishment:
The Death Penalty Can Ensure 'Justice Is Being Done'
The death penalty is a difficult issue for many Americans on moral, religious and policy grounds. ... In a New York Times Op-Ed essay published on July 17, two of Mr. Lee's lawyers criticized ...
Should the Death Penalty Be Legal?: [Essay Example], 649 words
Introduction. 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 terrorism. Proponents argue that the death penalty delivers justice, provides closure to victims' families, and ...
Capital punishment
Capital punishment - Arguments, Pros/Cons: 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 ...
≡Essays on Death Penalty: Top 10 Examples by GradesFixer
5 pages / 2464 words. The purpose of this essay is to assess the viability of the death penalty as an operative castigation. The death penalty is defined as the legal killing an individual as a sentence. As of 2018, there were 53 countries that still have the death penalty... Death Penalty Society.
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments. 1. Legality. The United States is one of 55 countries globally with a legal death penalty, according to Amnesty International. As of Mar. 24, 2021, within the US, 27 states had a legal death penalty (though 3 of those states had a moratorium on the punishment's use).
5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know
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 Death Penalty: Arguments and Alternative Solutions
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 essay will explore the various arguments surrounding the death penalty and present my personal opinion on the matter.
Capital Punishment and the Death Penalty Essay
Get a custom essay on Capital Punishment and the Death Penalty. 194 writers online. Learn More. The United States Constitution permits every defendant in a non-petty matter the right to be prosecuted before a jury; the defendant may forgo this privilege and have the decision decided by a professional court judge.
Opinion
Opinion Columnist. June 14, 2019. "I hereby sentence you to death.". The words of Judge Clifford B. Shepard filled the courtroom in Jacksonville, Fla., on Oct. 27, 1976. Shepard was sentencing ...
Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against Essay
Arguments against Death Penalty. The first argument against the lethal sentence is a lack of deterrence among criminals. According to Amnesty International Australia (2019), there is no evidence that the prospect of death prevents potential perpetrators. Furthermore, some authorities state that the lethal sentence does not decline the number of ...
Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty
The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used. Agree. Disagree. Testimony in Opposition to the Death Penalty: Arbitrariness. Testimony in Favor of the Death Penalty: Arbitrariness. The Death Penalty Information Center is a non-profit organization serving the media and the public with analysis and information about capital ...
Opinion: The death penalty confuses vengeance with justice, and it's
It's time to end the death penalty, argues Elliot Williams, after the US executed two prisoners within 24 hours last week. With stakes so high, and flaws so frequent, putting a stop to capital ...
Opinion
To the Editor: Re "If Not the Parkland Shooter, Who Is the Death Penalty For?," by Robert Blecker (Opinion guest essay, Oct. 29): I agree with much of what Mr. Blecker writes, and would ...
Death Penalty
83 essay samples found. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, remains a contentious issue in many societies. Essays on this topic could explore the moral, legal, and social arguments surrounding the practice, including discussions on retribution, deterrence, and justice. They might delve into historical trends in the application ...
84 Death Penalty Title Ideas & Essay Samples
Capital punishment has been a debatable issue for decades. Some people believe that the death penalty plays a crucial role in the criminal justice system, while others think that this procedure is highly unethical. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts. 182 writers online.
My Opinion on the Capital Punishment
Essay Sample: I believe the laws of the death penalty can go both ways as of why it should be loosened but retained for serial killers. I think the death penalty should be banned because it's not the best way to punish killers because it doesn't reduce the crime rate. Not only does it not reduce crime rate.
Capital Punishment Essay for Students and Children
Stoning - In this the criminal is beaten till death. Also, it is the most painful method of execution. Shooting - The criminal is either shoot in the head or in his/her chest in this method. Hanging - This method simply involves the hanging of culprit till death. Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas.
Essay on Capital Punishment
The capital punishment is the ultimate punishment given to the precarious crimes. It is the last stage of capital punishment. There are different methods of like hanging, electric chair, lethal injection, firing squad, gas chamber. Murderers and rapist should be given extreme punishment, and they have to pay for their wrongdoing.
The Morality of Capital Punishment: is It Ethical
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, has been a topic of intense debate for centuries. It raises profound ethical questions about the value of human life, the role of the state in administering justice, and the potential for irreversible mistakes.In this argumentative essay, I will present and defend the claim that capital punishment is not ethical, citing concerns about its ...
Jury duty in Florida: What selection is like in death penalty case
The trial is expected to last through this week, at which point the jury will be instructed to either give Tisdale the death penalty or sentence him to life in prison without parole for murdering ...
Governor should consider clemency for Emmanuel Littlejohn
A private, non-partisan group of 11 Oklahoma residents, we reviewed the entire death penalty process, from the initial arrest and interrogation all the way through, and even beyond, execution. Some supported capital punishment. Some were opposed. More:Oklahoma's death penalty system is broken, commission tells lawmakers
My response to Gabor Maté's "We each have a Nazi in us" essay: A better
The essay does spend the bulk of it trying to convince the reader to at the very least entertain the psychological factors as a factor of fascism. This puts it, in my opinion, somewhat at odds with this conclusion. Read as is, the conclusion is that child abuse is one factor of fascistic tendencies, equal among others.
Is It Time to Declare a Moratorium on the Death Penalty in Bangladesh
The death penalty is a topic that is not discussed widely in Bangladesh, unless there are public calls demanding the death of someone. It is an emotional and sensitive topic that rouses hatred and ...
Capital Punishment: A Critical Evaluation of its ...
Get a custom essay on Capital Punishment: A Critical Evaluation of Its Appropriateness in Modern Society---writers online . ... Indeed, many religions worldwide are of the opinion that life is God-given and that it is only the Almighty who can take away the life of someone. Consequently, it is morally and spiritually wrong for the state and the ...
Targeted killing: A critical look at leadership decapitation in a post
by Douglas London, opinion contributor - 09/11/24 12:00 PM ET. by Douglas London, opinion contributor - 09/11/24 12:00 PM ET. Share ...
Opinion
Public opinion polls conducted by Gallup show support for capital punishment hovers just above 50 ... The Rise and Fall of the Death Penalty." This essay was published in partnership with The ...
Essays on Capital Punishment
The role of the media in shaping public opinion on the death penalty; The impact of public opinion on the future of the death penalty; These are just a few examples of the many possible essay topics related to capital punishment. Regardless of the specific topic you choose, it is important to approach the subject with an open mind and a ...
Opinion
Ms. Szalavitz is a contributing Opinion writer who covers addiction and public policy. In August 2021, while promoting her new book "Dopamine Nation," the Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lembke ...
Opinion
Re "Gossip: It's Fun, It's Natural, and These People Won't Do It," by Michal Leibowitz (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 31): Ms. Leibowitz assumes that the majority of "gossip" — talking ...

Moral arguments

Arguments for and against capital punishment

Recent News

Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments

People who view this page may also like:

Cite This Page

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

“When We Kill”

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

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

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

You may also like

13 Facts about Child Labor

Environmental Racism 101: Definition, Examples, Ways to Take Action

11 Examples of Systemic Injustices in the US

Women’s Rights 101: History, Examples, Activists

What is Social Activism?

15 Inspiring Movies about Activism

15 Examples of Civil Disobedience

Academia in Times of Genocide: Why are Students Across the World Protesting?

Pinkwashing 101: Definition, History, Examples

15 Inspiring Quotes for Black History Month

10 Inspiring Ways Women Are Fighting for Equality

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Clean Water

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

Retribution

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

My Opinion on the Capital Punishment

Cite this page

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Could you vote to execute him? I was a potential juror in Tisdale death penalty sentencing.

When it comes to the death penalty, could you fairly follow the law?

Taking civic duty seriously

Oklahoma's capital punishment system is broken; reforms needed before new executions | Guest

Critical Stack

My response to Gabor Maté's "We each have a Nazi in us" essay: A better model to explain fascism than psychological trauma.

Is fascism psychological?

A better model of fascism

The fascister and the fascistee

Is It Time to Declare a Moratorium on the Death Penalty in Bangladesh?

The Logic of China’s Careful Defense Industry Purge

The Ko Wen-je Case Points to Deeper Problems in Taiwan Politics

Anarchy in Anyar: A Messy Revolution in Myanmar’s Central Dry Zone

The Complex Legacy of Ahmad Shah Massoud

Diplomacy Beyond the Elections: How China Is Preparing for a Post-Biden America

Sri Lanka’s Presidential Manifestos: What’s Promised for Women?

The Global Battle for Chip Talent: South Korea’s Strategic Dilemma

Bangladesh’s New Border Stance Signals a Shift in Its Approach to India

The Solomon Islands-China Relationship: 5 Years On

Finding Home in Bishkek: Kyrgyzstan’s South Asian Expats

Kashmir at the Boiling Point as Elections Loom

Kim Jong Un Abandoned Unification. What Do North Koreans Think?

On Day of the Disappeared, US Has Eyes on Bangladesh

Bangladesh’s ‘Fake News’ Law Is Used to Stifle Dissent

Bangladesh Silencing Teenage Dissent

The Network of Professors Behind Bangladesh’s Revolution

Arakan Army Commander-in-Chief Twan Mrat Naing on the Future of Rakhine State

US Air Force Deploys More Stealth Jets to Southeast Asia

Islamic Fundamentalism Raises Its Head in Post-Hasina Bangladesh

By Kwangbaek Lee and Rose Adams

By K. Tristan Tang

By James Baron

By Naw Theresa

By Freshta Jalalzai

Capital Punishment: A Critical Evaluation of Its Appropriateness in Modern Society Essay

Works Cited

Essays on Capital Punishment

Recommended Capital Punishment Essay Topics

Ethical and Moral Considerations

Effectiveness and Deterrence

Legal and Social Justice Issues

Contemporary Debates and Controversies

Why Capital Punishment Should Be Legalized

The Role of Capital Punishment in Lessening Crime

The Best Solution to The Views of Capital Punishment in Our Society

Reasoning Against The Death Penalty in America

Should We Refrain From Gossip?

Quiz: Do You Have Healthy Brain Habits?

IMAGES