capital punishment should not be abolished essay

Why death penalty should not be abolished

Table of Contents

Introduction

The current state of sentencing was triggered by the changes in the law where the primary goal was to apply justice but in a manner tempered by mercy. As a result, the Federal Courts suspended all executions, and decades later, in 1976, most states had changed their statutes, conforming with the Supreme Court guidelines (McFarland, 2016). For nearly five decades, the reforms that ended the death penalty have made very little change in the level of crime. It has become very challenging to impose the death penalty despite the tremendous costs associated with capital trials and appeals. At the moment, there are thirty-two states in the country alongside the U.S military that still retain the right, and rightly so, to sentence people to death (McFarland, 2016). The death penalty is a just form of retribution for capital offenses, a deterrent, and means of preserving moral order in society, and therefore should not be abolished.

Arguments in Favor of the Death Penalty

Death penalties can help deter crime. In essence, the death penalty is a deterrent to capital crime, whereby a harsh punishment is required to discourage people from committing similar crimes. When the death penalty is applied, it serves three primary functions: general deterrence, specific deterrence, and retribution. General deterrence is a much broader message or threat sent to the people contemplating taking part in atrocious crimes (Andre and Velasquez, 2022). It cautions them against committing similar atrocities because they fear being subjected to such a harsh punishment. On the other hand, a specific deterrence speaks directly to a defendant and means that the individual will not be allowed to live to kill other people. Lastly, the penological argument of retribution is based on the principle that society’s ideals must be upheld by doing the right thing, which means punishing the person who commits a crime. The death penalty should be made available for the worst of offenders.

The death penalty is a just retribution for capital offenses. Retribution, in a broad sense, is a punishment imposed because it is deserved. It is founded on the principle that all guilty people should be punished, only the guilty deserve punishment, and the guilty should be punished based on the severity of the crime committed. As such, murderers and others committing heinous crimes are given the death penalty because they have earned it based on the severity of the offense. Andre and Velasquez (2022) argue that it is only suitable for people to be punished based on the severity of their crimes. Many states appreciate the vital role that capital punishment in the form of the death penalty can have in creating a just society. It is unsurprising that they still allow the practice within their borders. Some extreme crimes punishable by death include first-degree murder, felony murder, murder during a rape, terrorism, and hijacking an aircraft, among other heinous crimes (Venturi, 2016). The federal laws allow for the death penalty to be applied in similar offenses, like civil rights offenses that result in the death of people, murder of foreign and domestic officials, and treason, among others. Allowing the death penalty to be applied in such extreme crimes means that the punishment fits the crime, and such retribution serves justice for the murder victims and their loved ones.

Arguments in Favor of Abolishing the Death Penalty

On the contrary, opponents of the death penalty have argued that killing persons accused of crimes is inhumane and cruel. Moreover, they state that the death penalty fails to consider the complex social and economic factors that drive crime rates (Ilyin, 2019). Another argument is that some crimes are committed spontaneously and individuals do not plan on getting caught or think through the consequences of their actions. It has also been argued that the death sentence denies people the opportunity to reform. However, such arguments fail to factor in the cost incurred by correctional centers, the appeal process, and numerous other judicial and reformative processes (McFarland, 2016). Appeal cases in a study carried out in the State of Oklahoma that relied on 15 state studies showed that capital appeal was five or six times more than non-capital appeals (Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission, 2017).

Conclusions

The basic argument behind just laws and sentences is that natural justice is applied when people get punished for their wrongdoing. Also, it means they suffer in a way befitting their crimes. Indeed, each defendant should get what their crime deserves, and in the case of capital offenses such as murder, such crime deserve the death penalty. Also, by taking such extreme steps, the law enforcement and judicial arms could send a message that such crimes are abhorred and punishable by death and deter individuals, thus creating a safer society. Better attention must be paid to punishing offenses than putting a lot of resources into reforming individuals and using a long and expensive process to achieve the latter goal. It is only right to punish offenses and do so in proportion to the crimes.

• Andre, C and Velasquez, M. (2022, Jul. 7). ‘Capital Punishment: Our Duty or Our Doom.’ Santa Clara University. https://www.scu.edu/mcae/publications/iie/v1n3/capital.html
• Ilyin, G. (2019). 5 Reasons Some People Think The World Needs the Death Penalty. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org.au/5-reasons-some-people-think-the-world-needs-the-death-penalty/
• McFarland, T. (2016). “The Death Penalty vs. Life Incarceration: A Financial Analysis,” Susquehanna University Political Review: Vol. 7 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/supr/vol7/iss1/4
• Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission (ODPRC). (2017). Appendix IB; An Analysis of the Economic Costs of Capital Punishment in Oklahoma. https://files.deathpenaltyinfo.org/legacy/files/pdf/Report-of-the-OK-Death-Penalty-Review-April-2017-a1b.pdf
• Venturi, G.C. (2016). The Death Penalty. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313876668_The_Death_Penalty
• Bill of Rights
• Civil Disobedience
• Drunk Driving
• First Amendment
• Forensic Science
• Gang Violence
• Human Rights
• Identity Theft

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?

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

By Nicole Daniels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Students, read the entire article , then tell us:

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Student Opinion

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

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

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