essay titles for capital punishment

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

128 Capital Punishment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a highly debated and controversial topic worldwide. The practice involves sentencing individuals convicted of severe crimes to death as a form of punishment. Supporters argue that it serves as a deterrent for potential criminals and provides justice for the victims and their families. On the other hand, opponents believe that it violates basic human rights and that there is a risk of executing innocent individuals. If you are assigned an essay on capital punishment and are struggling to find a topic, here are 128 ideas and examples to help you get started.

• The ethical implications of capital punishment.
• The history and evolution of capital punishment in different countries.
• The impact of capital punishment on society.
• The cost-effectiveness of capital punishment compared to life imprisonment.
• The racial disparities in capital punishment cases.
• Capital punishment and the mentally ill.
• The role of the media in influencing public opinion on capital punishment.
• The impact of capital punishment on crime rates.
• The constitutional legality of capital punishment.
• The impact of international pressure on countries that practice capital punishment.
• The role of religion in shaping opinions on capital punishment.
• The role of the victim's family in capital punishment cases.
• Capital punishment and its effect on the prison system.
• The impact of wrongful convictions and exonerations on the capital punishment debate.
• The psychological effects of capital punishment on both the offender and the executioner.
• The role of public opinion in shaping capital punishment policies.
• The effectiveness of alternative forms of punishment compared to capital punishment.
• Capital punishment and the concept of justice.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the convicted.
• The role of cultural norms in determining attitudes towards capital punishment.
• The correlation between socioeconomic status and the likelihood of facing capital punishment.
• The impact of international human rights organizations on capital punishment policies.
• The role of deterrence in the justification of capital punishment.
• The impact of capital punishment on the criminal justice system.
• The morality of executing individuals with intellectual disabilities.
• The impact of public executions on society.
• The role of the defense attorney in capital punishment cases.
• The impact of racial bias in jury selection in capital punishment cases.
• The role of clemency and appeals in capital punishment cases.
• The impact of botched executions on the capital punishment debate.
• The role of the Supreme Court in shaping capital punishment laws.
• The impact of capital punishment on the mental health of the offender.
• The morality of executing individuals who were juveniles at the time of the crime.
• The impact of capital punishment on the rate of homicide.
• The role of forensic evidence in capital punishment cases.
• The morality of executing individuals with severe mental illnesses.
• The impact of international treaties on capital punishment policies.
• The role of DNA evidence in capital punishment cases.
• The morality of executing individuals who were victims of abuse or trauma.
• The impact of public opinion on the implementation of capital punishment.
• The role of the prosecutor in capital punishment cases.
• The morality of executing individuals who were coerced or manipulated into committing a crime.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the victims.
• The role of public defenders in capital punishment cases.
• The morality of executing individuals who were wrongfully convicted but later found innocent.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed.
• The role of expert witnesses in capital punishment cases.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting in self-defense or under extreme duress.
• The impact of international public opinion on countries that practice capital punishment.
• The role of the judge in capital punishment cases.
• The morality of executing individuals who were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crime.
• The impact of the media's portrayal of capital punishment on public opinion.
• The role of the victim impact statement in capital punishment cases.
• The morality of executing individuals who were involved in multiple crimes but only convicted of one.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the victims and the convicted.
• The role of racial bias in the application of capital punishment.
• The morality of executing individuals who were coerced into confessing to a crime they did not commit.
• The impact of capital punishment on the mental health of the victim's family.
• The role of eyewitness testimony in capital punishment cases.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting out of extreme desperation or poverty.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the wrongly convicted.
• The role of the jury in capital punishment cases.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of a cult or extremist ideology.
• The impact of capital punishment on the mental health of the victim's family and the convicted's family.
• The role of rehabilitation in the debate on capital punishment.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting out of fear or self-preservation.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed and the wrongly convicted.
• The role of restorative justice in capital punishment cases.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of a mental illness.
• The impact of capital punishment on the mental health of the victim's family and the wrongly convicted's family.
• The role of forgiveness in the capital punishment debate.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting out of revenge or retribution.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, and the wrongly convicted's family.
• The role of education and awareness in shaping public opinion on capital punishment.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of a substance addiction.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and society as a whole.
• The role of mental health services in capital punishment cases.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of a personality disorder.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and marginalized communities.
• The role of rehabilitation and reintegration in the capital punishment debate.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of religious extremism.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the criminal justice system.
• The role of international cooperation in abolishing capital punishment globally.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of political ideology.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and public trust in the justice system.
• The role of mental health awareness and early intervention in reducing violent crimes and the need for capital punishment.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of religious fanaticism.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the perception of justice in society.
• The role of restorative justice practices in addressing the needs of victims and reducing the demand for capital punishment.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of extremist political ideologies.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the healing process for all involved parties.
• The role of global organizations in advocating for the abolition of capital punishment.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of hate or prejudice.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the long-term societal repercussions.
• The role of education and empathy in reducing the societal acceptance of capital punishment.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of societal pressures or expectations.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the international reputation of countries that practice it.
• The role of community-based programs in preventing crimes that could lead to capital punishment.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of cultural norms or traditions.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the potential for healing and reconciliation.
• The role of trauma-informed approaches in addressing the root causes of violent crimes and reducing the reliance on capital punishment.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of societal inequalities or injustices.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the possibilities for restorative justice.
• The role of international law in pressuring countries to abolish capital punishment.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of political or economic desperation.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the potential for societal healing and transformation.
• The role of trauma recovery programs in addressing the underlying issues that lead to violent crimes and the demand for capital punishment.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of systemic injustices or discrimination.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the potential for building a more compassionate and equitable society.
• The role of international human rights conventions in abolishing capital punishment globally.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of political oppression or totalitarian regimes.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the potential for healing and reconciliation on a societal level.
• The role of social programs and poverty alleviation in reducing the societal factors that contribute to violent crimes and the need for capital punishment.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of cultural or religious customs that clash with international human rights standards.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the potential for fostering empathy and understanding among different groups in society.
• The role of mental health support services in preventing crimes that could lead to capital punishment and providing alternatives for rehabilitation.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of personal trauma or unresolved issues.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the potential for systemic reforms in the criminal justice system.
• The role of education and awareness campaigns in challenging societal norms that perpetuate violence and the demand for capital punishment.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of extremist ideologies or hate groups.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the potential for building a more inclusive and just society.
• The role of community-based initiatives in preventing crimes that could lead to capital punishment and fostering a sense of belonging and support.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of addiction or substance abuse.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the potential for healing and reconciliation on an individual and collective level.
• The role of international pressure and diplomatic efforts in abolishing capital punishment globally.
• The morality of executing individuals who were acting under the influence of systemic inequalities or discrimination.
• The impact of capital punishment on the families of the executed, the victim's family, the wrongly convicted's family, and the potential for fostering a culture of forgiveness and nonviolence.

Want to create a presentation now?

Instantly Create A Deck

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Hassle Free

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2023 Pitchgrade

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

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

“When We Kill”

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

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

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

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

By: Willie Jasper Darden, Jr.

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

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

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

By: Bryan Stevenson | From: TED 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Paul Brown | From: The Marshall Project 2019

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

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

You may also like

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger 

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

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

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

The death penalty deters future murders.

Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full text can be found at PBS.org .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here for the full text from the ACLU website.

Retribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The entire speech by Justice Kogan is available here.

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

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

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

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

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

Full text can be found here.

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The entire decision can be found here.

• Call to +1 844 889-9952

155 Capital Punishment Research Topics & Essay Examples

• 📝 Capital Punishment Paper Examples

🎓 Simple Research Topics about Capital Punishment

✍️ capital punishment essay topics for college, 🏆 best capital punishment essay titles, ❓ capital punishment research questions, 📝 capital punishment research paper examples.

• Is the Death Penalty Just and Applied Fairly? This paper discusses do people have the right and moral permission to consciously vote on the decision to deprive someone of their life for the acts that a person has committed.
• Death Penalty Closure and Crime Rate Effect From a certain perspective, it is not hard to view capital punishment as a state-sponsored program geared towards the destruction of people's lives.
• Capital Punishment' History Those who are against the use of capital punishment made the argument that the threat of capital punishment does not discourage murderers from committing crime.
• Death Penalty: Arguments for Abolishing This paper argues the death penalty should be abolished since it might lead to injustice, it imposes a financial burden to the society, and it is a barbaric form of punishment.
• Death Penalty in the American Judicial System In the American judicial system, the death penalty is applied in military and civil proceedings. The sentence is anchored on the Eighth Amendment.
• Death Penalty and Arguments For Its Abolishment Death penalty caused many debates among legislators, criminologists, journalists. The paper argues that it should either be abolished or reduced to the minimum.
• The Contractions of American Capital Punishment Capital punishment can be described as the practice of sentencing a person to death after being judged and found guilty for a dreadful crime.
• Capital Punishment and Its Moral Justification There can be cases when society finds that capital punishment is morally justifiable, even though everyone has the fundamental and inalienable right to life.
• Capital Punishment's History and Types in America The argument presented in this paper is that capital punishment is a judicial method that presents both controversies and benefits.
• Death Penalty, Its Acceptability and Issues It is often seen that when more offenders are put to death, it deters capital crimes more effectively than a life sentence.
• The Death Penalty Imposition and Rebuttal In the US, capital Punishment has been used as the harshest form of retribution for society's most vicious offenses. This paper argues the pros and cons of the death penalty and the scope of the issue.
• Public Policy and Governance Issues Policy analysis attempts to assess if a policy is worthy of, or convenient for implementation. This is achieved by looking at normative and subjective issues.
• The Issue of Capital Punishment in America An investigation of the stipulations presented in the 8th Amendment indicates that the death penalty contravenes this part of the U.S. Constitution.
• Capital Punishment and Its Ethics It is possible to practice the death penalty, but its implications must be tightly limited and regulated. The alleged criminal should not be sentenced to death immediately.
• Capital Punishment: Arguments For and Against The aim of this paper is to compare and contrast the arguments for and against capital punishment presented in two essays.
• Capital Punishment Is Ineffective in the US The issue of capital punishment is a controversial and debatable one involving different views and perspectives on the effective and protective role of this type of punishment.
• Capital Punishment and Crime Deterrence The choice of measures that are supposed to deter crime is related to a wide range of issues at the confluence of ethics and other problems in criminal justice.
• Capital Punishment Reintroduction in the UK The death penalty is what they call the “execution sentence for murder and other capital crimes, serious crimes or grave crimes such as murder, treason, rape and the like.”
• Capital Punishment in Australia Capital punishment differs greatly from one country to the other. There are countries that have decided to do away with capital punishment and Australia is one of them.
• The Death Penalty: An American History and Ethics The death penalty is a highly controversial and emotional subject about which most people seem to have strong opinions.
• Argument Against Death Penalty Death penalty continues to elicit much debate and controversy in both academia and among criminal justice practitioners. There are various moral ethical and religious issues
• No Justification for Capital Punishment Capital punishment opponents argue that the practice does not deter crime, which statistics reprove. Opponents also deny that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime
• The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty This paper argues that the death penalty is not only necessary but also the most efficient means for deterring future offenders.
• Capital Punishment: For and Against Capital punishment is a procedure that was reached after considering certain factors, the concept of capital punishment is based on the principle of paying life for life.
• Capital Punishment in the United States Handling criminal offenses is crucial in ensuring justice. The process of punishment should be done swiftly in order to ensure that such crimes are not repeated.
• The Death Penalty as a Form of Criminal Punishment The article reflects the author's position on the death penalty, and also discusses the readiness of the American judicial system to implement it.
• Why the Death Penalty Should Be Legalized in All 50 States It is much more rational and equitable to legalize the death penalty in all the fifty states of the US instead of abolishing it.
• Is Capital Punishment a Justifiable Action? This paper aims to prove that capital punishment is an unjust practice, which cannot be used in modern democratic countries, including the United States.
• Jury Sentencing in Capital Cases Jury sentencing has been mostly recognized in capital cases to preserve the connection between the modern societal values and the penal system.
• Death Penalty-Capital Punishment The purpose of this paper is to discuss capital punishment and that there are many discriminations and inconsistencies that occur in the judicial proceedings.
• The Death Penalty as a Wrong Form of Punishment The death penalty is a wrong form of punishment for any human being, for any crime, and the punisher goes unpunished.
• Death Penalty: A Controversial Issue The death penalty is a phenomenon whose legitimacy, efficiency, and morality still divide society. This essay discusses the pros and cons of the death penalty.
• A Utilitarian Approach to Capital Punishment A utilitarian approach and ethical analysis of capital punishment show that the advantages of capital punishment outshine its shortcomings.
• Death Penalty as an Outdated Crime Punishment Capital punishment is still a controversial topic, insofar as for any civilized person death sentence must be abolished in all states due to its inhumane and unjust nature.
• Death Penalty in the United States The main debate issues are the existence of the right of the state to deprive of life, the political and legal significance and, its expediency in the state legal system.
• The Death Penalty and Arguments Against It Instead of focusing on the death penalty, we need to put out our resources upfront into prevention so that we can prevent murder in the first place.
• The Positive and Negative Aspects of the Death Penalty According to American Law This paper looks at both the positive and negative aspects of the death penalty and society’s perception of it.
• Death Penalty Debate Revisited: International and Comparative Perspectives There have been controversial international perspectives on death penalty most of which revolve around the execution of innocent victims.
• Capital Punishment: Pros and Cons Capital punishment results in the government choosing to terminate the life of a person reliant on the severity of the crimes that they have committed.
• Death Penalty in USA and China This paper discusses capital punishment and how it is implemented in both China and the USA by looking in-depth at the historical background legal procedures in both countries.
• Death Penalty for First Degree Murder The death penalty is lawful in the U.S, which is currently being implemented by twenty-eight states, the military, the federal government, and American Samoa.
• Capital Punishment and Deterrence to Crime Deterrence of crime entails the effect of stopping potential criminals from engaging in criminal activity on the basis of the expected consequences of engaging in the activity.
• Evaluation of the Effectiveness Texas Death Penalty Law Texas is leading among states practicing capital punishment for a criminal offense. The conflicts surrounding capital punishment are numerous, with many calling for its abolition.
• Capital Punishment Knowledge and Support Correlation The research seeks to establish the relationship that exists between knowledge acquisition with support for or opposition against capital punishment.
• Research Methods for Criminal Justice in Regard to Capital Punishment Capital punishment is one of the most hotly debated issues in the US. About 67 percent of the US citizens supported the administration of capital punishment.
• Capital Punishment in the USA The purpose of this paper is to discuss capital punishment in the USA and to give Arguments against and in support of capital punishment.
• Prevention of Police Misbehavior Prevention of police misbehavior is no simple task. Discussions can be held and penalties can be imposed to help prevent cases of excessive force and abuse of power.
• The Death Penalty and Its Deterrents The death penalty is considered one of the extremely volatile issues in America. The debate on the subject has caused a lot of divisions in American society.
• The Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against This paper evaluates the pros and cons of the death penalty and comments on the appropriateness of abolishing the death penalty.
• Capital Punishment Legislation in Pennsylvania The paper will deal with capital punishment in Pennsylvania, it will describe the general state of capital punishment legislation as well as the recent controversies regarding it.
• Capital Punishment Debates in the United States Formerly, over 80% of the American population supported capital punishment. However, currently there is a strong opposition of capital punishment in the United States of America.
• Should Death Penalty Be Banned as a Form of Punishment? The following paper suggests a literature review on the topic of the death penalty and justifies why it should not be banned.
• The Death Penalty Should Not Be Banned as a Form of Punishment The death penalty has helped to curb crime rates, provide a safe environment, and administer justice. The paper will discuss several reasons why the death penalty should not be banned.
• The Capital Punishment: Regulation in Human Society This paper seeks to prove that the death penalty is an inalienable regulation both in human society in general and in Wisconsin in particular.
• Death Penalty for Juveniles and Mental Disabilities This paper explores different arguments advanced in four published articles, which investigate the constitutionality of imposing death penalties for juveniles and mentally retarded patients.
• Capital Punishment Cases Handled in Los Angeles Policies The California State has put in place policies that encourage the administration of death punishment, emphasizing equality for the accomplishment of justice objectives.
• The Death Penalty Debate in the United States The future of human civilization relies on the establishment of laws and codes of conduct that are to be followed by all members of society.
• The Death Penalty Abolishment in Modern Society This essay aims to highlight the reasons why there is no place for such a severe sentence as the death penalty in modern society.
• Is the Death Penalty a Deterrence? The death penalty is a promising method of preventing homicides. Potential offenders see benefits from violent crimes such as self-interest and pleasure.
• Capital Punishment / Position Paper The main alternatives to punishment, particularly the death penalty, to which the state's efforts should be directed are preventive measures.
• Why Death Penalty Is Acceptable The problem of the debate about whether it is acceptable to the death penalty lies in that it essentially refers to the idea of the legality of taking another person's life.
• The Death Penalty in Texas The reputation that Texas has earned over the years among other U.S. states due to its current regulations regarding the use of capital punishment is quite shaky and controversial.
• Punishment in America and Its Historical Evolution Although there has been a shift in recent years towards more lenient punishments, there are still local differences in perspective, mainly expressed in the punishment laws.
• Capital Punishment: Arguments For and Against The arguments against capital punishment are more convincing because the justice system has been flawed historically, and crimes, including murder, vary in culpability.
• Capital Punishment Is a Just Punishment The paper states that the debate about capital punishment is a never-ending one that continues to polarize opposing and supporting camps.
• Capital Punishment: The Philosophical Perspective According to Kant, in the case of malicious killing, the punishment cannot be measured by the amount of deliberate violence over a person's freedom.
• Justifying the Abolishment of Death Penalty American legislators, public activists, human rights defenders, and others are in acute arguments about what punishment most dangerous and brutal criminals should receive.
• Christian View on Topic of Capital Punishment As a Christian human life is valuable and no one has the right to be deprived of the value of their life, the offender can be given time to reform or rehabilitate.
• Capital Punishment and Arguments Against Arguments against capital punishment are quite beneficial. Approaches other than capital punishments can resolve some challenges.
• Human Fallibility in Capital Punishment Human fallibility will always be present in capital punishment cases, regardless of the objectivity of the process or the distance that jurors put between themselves.
• Discussion of Capital Punishment The paper discusses death penalty does not help a community because it violates moral norms, does not stop people from committing crimes and may be mistaken.
• Researching of Capital Punishment Capital punishment may serve as a more frightening factor than a life sentence for potential criminals, reducing crime rates even further.
• Why the Death Penalty Is Wrong The research demonstrates how unethical capital sentence is. The proponents argue that it is ethical to deprive some people of life if it helps society live peacefully.
• Death Sentence: Legalizing Global Capital Punishment Capital punishment has always been a topic surrounded by controversies in many humanitarian disciplines such as philosophy, law, and sociology.
• Application of Capital Punishment for Crimes Other Than First-Degree Murders This paper aims to find the answer to the question of whether capital punishment should be used for crimes other than first-degree murder.
• Discussion of Death Penalty Aspects The paper argues death penalty is unjust since it affects vulnerable people, such as the underprivileged and mentally ill, who are unable to adequately defend themselves.
• Arguing Against the Application of Capital Punishment Although capital punishment is believed to deter crime, murder, and facilitate retribution, it is inhumane, brutalizes society, and can be used as a tool for controlling and vengeance.
• Death Penalty, Its Feasibility and Legitimacy The death penalty as capital punishment in the modern world is seen rather as an unnecessary measure associated with ethical concerns.
• Capital Punishment vs. Life Imprisonment for Murderers and Pedophiles It is inappropriate to sentence criminals to death in a modern civilized world. Life imprisonment is the most appropriate punishment for murderers and pedophiles.
• Death Penalty in Utah Should Be Abolished The death penalty should be abolished in Utah because it violates the right to life and also, it breaches the right not to be subjected to torture.
• The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment Capital punishment defines sentencing convicted offenders to death for crimes considered most serious and executing that sentence.
• Lethal Injection in Uncharted Territory: Reaction to Article The article by Salk claims that lethal injection reforms should be revised to be similar to that of human subject research as today they are performed without proper guidance.
• Retributive Justice: The 9/11 Attack's Participant The paper is dedicated to exploring the case of one of the terrorists who participated in the 9/11 attacks in the US and was trialed and convicted in a US criminal court.
• Cesare Beccaria's Attitude Toward the Death Penalty Cesare Beccaria considered the death penalty as one of the most useless punishments in terms of effectiveness and usefulness to society.
• Death Penalty: The Controversy The concept of the death penalty is habitually associated with injustice since it violates human rights, namely the right to life.
• Capital Punishment: Needless Inhumanity
• Capital Punishment: Hypocrisy of the Death Penalty
• Off With Their Heads: Terrorism and Electoral Support for Capital Punishment in Australia
• Capital Punishment: Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right
• Supreme Court Lobbying for the Push Back of Capital Punishment for Juvenile Offenders
• The Controversy That Comes Along With Capital Punishment
• Three Arguments Regarding Capital Punishment
• The Merits and Pitfalls of Capital Punishment Today
• Moral Debate Over Capital Punishment
• Prison Has Better Retribution Than Capital Punishment
• The Pros and Cons of Capital Punishment in the United States
• The Two Distinguishable Figures in the Area of Capital Punishment in the US
• Criticizing the Most Recognized Reasons for Capital Punishment
• Hanging Down Under: Capital Punishment and Deterrence in Australia
• Capital Punishment Infringes Upon Human Rights and Should Not Be Reinstated in Canada
• Capital Punishment: The Ultimate Denial of Human Rights
• Capital Punishment: Only Punishment That Fits the Crime
• The Righteous Debate Against Capital Punishment
• Discussing the Capital Punishment for Juvenile Offenders
• Capital Punishment in Europe and Asia
• The Controversy Surrounding the Issue of Capital Punishment in the United States
• Justice, Euthanasia, and Capital Punishment in Plato’s Republic
• Achieving Nothing but Revenge: Research Shows That Capital Punishment Is Unsuitable for Civilized Nations
• Capital Punishment: Criminals Can Think Twice or Die Once
• Philosophers and Capital Punishment: James, Ayer, and Strawson
• Reasons the U.S. Should Use Capital Punishment
• The Statistics of Capital Punishment in the U.S. and Europe
• Death Penalty: The Pros and Cons of Capital Punishment
• Ethical Concerns About Capital Punishment in the United States
• Moral and Ethical Issues of Capital Punishment Since Ancient Times
• Debate on the Merits of Capital Punishment
• Death and Justice: How Capital Punishment Affirms Life
• Capital Punishment and the Risk of Executing the Innocent
• The Different Argumentative Cases of Capital Punishment Throughout History
• Race, Capital Punishment, and the Cost of Murder
• Capital Punishment: Providing Justice and Closure to the Victims and Their Families
• Assumptions Matter: Model Uncertainty and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment
• The Effective and Humane Method of Capital Punishment
• Capital Punishment Should Remain an Aspect of the United State’s Justice System
• Interest Groups That Support Capital Punishment
• Why People Hate Capital Punishment?
• Does the Capital Punishment Have a Role in Civilized Society?
• Does Capital Punishment Cheapens the Value of Human Life?
• What Role Has Capital Punishment Played in America?
• Legal Murder: Why Capital Punishment Is Morally Wrong?
• Capital Punishment: Does It Really Improve America’s Justice System?
• Capital Punishment: God’s Will or Cruelty of Man?
• What if Capital Punishment Never Existed?
• Capital Punishment: Why Does the Church Oppose It So Much?
• Capital Punishment: Is It Really Necessary?
• Capital Punishment: Proper Punishment or a Form of Revenge?
• Capital Punishment: Who Are We to Take a Life?
• Why Capital Punishment Should Be Abolished?
• Does Capital Punishment Really Deter Crime?
• Capital Punishment and Human Rights: Does the Death Penalty Breach Human Rights?
• How Fragile Are Fragile Inferences? A Re-Evaluation of the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment
• What’s Wrong With Capital Punishment?
• Capital Punishment: Is Death Penalty Justifiable?
• Capital Punishment: Should Execution of Inmates Be Televised?
• Can Capital Punishment Ever Be Justified?
• Capital Punishment: How Americans See It?
• Capital Punishment and Torture: Unconstitutional or Just?
• Capital Punishment and the Criminal Justice Field: Fair or Unjust?
• Why Should the Government Not Approve Capital Punishment?
• What Does Capital Punishment Mean in History?
• Why Should Capital Punishment Be Illegal?
• Does Capital Punishment Have a Local Deterrent Effect on Homicides?
• The Death Penalty: A Punishment for the Poor?
• The Death Penalty: Why We Should Have Capital Punishment?
• Free Capital Punishment: Good or Bad Public Policy?

Cite this page

Select style

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

DemoEssays. (2024, May 25). 155 Capital Punishment Research Topics & Essay Examples. https://demoessays.com/topics/capital-punishment-research-topics/

"155 Capital Punishment Research Topics & Essay Examples." DemoEssays , 25 May 2024, demoessays.com/topics/capital-punishment-research-topics/.

DemoEssays . (2024) '155 Capital Punishment Research Topics & Essay Examples'. 25 May.

DemoEssays . 2024. "155 Capital Punishment Research Topics & Essay Examples." May 25, 2024. https://demoessays.com/topics/capital-punishment-research-topics/.

1. DemoEssays . "155 Capital Punishment Research Topics & Essay Examples." May 25, 2024. https://demoessays.com/topics/capital-punishment-research-topics/.

Bibliography

DemoEssays . "155 Capital Punishment Research Topics & Essay Examples." May 25, 2024. https://demoessays.com/topics/capital-punishment-research-topics/.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Human Rights — Death Penalty

Argumentative Essays on Death Penalty

It's difficult to write about the complex and often controversial subject of the death penalty. Selecting an engaging and personally resonant essay topic is crucial for a successful academic endeavor. We emphasize the importance of creativity in this process and aims to make the information accessible to students of varying academic levels. Let's embark on this journey together, exploring topics that not only challenge but also expand our understanding and critical thinking skills.

Essay Topics by Type

Below, you'll find a curated list of essay topics categorized by type, each with a distinct focus ranging from technology and society to personal growth and academic interests.

Argumentative Essay Topics

• The Morality of the Death Penalty: Is it a justified form of punishment?
• Cost Implications: Comparing the economic impact of the death penalty versus life imprisonment.
• Effectiveness as a Deterrent: Does the death penalty truly deter crime?

Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

• Death Penalty Practices Worldwide: How different countries approach capital punishment.
• Historical vs. Modern Perspectives: The evolution of the death penalty in the legal system.

Descriptive Essay Topics

• A Day in the Life: Describing the process of a death penalty case from verdict to execution.
• Public Perception: How media representations influence views on the death penalty.

Persuasive Essay Topics

• Abolition Arguments: Persuading against the continuation of the death penalty in modern society.
• Rehabilitation over Retribution: The case for prioritizing rehabilitation for criminals.

Narrative Essay Topics

• Personal Testimony: Narratives from families affected by the death penalty.
• Life on Death Row: A day in the life of a death row inmate, based on real accounts and research.

Introduction Paragraphs

Each essay topic comes with a suggested introductory paragraph to kickstart your writing process.

The Morality of the Death Penalty

In the debate over the death penalty, the crux of the argument often revolves around its moral standing. This essay will explore the multifaceted dimensions of capital punishment, questioning its justification as a punitive measure. Thesis Statement: Despite its intention to serve justice, the death penalty raises significant ethical concerns, challenging the principles of human rights and dignity.

Death Penalty Practices Worldwide

Capital punishment varies significantly across different cultural and legal landscapes. This essay aims to compare and contrast the application of the death penalty in various countries, shedding light on the global diversity of justice. Thesis Statement: A comparative analysis reveals profound differences in ethical, legal, and procedural frameworks governing the death penalty, reflecting broader societal values and norms.

Conclusion Paragraphs

Concluding paragraphs are crafted to summarize the main points and reinforce the thesis, adding a final reflection or call to action.

This essay has traversed the ethical landscape surrounding the death penalty, examining its complex implications on society and the justice system. The evidence suggests that the moral costs of capital punishment far outweigh its purported benefits. Final Reflection: In the pursuit of a more humane and just society, abolishing the death penalty emerges as a necessary step forward.

Through a comparative lens, we have explored the diverse approaches to the death penalty, revealing a spectrum of global attitudes towards justice and punishment. These differences underscore the influence of cultural, legal, and ethical considerations in shaping capital punishment policies. Call to Action: It is imperative for nations to reevaluate their stance on the death penalty in light of international human rights standards.

Analysis of Executions Should Be Televised

Ending death penalty: a stand for justice and dignity, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

The Death of The Moth: Woolf's Meditation on Mortality and Resilience

Capital punishment: establish or demolish, the death penalty: pros and cons, why the death penalty should be abolished, 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

Why I Support The Death Penalty in Special Cases

Reasons why the death penalty is wrong, should the death penalty be abolished, why death penalty should be canceled, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Pro Death Penalty: Uncovering The Good Side in The Evil

Pro-death penalty arguments: a comprehensive analysis, the ethics of capital punishment: death is not a right decision, the death penalty as an effective punishment, abolishment of capital punishment, why capital punishment should be legalized, abolishing the death penalty: a persuasive call for justice, reasons why the death penalty should be abolished, analysis of the effect of death penalty on crime rates in iran, the reasons why i am against death penalty, revisiting the debate on capital punishment: an ielts perspective, against the death penalty: a persuasive argument for abolition, the legitimacy of the death penalty, people’s attitude to the death penalty, the death penalty issue in texas, the unethical nature of death penalty: an argumentative perspective, the public support for the death penalty in singapore, research paper on the drawbacks of death penalty, pro-death penalty arguments for serious crimes in south africa, death penalty: the answer to today's incarceration problems.

The death penalty, known as capital punishment, refers to the act of carrying out the prescribed execution of a convicted offender who has been sentenced to death by a court of law for committing a criminal offense.

The history of the death penalty stretches back thousands of years. Its origins can be traced to ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia, where various forms of execution were practiced, including hanging, beheading, and stoning. Throughout history, the death penalty has been used by different societies as a means of punishment for a range of offenses. In medieval Europe, the death penalty became more prevalent, with common methods including burning at the stake, drawing and quartering, and hanging. The practice was often carried out publicly as a form of deterrence and to demonstrate the power of the ruling authority. Over time, there have been shifts in public opinion and legal systems regarding the death penalty. In the 18th century, the Enlightenment era brought forth ideas of human rights and the reformation of justice systems, leading to calls for the abolition of cruel and excessive punishments. In the modern era, many countries have abolished the death penalty, considering it a violation of human rights and the right to life. However, the death penalty remains in practice in several countries around the world, albeit with varying degrees of usage and controversy.

Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United States, Japan, Taiwan, China, India, North Korea, Singapore, Iraq, Vietnam, Yemen, Somalia, Bangladesh, South Sudan, etc.

Hanging, shooting, lethal injection, beheading, stoning, inert gas asphyxiation, electrocution and gas inhalation.

Furman v. Georgia: In 1972, this groundbreaking legal case had a profound impact on the death penalty in the United States. The Supreme Court's decision resulted in a temporary suspension of capital punishment across the nation. The ruling declared that the arbitrary application of the death penalty violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Consequently, states were compelled to revise their death penalty laws in order to address concerns of arbitrariness and ensure a fairer application of the ultimate punishment. The Troy Davis case: Troy Davis, who was convicted of murder in Georgia in 1991, garnered international attention and raised substantial doubts about the fairness and accuracy of the death penalty. Despite maintaining his innocence until his execution in 2011, his case shed light on issues such as the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the potential for racial bias within the criminal justice system, and the inherent risk of wrongful convictions.

Public opinion on the death penalty is diverse and varies across different countries and cultures. However, there are several common trends and perspectives. Supporters of the death penalty argue that it serves as a deterrent to crime and provides justice for victims and their families. They believe that certain crimes warrant the ultimate punishment and that the death penalty acts as a form of retribution. On the other hand, opponents of the death penalty raise concerns about its morality, effectiveness, and potential for wrongful convictions. They argue that capital punishment violates the right to life, promotes violence, and is irreversible in cases of wrongful execution. Many argue that the justice system is fallible and prone to errors, raising questions about the reliability and fairness of capital punishment. Public opinion on the death penalty has been shifting in some countries, with a growing trend towards abolition. Factors such as evolving societal values, concerns about human rights, and the recognition of the potential for errors and biases within the justice system have contributed to changing perspectives.

1. Deterrence. 2. Retribution. 3. Justice for victims. 4. Cost-effectiveness. 5. Upholding societal values.

1. Irreversibility. 2. Human rights. 3. Ineffectiveness as a deterrent. 4. Racial and socioeconomic biases. 5. Moral and ethical considerations.

The topic of the death penalty is of paramount importance due to its profound implications on society, justice, and human rights. It raises fundamental questions about punishment, ethics, and the role of the state in administering justice. The death penalty sparks intense debates on multiple fronts, including its effectiveness as a deterrent, the potential for wrongful convictions, and the moral implications of state-sanctioned killing. Examining the death penalty forces us to confront inherent biases and flaws within the criminal justice system, such as racial and socioeconomic disparities in sentencing. It prompts discussions on the irreversibility of capital punishment and the risks of executing innocent individuals. Moreover, it demands an exploration of alternative approaches to punishment, rehabilitation, and the potential for reforming criminal justice systems.

The topic of the death penalty is highly relevant and worth exploring in an essay for students due to its interdisciplinary nature and profound societal impact. Writing an essay on this subject provides an opportunity for students to delve into complex ethical, legal, and social issues. Studying the death penalty encourages critical thinking and analysis of the justice system, including questions about fairness, human rights, and the potential for error. It prompts students to examine the moral implications of state-sanctioned killing and grapple with issues of punishment and rehabilitation. Furthermore, researching the death penalty enables students to explore the historical and cultural aspects of capital punishment, analyzing its evolution and variations across different societies. They can investigate case studies, legal precedents, and empirical evidence to evaluate the effectiveness, equity, and potential biases associated with the death penalty.

1. In 2020, Amnesty International reported that at least 483 executions were carried out in 18 countries worldwide. The top five executing countries were China, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. 2. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, as of April 2021, 185 innocent individuals have been exonerated and released from death row in the United States since 1973. 3. The United States is among the few Western democracies that still retain the death penalty. However, its use has significantly declined over the years. In 2020, the country recorded the lowest number of executions (17) in nearly three decades.

1. Donohue III, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2009). Estimating the impact of the death penalty on murder. American Law and Economics Review, 11(2), 249-309. (https://academic.oup.com/aler/article-abstract/11/2/249/232287) 2. Goldberg, A. J., & Dershowitz, A. M. (1970). Declaring the death penalty unconstitutional. Harvard Law Review, 1773-1819. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1339687) 3. Soss, J., Langbein, L., & Metelko, A. R. (2003). Why do white Americans support the death penalty?. The Journal of Politics, 65(2), 397-421. (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-2-00006) 4. Banner, S. (2022). The death penalty. In The Death Penalty. Harvard University Press. (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.4159/9780674020511/html) 5. Hoyle, C. (2008). Death Penalty. In Elgar Encyclopedia of Human Rights. Edward Elgar Publishing. (https://www.elgaronline.com/display/book/9781789903621/b-9781789903621.death.penalty.xml) 6. Radelet, M. L., & Borg, M. J. (2000). The changing nature of death penalty debates. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 43-61. (https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.43) 7. Vidmar, N., & Ellsworth, P. (1973). Public opinion and the death penalty. Stan. L. Rev., 26, 1245. (https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/stflr26&div=63&id=&page=) 8. Donohue, J. J., & Wolfers, J. (2006). Uses and abuses of empirical evidence in the death penalty debate. (https://www.nber.org/papers/w11982) 9. Ellsworth, P. C., & Gross, S. R. (1994). Hardening of the attitudes: Americans' views on the death penalty. Journal of social Issues, 50(2), 19-52. (https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02409.x) 10. Wolfgang, M. E., & Riedel, M. (1973). Race, judicial discretion, and the death penalty. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 407(1), 119-133. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/000271627340700110)

Relevant topics

• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• Freedom of Speech
• Police Brutality
• Gender Equality
• Women's Rights

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!

Bibliography

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

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Reviewer Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Submit?
• About Journal of Human Rights Practice
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Imperatives, acknowledgements.

• < Previous

A Factful Perspective on Capital Punishment

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

David T Johnson, A Factful Perspective on Capital Punishment, Journal of Human Rights Practice , Volume 11, Issue 2, July 2019, Pages 334–345, https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huz018

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Substantial progress has been made towards worldwide abolition of capital punishment, and there are good reasons to believe that more progress is possible. Since 2000, the pace of abolition has slowed, but by several measures the number of executions in the world has continued to decline. Several causes help explain the decline, including political leadership from the front and an increased tendency to regard capital punishment as a human rights issue rather than as a matter of domestic criminal justice policy. There are significant obstacles in the movement to eliminate state killing in the world, but some strategies could contribute to additional decline in the years to come.

People tend to notice the bad more than the good, and this ‘negativity instinct’ is apparent when it comes to capital punishment ( Rosling et al. 2018 : 48). For example, two decades ago, Leon Radzinowicz (1999 : 293), the founder of Cambridge University’s Institute of Criminology, declared that he ‘did not expect any substantial further decrease’ in the use of capital punishment because ‘most of the countries likely to embrace the abolitionist cause’ had already done so. In more recent years, other analysts have claimed that the human rights movement is in crisis, and that ‘nearly every country seems to be backsliding’ ( Moyn 2018 ). If this assessment is accurate, it should be cause for concern for opponents of capital punishment because a heightened regard for human rights is widely regarded as the key cause of abolition since the 1980s ( Hood and Hoyle 2009 ).

To be sure, everything is not fine with respect to capital punishment. Most notably, the pace of abolition has slowed in recent years, and executions have increased in several countries, including Iran and Taiwan (in the 2010s), Pakistan (2014–15), and Japan (2018). But too much negativity will not do. I adopt a factful perspective about the future of capital punishment: I see substantial progress toward worldwide abolition, and this gives me hope that further progress is possible ( Rosling et al. 2018 ).

This article builds on Roger Hood’s seminal study of the movement to abolish capital punishment, which found ‘a remarkable increase in the number of abolitionist countries’ in the 1980s and 1990s ( Hood 2001 : 331). It proceeds in four parts. Section 1 shows that in the two decades or so since 2000 the pace of abolition has slowed but not ceased, and the total number of executions in the world has continued to decline. Section 2 explains how death penalty declines have been achieved in recent years. Section 3 identifies obstacles in the movement toward elimination of state killing in the modern world. And Section 4 suggests some priorities and strategies that could contribute to additional decline in the death penalty in the third decade of the third millennium.

These examples exclude estimates for the People’s Republic of China, which does not disclose reliable death penalty figures, but which probably executes more people each year than the rest of the world combined.

Table 1 displays the number of countries with each of these four death penalty statuses in five years: 1988, 1995, 2000, 2007, and 2017. Overall, the percentage of countries to retain capital punishment has declined by half over that period, from 56 per cent in 1988 to 28 per cent in 2017. But Table 2 shows that the pace of abolition has slowed since the 1990s, when 37 countries abolished. By comparison, only 23 countries abolished in the 2000s, with 11 more countries abolishing in the first eight years of the 2010s. The pace of abolition has declined partly because much of the lowest hanging fruit has already been picked.

Number of abolitionist and retentionist countries, 1988–2017

Note : Figures in parentheses show the percentage of the total number of countries in the world in that year.

Sources : Hood 2001 : 334 (for 1988, 1995, and 2000); Amnesty International annual reports (for 2007 and 2017).

Number of Countries That Abolished the Death Penalty by Decade, 1980s – 2010s

Sources : Death Penalty Information Center; Amnesty International annual reports.

Table 3 uses Hood’s figures for 1980 to 1999 ( Hood 2001 : 335) and figures from Hands Off Cain and Amnesty International to report the estimated number of executions and death sentences worldwide from 1980 to 2017. Because several countries (including China, the world’s leading user of capital punishment) do not disclose reliable death penalty statistics, the figures in Table 3 cannot be considered precise measures of death sentencing and execution trends over time, but the numbers do suggest recent declines. For instance, the average number of death sentences per year in the 2010s (2,220) was less than half the annual average for the 2000s (4,576). Similarly, the average number of executions per year in the 2010s (867) was less than half the annual average for the 2000s (1,762). Moreover, while the average number of countries per year to impose a death sentence remained fairly flat in the four decades covered in Table 3 (58 countries in the 1980s, 68 in the 1990s, 56 in the 2000s, and 58 in the 2010s), the average number of countries per year which carried out an execution declined by about one-third, from averages of 37 countries in the 1980s and 35 countries in the 1990s, to 25 countries in the 2000s and 23 countries in the 2010s. In short, fewer countries are using capital punishment, and fewer people are being condemned to death and executed.

Number of death sentences and executions worldwide, 1980–2017

Notes : (a) The numbers of reported and recorded death sentences and executions are minimum figures, and the true totals are substantially higher. (b) In 2009, Amnesty International stopped publishing estimates of the minimum number of executions per year in China.

Sources : Hood 2001 : 335 (1980–1999); Hands Off Cain (2001); Amnesty International annual reports (2002–2017).

In 2001, Hood (2001 : 336) reported that 26 countries had executed at least 20 persons in the five-year period 1994–1998. Table 4 compares those figures with figures for the same 26 countries in 2013–2017, and it also presents the annual rate of execution per million population for each country (in parentheses). The main pattern is striking decline. In 2009, Amnesty International stopped publishing estimates of the minimum number of executions per year in the People’s Republic of China, so trend evidence from that source is unavailable, but other sources indicate that executions in China have declined dramatically in the past two decades, from 15,000 or more per year in the late 1990s and early 2000s ( Johnson and Zimring 2009 : 237), to approximately 2,400 in 2013 ( Grant 2014 ) and 2,000 or so in 2016. Of the other 25 countries in Hood’s list of heavy users of capital punishment in the 1990s, 11 saw executions disappear (Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Russia, Kazakhstan, Congo, Sierra Leone, Kyrgyzstan, South Korea, Libya, Rwanda, and Zimbabwe), eight had the execution rate decline by half or more (USA, Nigeria, Singapore, Belarus, Taiwan, Yemen, Jordan, Afghanistan), and two experienced more modest declines (Saudi Arabia and Egypt). Altogether, 22 of the 26 heavy users of capital punishment in the latter half of the 1990s have experienced major declines in executions. Of the remaining four countries, one (Japan) saw its execution rate remain stable until executions surged when 13 former members of Aum Shinrikyo were hanged in July 2018 (for murders and terrorist attacks committed in the mid-1990s), while three (Iran, Pakistan, and Viet Nam) experienced sizeable increases in both executions and execution rates.

Executions and execution rates by country, 1994–1998 and 2013–2017

a The figure of 429 executions for Viet Nam is for the three years from August 2013 to July 2016.

Notes: Countries reported to have executed at least 20 persons in 1994–1998, and execution figures for the same countries in 2013–2017 (with annual rates of execution per million population for both periods in parentheses).

As explained in the text, in addition to the 26 countries that appeared in Table 3 of Hood (2001 : 336), India had at least 24 judicial executions in 1994–1998, Indonesia had four, and Iraq had an unknown number. The comparable figures for these countries in 2013–2017 (with the execution rate per million population in parentheses) are India = 2 (0.0003), Indonesia = 23 (0.09), and Iraq = 469 (2.78).

Sources : Hood 2001 : 336 (1994–1998); Amnesty International (2013–2017); the Death Penalty Database of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide (for India, Indonesia, and Iraq); Johnson and Zimring 2009 : 430 (for India 1994–1998).

The execution rate increases in Table 4 are striking but exceptional. In Iran, the fourfold increase in the execution rate gives it the highest per capita execution rate in the world for 2013–2017, with 6.68 executions per million population per year. This is approximately four times higher than the estimated execution rate for China (1.5) in the same period. The increase in Viet Nam is also fourfold, from 0.38 executions per million population per year to 1.5, while the increase in Pakistan is tenfold, from 0.05 to 0.49. Nonetheless, Viet Nam’s substantially increased execution rate in the 2010s would not have ranked it among the top ten executing nations in the 1990s, while Pakistan’s increased rate in the 2010s would not have ranked it among the top 15 nations in the 1990s. Even among the heaviest users of capital punishment, times have changed.

At least two countries that did not appear on Hood’s heavy user list for the 1990s executed more than 20 people in 2013–2017. The most notable newcomer is Iraq, which executed at least 469 persons in this five-year period, with an execution rate of 2.78 per million population per year. And then there is Indonesia. In the five years from 1994 to 1998, this country (with the world’s largest Muslim population) executed a total of four people, while in 2013–2017 the number increased to 23, giving it an execution rate of 0.09 per year per million population—about the same as the (low) execution rates in Japan and Taiwan.

When Iraq and Indonesia are added to the heavy user list for 2013–2017, only five countries out of 28 have execution rates that exceed one execution per year per million population, giving them death penalty systems that can be deemed ‘operational’ in the sense that ‘judicial executions are a recurrent and important part’ of their criminal justice systems ( Johnson and Zimring 2009 : 22). By contrast, in 1994–1998, 14 of these 28 countries had death penalty systems that were ‘operational’.

India is a country with a large population that does not appear on the frequent executing list for either the 1990s or the 2010s. In 2013–2017, this country of 1.3 billion people executed only two people, giving it what is probably the lowest execution rate (0.0003) among the 56 countries that currently retain capital punishment. India has long used judicial execution infrequently, but its police and security forces continue to kill in large numbers. In the 22 years from 1996 through 2017, India’s legal system hanged only four people, giving it an annual rate of execution that is around 1/25,000th the rate of executions in China. But over the same period, India’s police and security forces have killed thousands illegally and extrajudicially, many in ‘encounters’ that officials try to justify with the lie that the bad guy fired first.

Two fundamental forces have been driving the death penalty down in recent decades ( Johnson and Zimring 2009 : 290–304). First, while prosperity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for abolition, economic development does tend to encourage declines in judicial execution and steps toward the cessation of capital punishment. Second, the general political orientation of government often has a strong influence on death penalty policy, at both ends of the execution spectrum. High-execution rate nations tend to be authoritarian, as in China, Viet Nam, North Korea, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. Conversely, low-execution rate nations tend to be democracies with institutionalized limits on governmental power, as in most of the countries of Europe and in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Korea, and India. Of course, these are tendencies, not natural laws. Exceptions exist, including the USA at the high end of the execution spectrum, and Myanmar and Nepal at the low end.

In addition to economic development and democratization, concerns about wrongful convictions and the execution of innocents have made some governments more cautious about capital punishment. In the USA, for example, the discovery of innocence has led to historic shifts in public opinion and to sharp declines in the use of capital punishment by prosecutors and juries across the country ( Baumgartner et al. 2008 ; Garrett 2017 ). In China, too, wrongful convictions and executions help explain both declines in the use of capital punishment and legal reforms of the institution ( He 2016 ).

The question of capital punishment is fundamentally a matter of human rights, not an isolated issue of criminal justice policy.

Death penalty policy should not be governed by national priorities but by adherence to international human rights standards.

Since capital punishment is never justified, a national government may demand that other nations’ governments end executions. ( Zimring 2003 : 27)

As the third premise of this orthodoxy suggests, political pressure has contributed to the decline of capital punishment. This influence has been especially striking in Europe, where abolition of capital punishment is an explicit and absolute condition for becoming a member of the European Union. In other countries, too, from Singapore and South Korea to Rwanda and Sierra Leone, the missionary zeal of European governments committed to abolition has led to the elimination of capital punishment or to major declines in its usage.

Political leadership has also fostered the death penalty’s decline. There are few iron rules of abolition, but one seems to be that when the death penalty is eliminated, it invariably happens despite the fact of majority public support for the institution at the time of abolition. This—‘leadership from the front’—is such a common pattern, and public resistance to abolition is so stubborn, that some analysts believe ‘the straightest road to abolition involves bypassing public opinion entirely’ ( Hammel 2010 : 236). There appear to be at least two political circumstances in which the likelihood of leadership from the front rises and the use of capital punishment falls ( Zimring 2003 : 22): after the collapse of an authoritarian government, when new leaders aim to distance themselves from the repressive practices of the previous regime (as in West Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Romania, Cambodia, and Timor Leste); and after a left-liberal party gains control of government (as in Austria, Great Britain, France, South Korea, and Taiwan).

Although use of the death penalty continues to decline, there are countervailing forces that continue to present obstacles to abolition, as they have for decades. First and foremost, there is an argument about national sovereignty made by many states, that death penalty policy and practice are not human rights issues but rather matters of criminal justice policy that should be decided domestically, according to the values and traditions of each individual country. There is the role of religion—especially Islamic beliefs, where in some countries and cultures it is held that capital punishment must not be opposed because it has been divinely ordained. There are claims that capital punishment deters criminal behaviour and drug trafficking, though there is little evidence to support this view ( National Research Council 2012 ; Muramatsu et al. 2018 ). And there is the continued use of capital punishment in the USA, which helps to legitimate capital punishment in other countries ( Hood 2001 : 339–44).

The death penalty also survives in some places because it performs welcome functions for some interests. For instance, following the Arab Spring movements of 2010–2012, Egypt and other Middle Eastern governments employed capital punishment against many anti-government demonstrators and dissenters. In other retentionist countries, capital punishment has little to do with its instrumental value for government and crime control and much to do with the fact that it is ‘productive, performative, and generative—that it makes things happen—even if much of what happens is in the cultural realm of death penalty discourse rather than the biological realm of life and death’ or the penological realms of retribution and deterrence ( Garland 2010 : 285). For elected officials, the death penalty is a political token to be used in electoral contests. For prosecutors and judges, it is a practical instrument that enables them to harness the rhetorical power of death in the pursuit of professional objectives. For the mass media, it is an arena in which dramas can be narrated about the human condition. And for the onlooking public, it is a vehicle for moral outrage and an opportunity for prurient entertainment.

In addition to these long-standing obstacles to abolition, several other impediments have emerged in recent years. Most notably, as populism spreads ( Luce 2017 ) and democracy declines in many parts of the world ( Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018 ), an ‘anti-human rights agenda’ is forcing human rights proponents to rethink their assumptions and re-evaluate their strategies ( Alston 2017 ). Much of the new populist threat to democracy is linked to post-9/11 concerns about terrorism, which have been exploited to justify trade-offs between democracy and security. Of course, we are not actually living in a new age of terrorism. If anything, we have experienced a decline in terrorism from the decades in which it was less of a big deal in our collective consciousness ( Pinker 2011 : 353). But emotionally and rhetorically, terrorism is very much a big deal in the present moment, and the cockeyed ratio of fear to harm that is fostered by its mediated representations has been used to buttress support for capital punishment in many countries, including the USA (the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995), Japan (the sarin gas attacks of 1994 and 1995), China (in Xinjiang and Tibet), India (the Mumbai attacks of 1993 and 2008 and the 2001 attack on the Parliament in New Delhi), and Iraq (where executions surged after the post-9/11 invasion by the USA, and where most persons executed have been convicted of terrorism). More broadly, the present political resonance of terrorism has resulted in some abolitionist states assisting with the use of capital punishment in retentionist nations ( Malkani 2013 ).

Some analysts believe that the ‘abolition of capital punishment in all countries of the world will ensure that the killing of citizens by the state will no longer have any legitimacy and so even more marginalize and stigmatize extra-judicial executions’ ( Hood and Hoyle 2008 : 6). Others claim that the abolition of capital punishment is ‘one of the great, albeit unfinished, triumphs of the post-Second World War human rights movement’ ( Hodgkinson 2004 : 1). But states kill extrajudicially too, and sometimes the scale so far exceeds the number of judicial executions that death penalty reductions and abolitions seem like small potatoes. The most striking example is occurring under President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines: thousands of extrajudicial executions in a country that abolished capital punishment (for the second time!) in 2006.The case of the Philippines illustrates a pattern that has been seen before and will be seen again in polities with weak law, strong executives, and fearful and frustrated citizens ( Johnson and Fernquest 2018 ). State killing often survives and sometimes thrives after capital punishment is abolished (as in Mexico, Brazil, Nepal, and Cambodia, among other countries). And in countries where capital punishment has not been abolished, extrajudicial executions are frequently carried out even after the number of judicial executions has fallen to near zero (as in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Thailand).

Despite these obstacles to abolition, the decline of capital punishment seems likely to continue in the years to come. The trajectory of this institution is shaped by political and cultural processes over which human rights practices have little influence ( Garland 2010 : Chapter 5), but priorities and strategies do matter. In this section I suggest five imperatives for the future.

First, opponents of capital punishment should recognize the limited importance of public opinion and the generally disappointing results of public education campaigns. There is in fact ‘no real evidence of a public relations campaign ever having had a significant, sustained effect on mass public opinion on capital punishment’ ( Hammel 2010 : 39). Such campaigns are not useless ( Singer 2016 ), but when they make a difference they usually do so by influencing the views of elites. To put the point a little differently, cultural change can stimulate death penalty reform, but the cultural shifts that matter most are those that operate ‘on and through state actors’ ( Garland 2010 : 143). This is where abolitionists should focus their efforts at persuasion.

Second, legal challenges to capital punishment should continue, for they have been effective in Africa, the former British colonies of the Caribbean, the USA, and many other countries (see the Death Penalty Project, https://www.deathpenaltyproject.org ). Moreover, legal challenges tend to be most effective when they come not from individual attorneys but from teams of attorneys and their non-attorney allies—social workers, scholars, mitigation investigators, and the like ( Garrett 2017 : Chapters 5–6). The basic strategy of successful teams is to ‘Make the law do what it promises. Make it be perfect’ ( Von Drehle 2006 : 196). One result is the growing recognition that state killing is incompatible with legal values. Another is a shift in focus from what the death penalty does for people to what it does to them. The evidence of the death penalty’s decline summarized in the first section of this article suggests that country after country has realized that retaining capital punishment breeds disrespect for law by exposing many of its shortcomings ( Sarat 2001 ). In some contexts, this recognition is best cultivated not by invoking ‘human rights’ as a ‘rhetorical ornament’ for anti-death penalty claims ( Dudai 2017 : 18), but simply by concentrating on what domestic law promises—and what it fails to deliver.

Third, research has contributed to the decline of capital punishment, both by undermining claims about its purported deterrent effects and by documenting flaws in its administration. In these ways, a growing empirical literature highlights ‘the lack of benefits associated with capital punishment and the burgeoning list of problems with its use’ ( Donohue 2016 : 53). Unfortunately, much of the available research concentrates on capital punishment in one country—the USA—which provides ‘a rather distorted and partial view of the death penalty’ worldwide ( Hood and Hoyle 2015 : 3). Going forward, scholars should explore questions about capital punishment in the many under-researched retentionist nations of Asia and the Middle East, and they should focus their dissemination efforts on the legal teams and governmental elites that have the capacity to challenge and change death penalty policy and practice, as described above in the first and second imperatives.

Fourth, abolition alone is not enough, in two senses. For one, it is not acceptable to replace capital punishment with a sentence of life without parole which is itself a cruel punishment that represents ‘life without hope’ and disrespect for human rights and human dignity ( Hood 2001 : 346). Moreover, when life without parole sentences are established, far more offenders tend to receive them than the number of offenders actually condemned to death. Overall, the advent of life without parole sometimes results in small to modest reductions in execution, but its main effect on the criminal process is ‘penal inflation’ ( Zimring and Johnson 2012 ). For most human rights practitioners, this is hardly a desirable set of outcomes. In addition, abolition is a hollow victory when extrajudicial executions continue or increase afterwards, yet this occurs often. The nexus between judicial and extrajudicial executions is poorly understood and much in need of further study, but the available evidence from countries such as Mexico and the Philippines suggests that ending judicial executions may do little to diminish state killing. In the light of this legal realism, a single-issue stress on abolishing capital punishment because it is inconsistent with human rights might well be considered more spectacle than substance ( Nagaraj 2017 : 23).

Finally, while the present moment is in some ways an ‘extraordinarily dangerous time’ for human rights advocates ( Alston 2017 : 14), there is room for optimism that the death penalty may be nearing the ‘end of its rope’ ( Garrett 2017 ). Overall, a factful consideration of contemporary capital punishment suggests that the situation in the world today is both bad and better ( Rothman 2018 ). A factful perspective on capital punishment also makes it reasonable to be a ‘possibilist’ about the future of this form of state killing ( Rosling et al. 2018 : 69). Substantial progress has been made toward worldwide abolition, and there are good reasons to believe that more progress is possible.

Special thanks to Professor Roger Hood for his foundational studies of the death penalty worldwide.

Alston P. 2017 . The Populist Challenge to Human Rights . Journal of Human Rights Practice 9 ( 1 ): 1 – 15 .

Google Scholar

Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en (referenced 15 July 2018).

Baumgartner F. R. , De Boef S. L. , Boydstun A. E. . 2008 . The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence . New York : Cambridge University Press .

Google Preview

Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide. Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY. http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org (referenced 28 May 2019).

Death Penalty Information Center. The Death Penalty: An International Perspective. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-international-perspective (referenced 15 July 2018).

Donohue J. J. 2016 . Empirical Analysis and the Fate of Capital Punishment . Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy 11 ( 1&2 ): 51 – 106 .

Dudai R. 2017 . Human Rights in the Populist Era: Mourn then (Re)Organize . Journal of Human Rights Practice 9 ( 1 ): 16 – 21 .

Garland D. 2010 . Peculiar Institution: America’s Death Penalty in an Age of Abolition . Cambridge, MA : The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press .

Garrett B. L. 2017 . End of Its Rope: How Killing the Death Penalty Can Revive Criminal Justice . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .

Grant M. 2014 . China Executed 2,400 Prisoners Last Year Says Human Rights Group. Newsweek . 21 October. https://www.newsweek.com/china-executed-2400-prisoners-2013-says-human-rights-group-278733 (referenced 29 May 2019).

Hammel A. 2010 . Ending the Death Penalty: The European Experience in Global Perspective . Palgrave Macmillan .

Hands Off Cain. http://www.handsoffcain.info (referenced 28 May 2019).

He J. 2016 . Back from the Dead: Wrongful Convictions and Criminal Justice in China . University of Hawaii Press .

Hodgkinson P. 2004 . Capital Punishment: Improve It or Remove It? In Hodgkinson P. , A. Schabas W. (eds), Capital Punishment: Strategies for Abolition , pp. 1 – 35 . New York : Cambridge University Press .

Hood R. 2001 . Capital Punishment: A Global Perspective . Punishment & Society 3 ( 3 ): 331 – 54 .

Hood R. , Hoyle C. . 2008 . The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective (4th ed.). New York : Oxford University Press .

Hood R. , Hoyle C. . 2009 . Abolishing the Death Penalty Worldwide: The Impact of a ‘New Dynamic’ . Crime and Justice 38 ( 1 ): 1 – 63 .

Hood R. , Hoyle C. . 2015 . The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective (5th ed.). New York : Oxford University Press .

Johnson D. T. , Fernquest J. . 2018 . Governing through Killing: The War on Drugs in the Philippines . Asian Journal of Law & Society 5 ( 2 ): 359 – 90 .

Johnson D. T. , Zimring F. E. . 2009 . The Next Frontier: National Development, Political Change, and the Death Penalty in Asia . New York : Oxford University Press .

Levitsky S. , Ziblatt D. . 2018 . How Democracies Die . New York : Crown .

Luce E. 2017 . The Retreat of Western Liberalism . New York : Atlantic Monthly Press .

Malkani B. 2013 . The Obligation to Refrain from Assisting the Use of the Death Penalty . International & Comparative Law Quarterly 62 ( 3 ): 523 – 56 .

Moyn S. 2018 . How the Human Rights Movement Failed. New York Times . 23 April.

Muramatsu K. , Johnson D. T. , Yano K. . 2018 . The Death Penalty and Homicide Deterrence in Japan . Punishment & Society 20 ( 4 ): 432 – 57 .

Nagaraj V. K. 2017 . Human Rights and Populism: Some More Questions in Response to Philip Alston . Journal of Human Rights Practice 9 ( 1 ): 22 – 4 .

National Research Council. 2012 . Deterrence and the Death Penalty . Washington, DC : The National Academies Press .

Pinker S. 2011 . The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined . New York : Viking .

Radzinowicz L. 1999 . Adventures in Criminology . Routledge .

Rosling H. , Rosling O. , Rosling Ronnlund A. . 2018 . Factfulness: Ten Reasons We’re Wrong about the World—and Why Things Are Better than You Think . New York : Flatiron Books .

Rothman J. 2018 . The Big Question: Are Things Getting Better or Worse? The New Yorker . 23 July.

Sarat A. 2001 . When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition . Princeton University Press .

Singer P. 2016 . Is There Moral Progress? In Ethics in the Real World: 82 Brief Essays on Things that Matter , pp. 9 – 11 . Princeton University Press .

Von Drehle D. 2006 . Among the Lowest of the Dead: The Culture of Capital Punishment . University of Michigan Press .

Zimring F. E. 2003 . The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment . New York : Oxford University Press .

Zimring F. E. , Johnson D. T. . 2012 . The Dark at the Top of the Stairs: Four Destructive Influences of Capital Punishment on American Criminal Justice. In Peterselia J. , R. Reitz K. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections , pp. 737 – 52 . New York : Oxford University Press .

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1757-9627
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

The Case for the Death Penalty: Ensuring Justice and Deterrence

This essay is about the arguments in favor of the death penalty, highlighting its role in delivering justice and acting as a deterrent. It discusses how the death penalty provides closure for victims’ families, matches the severity of heinous crimes, and prevents reoffending by dangerous individuals. The essay also addresses the deterrent effect of capital punishment and the advancements in forensic science and legal safeguards that reduce the risk of wrongful convictions. Additionally, it touches on economic considerations, suggesting that the death penalty can be a more efficient use of resources compared to life imprisonment without parole. Overall, the essay supports the death penalty as an essential component of the criminal justice system.

How it works

The issue of capital punishment has perpetually ignited fervent discussions, sparking impassioned dialogues concerning ethics, jurisprudence, and fundamental liberties. Proponents contend that it stands as an indispensable instrument in ensuring retributive justice for the most egregious transgressions and functions as a potent deterrent against prospective offenses. Despite the contentious nature of the discourse, there exist compelling rationales to advocate for the retention of capital punishment as an intrinsic facet of the judicial apparatus.

A primary contention in favor of the death penalty lies in its function as a dispenser of justice.

For bereaved families and kin of victims, capital punishment proffers a semblance of closure and redress. It acknowledges the gravity of the transgression and the irreplaceable void inflicted upon the bereaved. In instances of particularly heinous crimes, such as premeditated homicide or acts of terrorism, the death penalty is perceived as the sole commensurate recompense commensurate with the severity of the offense. It attests to society’s repudiation of the most abominable deeds and underscores the sanctity attributed to human life.

Moreover, an argument of significant import centers on the deterrent efficacy of capital punishment. The specter of facing the ultimate sanction can exert a formidable deterrent effect on prospective malefactors. While studies proffer disparate findings concerning the deterrent impact of the death penalty, proponents posit that its mere existence can dissuade certain individuals from engaging in capital crimes out of apprehension of facing capital retribution. The mere specter of capital punishment within the judicial milieu can serve as a stark admonition of the dire ramifications awaiting those who transgress into violent criminality.

Furthermore, the death penalty can serve as a bulwark against future transgressions by ensuring that convicted malefactors are deprived of the opportunity to reoffend. Incarceration for life, while a severe punitive measure, still entails the potential for escape, parole, or perpetration of further violence within the confines of the carceral apparatus. Capital punishment obviates these risks altogether, ensuring that individuals who have perpetrated the most egregious transgressions will never have the opportunity to imperil others anew. This facet of the death penalty assumes heightened significance in cases involving perilous individuals who have evinced a proclivity for extreme violence.

Opponents of capital punishment frequently underscore the perils of erroneous convictions as a paramount concern. While it is incontrovertible that the judicial system is fallible, advances in forensic science, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) scrutiny, and legal safeguards have significantly curtailed the probability of wrongful executions. The juridical process for capital cases typically encompasses multifarious layers of review and appeals, ensuring assiduous scrutiny of each case. These safeguards serve to forestall the execution of innocents while concurrently upholding the probity of the judicial edifice.

Moreover, the death penalty can be construed as a reflection of societal mores and the collective ethos. It serves as a testament that certain infractions are so execrable that they warrant the most draconian punishment available. By upholding the death penalty, society fortifies the moral thresholds that demarcate acceptable comportment and underscores the gravity with which it regards the most odious transgressions. This, in turn, can engender a sense of security and confidence in the judicial system amongst the populace.

Economic contentions also buttress the rationale for capital punishment. Although the costs associated with capital cases may be exorbitant due to protracted legal processes, some contend that the protracted costs of housing, alimentation, and medical provisions for inmates serving life sentences sans the possibility of parole can be equally onerous on the state. Consequently, capital punishment can be construed as a means to allocate resources more judiciously within the ambit of the judicial system.

In summation, capital punishment subsists as an indispensable instrument in the pursuit of retributive justice and deterrence. It affords solace to the kin of victims, acts as a deterrent to prospective malefactors, and ensures that perpetrators of the most egregious crimes are precluded from recidivism. While apprehensions regarding wrongful convictions are warranted, advancements in forensic science and legal safeguards have significantly assuaged these concerns. The death penalty epitomizes society’s commitment to upholding justice and preserving moral rectitude. As such, it merits continued endorsement as an integral component of the judicial apparatus.

Cite this page

The Case for the Death Penalty: Ensuring Justice and Deterrence. (2024, May 28). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-case-for-the-death-penalty-ensuring-justice-and-deterrence/

"The Case for the Death Penalty: Ensuring Justice and Deterrence." PapersOwl.com , 28 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-case-for-the-death-penalty-ensuring-justice-and-deterrence/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Case for the Death Penalty: Ensuring Justice and Deterrence . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-case-for-the-death-penalty-ensuring-justice-and-deterrence/ [Accessed: 30 May. 2024]

"The Case for the Death Penalty: Ensuring Justice and Deterrence." PapersOwl.com, May 28, 2024. Accessed May 30, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-case-for-the-death-penalty-ensuring-justice-and-deterrence/

"The Case for the Death Penalty: Ensuring Justice and Deterrence," PapersOwl.com , 28-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-case-for-the-death-penalty-ensuring-justice-and-deterrence/. [Accessed: 30-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Case for the Death Penalty: Ensuring Justice and Deterrence . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-case-for-the-death-penalty-ensuring-justice-and-deterrence/ [Accessed: 30-May-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

Capital Punishment Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on capital punishment.

Every one of us is familiar with the term punishment. But Capital Punishment is something very few people understand. Capital punishment is a legal death penalty ordered by the court against the violation of criminal laws. In addition, the method of punishment varies from country to country. Where some countries hung the culprits until death and some shoot or give them a lethal injection.

Types of Capital Punishments

In this topic, we are going to discuss the various methods of punishment that are used in different countries. But, before that let’s talk about the capital punishments that people used in the past. Earlier, the capital punishments are more like torture rather than a death penalty. They used to strain and punish the body of the culprit to the extreme that he/she dies because of the pain and fear of torture.

Besides, modern methods are quicker and less painful than traditional methods.

• Electrocution – In this method, the criminal is tied to a chair and a high voltage current that can kill a man easily is passed through the body. In addition, it causes organ failure (especially heart).
• Tranquilization – This method gives the person a slow but painless death as the toxin injections are injected into his body that takes up to several hours for the criminal to die.
• Beheading – Generally, the Arab and Gulf countries use this method. Where they decide the death sentence by the crime of the person. Furthermore, in this method, they simply cut the person’s head apart from the body.
• 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

Advantages and Disadvantages of Capital Punishments

Although many people think that it’s a violation of human rights and the Human Rights Commission strongly opposes capital punishment still many countries continue this practice.

The advantages of capital punishment are that they give people an idea of what the law is capable of doing and the criminal can never escape from the punishment no matter who he/she is.

In addition, anyone who is thinking about committing a crime will think twice before committing a crime. Furthermore, a criminal that is in prison for his crime cannot harm anyone of the outside world.

The disadvantages are that we do not give the person a second chance to change. Besides, many times the real criminal escape the trial and the innocent soul of the prosecution claimed to guilty by false claims. Also, many punishments are painful and make a mess of the body of the criminal.

To conclude, we can say that capital punishment is the harsh reality of our world. Also, on one hand, it decreases the crime rate and on the other violates many human rights.

Besides, all these types of punishment are not justifiable and the court and administrative bodies should try to find an alternative for it.

FAQs about Capital Punishment

Q.1 What is the difference between the death penalty and capital punishment?

A.1 For many people the term death penalty and capital punishment is the same thing but there is a minute difference between them. The implementation of the death penalty is not death but capital punishment itself means execution.

Q.2 Does capital punishment decrease the rate of crime?

A.2 There is no solid proof related to this but scientists think that reduces the chances of major crimes to a certain level.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Capital Punishment Essay for Students in English: 250 and 350 Words Samples

• Updated on  
• Mar 12, 2024

Capital Punishment Essay: Capital punishment refers to sentencing a criminal with the death penalty after due process of law. This form of punishment can be traced back to the ancient Greek of the 7th century BC, which operated under the ‘Laws of Draco’. In addition to the Greeks, Romans also sanctioned citizens to the death penalty for murder, rape, arson, and treason. 

Likewise, present-day India awards the death penalty for heinous crimes against mankind such as murder, criminal conspiracy, dacoity with murder, encouraging mutiny, and waging war against the central government. However, as we have evolved as humans, courts resort to this extreme form of punishment in rarest of the rare cases. 

Also Read: Essay on Human Rights: Samples in 500 and 1500

Capital Punishment Essay in 250 Words

Capital punishment or the death penalty is the state-sanctioned execution of a person as punishment for a crime. It is usually the most severe punishment a judicial system can impose on offenders. It is usually reserved for the most serious crimes like rape and murder. 

Since time immemorial, mankind has opted for different methods of capital punishment. From hanging, beheading, and firing squads to burning, stoning, and poisoning humans have used every possible way to execute offenders. Methods can vary but all these have one thing in common i.e. inhumanity.  

Capital punishment, in all its forms, is considered barbaric. It is seen as cruel, savage, and a form of revenge, reminiscent of a bygone era where understanding and respect for human life were absent. Some argue that these methods even involve physical torture.

While some believe the death penalty deters crime, studies have shown no significant correlation between its use and a decrease in violent crimes. In simpler terms, the threat of execution does not necessarily prevent people from committing serious offences. Therefore, it becomes crucial to consider whether capital punishment truly serves any purpose in our modern world. 

Owing to the controversial characteristics of this punishment option, the ‘Abolition of the Death Penalty’ has become one of the most prominent discussions in the United Nations. Besides, Human Rights activists and organisations also raise their voices against capital punishment. With all the ongoing debate, there is optimism that this inhuman practice might be done away with in the future. 

Also Read: World Day for International Justice

Essay on Capital Punishment in 350 Words

Capital punishment or the death penalty has been a topic of contention in India. While the Supreme Court of India has reserved the death penalty for the rarest of rare cases, the penal process evokes a debate for and against this form of punishment. 

One of the primary arguments in favour of capital punishment is deterrence i.e. fear of severe forms of the death penalty will reduce crimes. Supporters of this penal process are of the view that the threat of capital punishment prevents a potential offender from committing heinous crimes like murder, rape, war against the government, and abetment to mutiny. Also, they propound that the assertion of severe punishments upholds the safety and security of people as the state has the responsibility to maintain social order and safeguard its people. 

However, people against capital punishment argue that the death penalty is inept in rehabilitating prisoners, which is the basic aim of any legal penal option. They also propose that punishment by execution does not deter people from committing crimes as individualist punishment overlooks broader social failures. Also, execution by barbaric measures shifts the responsibility of the state and peer groups from addressing the root causes of crime to individual punishment. 

Another reason for concern regarding capital punishment is the risk of executing innocent individuals due to flaws in the justice system. The possibility of wrongful convictions highlights the serious consequences of irreparable harm of taking a person’s life. This irreversible consequence outlines the significance of strict legal procedures and safety measures to prevent miscarriage of justice. 

Thus, the debate over capital punishment in India is a complex one, encompassing moral, legal, and societal considerations. While proponents argue for its necessity in ensuring justice and deterring crime, opponents raise valid concerns regarding its effectiveness, morality, and potential for miscarriages of justice. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, it is essential to critically examine these arguments and consider the broader implications of capital punishment on society and the individuals it affects.

It is time to #StopExecutions and #AbolishTheDeathPenalty – Join us now at https://t.co/LeukqEMJWA @RepEspaillat @EspaillatNY #LisaMontgomery #CoreyJohnson #DustinHiggs pic.twitter.com/wzTuklnrRx — Death Penalty Action (@DeathPenaltyAct) January 12, 2021

Ans: Yes. The legal system in India can grant capital punishment in case of murder, criminal conspiracy, abetment to mutiny, dacoity with murder, and waging war against the Union Government.

Ans: Start the essay on capital punishment by defining this penal process. Thereafter, cite arguments in favour and against the death penalty. Also, you can mention how the government and society benefit and lose through this ultimate yet barbaric form of justice.

Ans: Capital punishment refers to sentencing a criminal with the death penalty after due process of law. 

Explore other essay topics for students here:

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.

Ankita Singh

Ankita is a history enthusiast with a few years of experience in academic writing. Her love for literature and history helps her curate engaging and informative content for education blog. When not writing, she finds peace in analysing historical and political anectodes.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

The Death Penalty in the Modern Society Essay

Capital punishment refers to the legal process that subjects criminals to the death penalty as provided by the state laws. In this case, the jury sentences the criminal to death by the process of killing known as execution. Capital offences trigger the state to subject individuals to the death penalty.

Some of the common capital offences include crimes against the state, homicide and crimes against humanity. When intelligent individuals aggravate the crime incidences such as murder, felony or contract killing, the death penalty is sought (Kerby 36). After one is sentenced to the death penalty, there are multiple methods of execution based on the jurisdiction. Although the form of execution has continuously changed with time, the common form is lethal injection.

Over time, capital punishment has been a contentious issue with respect to social issues in the United States. Although the main reason for reaffirmation of the practice has been to act as a deterrent to capital offenders, people have different perceptions about the same issue.

Some of the reasons that drive people to oppose the death sentence include value for human life, lack of deterrence, unfairness, chances of errors, and Christian beliefs. These reasons are valid and acceptable to some degree, but they cannot be the main reasons for the need to abolish the death penalty (Wolf 69). This subject is attributed to the benefits that exist when capital punishment is upheld.

The death penalty has been opposed because it is considered barbaric, useless and a practice of the past. Most critics argue that such practices should not be propagated to the civilized society at the time. One main reason for such argument is that the death penalty is a cruel and strange punishment contradicting the respect for human rights. Through the Christian teachings, most people have been influenced to consider the death penalty as illogical and unethical practice.

base their argument on the insensibility of vengeance acquired through execution of murderers. In this case, they feel that executing an individual would not bring back the lost life. Consequently, the practice of the death penalty is useless and should be abolished. Nevertheless, the variation in religion necessitates the consideration of the death penalty. This issue is critical in the society since most people may exploit the death consideration of other individuals to murder people for personal interests.

The frequency of murder and cruelty of humans has demanded rules and policies that govern the deeds of people. In this regard, the death penalty has been considered to ensure that the society is in order. At the same time, the death penalty is used to ensure that people do not use their power or capacities to defend themselves, but they should adopt legal procedures. This implies that the death penalty is the ideal and moral punishment that should be used to deter individuals who murder other people (Kerby 12).

Furthermore, it is morally wrong to let a murderer live when already an innocent person has been killed. Under such a scenario, the death penalty serves as the ultimate penalty for murderers as long as justice and morality is to be upheld. Consequently, it implies that the death penalty is essential to prevent the chaotic state of nature expected from humanity. In addition, it offers sufficient vengeance against individuals who have condemned the law.

Another main reason for the reaffirmation of the capital punishment is to provide justice to the victims. The killing of convicted murderers gratifies the necessity for vengeance for most people. Since some crimes are regarded as heinous, execution of perpetrators offers a sensible response.

Although Christians stipulate the need for forgiveness or mercy, their view is usually disregarded to offer vengeance in such circumstances. Nonetheless, the bible portrays a sense of need for the capital punishment through the practices of the Hebrews. Therefore, it is critical to uphold capital punishment to offer justice for all people.

The subjection of capital offenders to the death penalty acts as a form of deterrence to other potential individuals. Although there is no confirmed correlation between the two concepts, most people appreciate its intuitive validity in maintaining the respect for human life and nurturing human value in the mindset of people. It is indicated by statistics that most countries upholding the death penalty have reduced cases of murder.

The information given to people is that they should not commit crimes since the ultimate punishment is death. Meanwhile, the state kills the murderers to depict that human life has the greatest value. Moreover, it indicates that there is no adequate value to pay for taking someone else life other than death. For this reason, death penalty is the ultimate penalty for the convicted individuals (FCNL 28).

The cost of maintenance of the convicted individuals is also one of the reasons that necessitate the death penalty. Expenses incurred after individuals are convicted of crimes such as murder in prison are unnecessary for the state. Some of the costs involve maintenance of individuals and protection of other counterparts in the prison. In this case, such criminals offer threats to the correctional officers as well as other prisoners.

Therefore, once an individual is found guilty of a capital offense, one should be executed and buried, which in turn reduce the expenses of extra maintenance. In addition, the state reduces the costs of meeting multiple appeals by eradicating individuals convicted of murder from the society (Kerby 48).

The need for public safety gives a valid reason as to the need for the death penalty. After a convicted murderer is executed and buried, there is no possibility of future reoccurrence of the same incident perpetrated by the same individual (Young 82). For this reason, execution, which results in the elimination of chances that the individual might break out of jail and harm other people, clearly portrays the need for capital punishment.

At the same time, people with attachment of the victims of murder may never assimilate with the released individuals in their lifetimes. In such circumstances, the affected individuals may be triggered to avenge for their lost ones since no punitive penalty is offered by the state. On the other hand, most murderers have limited chances of being rehabilitated with the conditions exposed to them in prisons.

The reaffirmation of the death penalty is also attributed to the teachings portrayed by most religions. Initially, the bible portrays that the death penalty is essential for horrendous crimes such as sorcery, homosexuality, murder and lack of women virginity during marriage. In this case, such crimes demanded the individuals to be burnt or stoned to death.

Such teachings depict that the death penalty is necessary to maintain order in a society. Although the evolution of Christianity with time has changed the whole concept of the initial teachings, it is essential for the state to uphold practices that are considered just and moral.

On the other hand, the Muslim teachings also deem the necessity of the death penalty for serious offenders. The common crime that demands the death penalty with Islam is the practice of homosexuality (Kerby 56). Since the construction of legal practices borrows some ideas from the religious teachings, it implies that it is essential to adopt the death penalty to counter heinous crimes. Consequently, the society will be orderly maintained with the presence of the death penalty.

In conclusion, the death penalty is necessary in the modern society that is associated with a significant amount of evils. The practices and cultures of people have changed tremendously, which necessitate punitive measures to restore the society to its norm. In this case, crimes that affect the welfare of humans will be curbed effectively. At the same time, it is essential to consider that adoption of rules that prevent people from engaging in certain activities divert their attention to other productive activities (Young 45).

Through this practice, individuals who do not suit the needs of the community are also eradicated leading to the creation of a sober generation. As a result, people will change with time and learn the appropriate ways to adopt in the event of adversity rather than using their power. This will boost the psychological and emotional stability of citizens with the state. Consequently, the issues addressed by the presence of the death penalty depict its importance to the society.

Works Cited

FCNL. “FCNL: Federal death penalty.” FCNL . N.p., n.d. Web.

Kerby, J. “Facts about deterrence and the death penalty.” Capital Punishment . N.p., n.d. Web.

Wolf, Alice. “Letter to constituents concerning her vote as a state representative for Mass. opposing the death penalty.” Death Penalty . N.p., n.d. Web.

Young, R. “Religious Orientation, Race and Support for the Death Penalty.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31.2 (1992): 76-87. Web.

• The Death Penalty, a Matter of Morals
• Victims’ Rights and Vengeance
• Concept Victims’ Rights and Vengeance
• Death Penalty for Young People
• Capital Punishment as an Option in Maryland
• Debates on Death Penalty in the United States
• Capital Punishment Role in the World
• Capital Punishment in Political View
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, November 20). The Death Penalty in the Modern Society. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-7/

"The Death Penalty in the Modern Society." IvyPanda , 20 Nov. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-7/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'The Death Penalty in the Modern Society'. 20 November.

IvyPanda . 2018. "The Death Penalty in the Modern Society." November 20, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-7/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Death Penalty in the Modern Society." November 20, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-7/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Death Penalty in the Modern Society." November 20, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/capital-punishment-7/.

Melinda French Gates to donate $1 billion over…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)

Capital Gazette eNewspaper

• Latest News
• High School Sports
• Death Notices
• Things To Do

Uncategorized

Melinda french gates to donate $1 billion over next 2 years in support of women’s rights.

Melinda French Gates says she will be donating $1 billion over the next two years to individuals and organizations working on behalf of women and families globally, including on reproductive rights in the United States.

It’s the second billion-dollar commitment French Gates has personally made in the past five years. In 2019, she pledged over ten years to expand women’s power and influence.

Earlier this month, French Gates announced she would step down from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation , and vowed to focus on women and families . As a part of leaving the Gates Foundation, French Gates received $12 billion from Bill Gates for her philanthropy going forward.

French Gates, one of the biggest philanthropic supporters of gender equity in the U.S., said Tuesday in a guest essay for The New York Times that she’s been frustrated over the years by people who say it’s not the right time to talk about gender equality.

“Decades of research on economics, well-being and governance make it clear that investing in women and girls benefits everyone,” she wrote.

French Gates said over the last few weeks she’s started directing what will total $200 million in new grants through her organization, Pivotal Ventures, to groups working in the U.S. to protect women’s rights and advance their power and influence. The grants are for general operating support, meaning they are not earmarked for specific projects. The groups include the National Women’s Law Center, the National Domestic Workers Alliance and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Teresa Younger, the president and CEO of the Ms. Foundation for Women, who also received a grant, has long called on donors to give unrestricted, multi-year funding to organizations. She praised French Gates’ new commitment as a part of a larger trend of major women donors giving generously to nonprofits.

“If philanthropy took lessons from the way that women are moving money, we would see more money in the field having greater impact,” Younger said.

Her organization learned of the grant, which is the first they’ve received from Pivotal Ventures within the last week, and Younger said there was no application process. She declined to disclose the amount of the grant but said it would help expand their work with organizations in the South and Midwest.

The nonprofit MomsRising Education Fund also received a grant that will extend to the end of 2026, with Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, its executive director and CEO, saying, “We’re deeply honored and enormously grateful that Melinda French Gates is stepping up for women and families in a time when the rights of our daughters may be significantly less than of ourselves or our own mothers.”

French Gates also pledged to give 12 individuals $20 million each to distribute to nonprofit organizations of their choice before the end of 2026. Those funds will be managed by the National Philanthropic Trust, one of the largest public charities that offers donor-advised funds, a spokesperson for Pivotal Ventures said.

In total, French Gates announced $690 million in commitments out of the promised $1 billion, which also include an “open call” for applications that the organization Lever for Change will administer this fall. French Gates said $250 million will be awarded to fund organizations working to improve women’s mental and physical health globally.

French Gates’ Pivotal Ventures is a limited liability company that also manages investments in for profit ventures, so there is little public information about its grantmaking or the assets it manages. Pivotal Ventures has focused on a number of avenues to increase women’s economic and political participation and power, like closing the wage gap, compensating care work often done by women, and encouraging women to run for political office.

Pivotal Ventures said it has committed $875 million of the $1 billion that French Gates pledged in 2019 to a mixture of venture and philanthropic funding. Additionally, the Gates Foundation has funded research and interventions to improve maternal mortality and women’s health more broadly for years. In 2020, it hired its first president for its gender quality division and in 2021, the foundation pledged $2.1 billion to gender equity efforts convened by UN Women.

In her essay Tuesday, French Gates touched upon the high maternal mortality rates in the U.S., noting that Black and Native American mothers are at the highest risk.

“Women in 14 states have lost the right to terminate a pregnancy under almost any circumstances. We remain the only advanced economy without any form of national paid family leave. And the number of teenage girls experiencing suicidal thoughts and persistent feelings of sadness and hopelessness is at a decade high,” she said.

French Gates will be leaving the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation next week. She helped co-found the organization nearly 25 years ago.

The Associated Press receives financial support for news coverage in Africa from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and for news coverage of women in the workforce and state governments from Pivotal Ventures.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will change its name to the Gates Foundation. It is one of the largest philanthropic organizations in the world. As of December 2023, its endowment was $75.2 billion, thanks to donations from Gates and the billionaire investor Warren Buffett. While it works across many issues, global health remains its largest area of work, and most of its funding is meant to address issues internationally rather than in the U.S.

More in Uncategorized

At Sen. Bob Menendez’s bribery trial, prosecutors highlight his wife’s desperate finances

McDonald’s says $18 Big Mac meal was an ‘exception’ and news reports overstated its price increases

Massachusetts fugitive dubbed the ‘bad breath rapist’ captured in California after 16 years at large

Brian Keefe will remain coach of the Washington Wizards after serving as an interim in that role