argumentative essay on the death penalty

Argumentative essay on death penalty

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

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

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

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

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

argumentative essay on the death penalty

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

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

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

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

The death penalty deters future murders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full text can be found at PBS.org .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here for the full text from the ACLU website.

Retribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The entire speech by Justice Kogan is available here.

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

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

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

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

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

Full text can be found here.

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The entire decision can be found here.

Entertainment
Environment
Information Science and Technology
Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Social Issues Death Penalty

Examining the Death Penalty: An Argumentative Perspective

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

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

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

Prohibition
Rodney King
Rwandan Genocide
Pornography
Elder Abuse
Dare Program

Related Essays

Need writing help?

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

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

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

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

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

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

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

“When We Kill”

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

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

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

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

By: Willie Jasper Darden, Jr.

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

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

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

By: Bryan Stevenson | From: TED 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Paul Brown | From: The Marshall Project 2019

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

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

15 Political Issues We Must Address

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for LGBTQ+ Rights

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

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

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Death Penalty — Against the Death Penalty: A Persuasive Argument for Abolition

Against The Death Penalty: a Persuasive Argument for Abolition

Categories: Capital Punishment Death Penalty

About this sample

Words: 919 |

Published: Mar 18, 2021

Words: 919 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Works Cited

Dieter, R. C. (2010). The death penalty in decline: From error to arbitrariness. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99(3), 1005-1032.
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. (n.d.). Innocence and the death penalty. Retrieved from https://www.ncadp.org/pages/innocence
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. (n.d.). Costs of the death penalty. Retrieved from https://www.ncadp.org/pages/costs
Baumgartner, F. R., De Boef, S., & Boydstun, A. E. (2008). The decline of the death penalty and the discovery of innocence. Cambridge University Press.
Bedau, H. A., & Cassell, P. G. (Eds.). (2004). Debating the death penalty: Should America have capital punishment? Oxford University Press.
Schabas, W. A. (2013). The abolition of the death penalty in international law. Cambridge University Press.
Benjet, C., González-Rodríguez, R., Orellana, Y., Borges, G., & Medina-Mora, M. E. (2007). Descriptive epidemiology of homicide in Mexico: 1990-1999. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 85(5), 364-371.
Bright, S. H. (2009). Counsel for the poor: The death penalty not for the worst crime but for the worst lawyer. Yale Law Journal, 103(8), 1835-1882.
Shepherd, J. M. (2017). Serial killers: Evolution, antisocial personality disorder and psychological interventions. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 28(6), 723-740.
Poveda, T. (2014). The death penalty in Latin America: A comparative analysis of the struggle for abolition in Mexico and Colombia. Journal of Latin American Studies, 46(4), 755-781.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

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

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

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

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 694 words

4 pages / 1775 words

2 pages / 760 words

1 pages / 540 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

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

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

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

Related Essays on Death Penalty

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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

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

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

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

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

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Argumentative essay on The death penalty

2016, Argumentative essay on The death penalty

Related Papers

Gerardette Philips

Brendan Beech

Mary Blakelock

charity mae dacut

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

Meray Maddah

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

Joseph U C H E Anyebe

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

Charadine Pich

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

Ashay Anand

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

Ines Manoylova

David Von Drehle

Essay: Arguments against the Death Penalty

Essay: Arguments against the Death…

The idea of putting another human to death is hard to completely fathom. The physical mechanics involved in the act of execution are easy to grasp, but the emotions involved in carrying out a death sentence on another person, regardless of how much they deserve it, is beyond my own understanding. However, this act is sometimes necessary and it is our responsibility as a society to see that it is done. Opponents of capital punishment have basically four arguments.

The first is that there is a possibility of error. However, the chance that there might be an error is separate from the issue of whether the death penalty can be justified or not. If an error does occur, and an innocent person is executed, then the problem lies in the court system, not in the death penalty.

Furthermore, most activities in our world, in which humans are involved, possess a possibility of injury or death. Construction, sports, driving, and air travel all offer the possibility of accidental death even though the highest levels of precautions are taken.

These activities continue to take place and continue to occasionally take human lives, because we have all decided, as a society, that the advantages outweigh the unintended loss. We have also decided that the advantages of having dangerous murderers removed from our society outweigh the losses of the offender.

The second argument against capital punishment is that it is unfair in its administration. Statistics show that the poor and minorities are more likely to receive the death penalty. Once again, this is a separate issue.

It can’t be disputed sadly, the rich are more likely to get off with a lesser sentence, and this bias is wrong. However, this is yet another problem with our current court system. The racial and economic bias is not a valid argument against the death penalty. It is an argument against the courts and their unfair system of sentencing.

The third argument is actually a rebuttal to a claim made by some supporters of the death penalty. The claim is that the threat of capital punishment reduces violent crimes. Opponents of the death penalty do not agree and have a valid argument when they say, “The claims that capital punishment reduces violent crime is inconclusive and certainly not proven.”

The fourth argument is that the length of stay on death row, with its endless appeals, delays, technicalities, and retrials, keep a person waiting for death for years on end. It is both cruel and costly. This is the least credible argument against capital punishment. The main cause of such inefficiencies is the appeals process, which allows capital cases to bounce back and forth between state and federal courts for years on end.

If supporting a death row inmate for the rest their life costs less than putting them to death, and ending their financial burden on society, then the problem lies in the court system, not in the death penalty. As for the additional argument, that making a prisoner wait for years to be executed is cruel, then would not waiting for death in prison for the rest of your life be just as cruel, as in the case of life imprisonment without parole.

Many Americans will tell you why they are in favor of the death penalty. It is what they deserve. It prevents them from ever murdering again. It removes the burden from taxpayers. We all live in a society with the same basic rights and guarantees. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with equal opportunities.

This is the basis of our society. It is the foundation on which everything else is built upon. When someone willfully and flagrantly attacks this foundation by murdering another, robbing them of all they are, and all they will ever be, then that person can no longer be a part of this society. The only method that completely separates cold blooded murderers from our society is the death penalty.

As the 20th century comes to a close, it is evident that our justice system is in need of reform. This reform will shape the future of our country, and we cannot jump to quick solutions such as the elimination of the death penalty. As of now, the majority of American supports the death penalty as an effective solution of punishment.

“An eye for an eye,” is what some Americans would say concerning the death penalty. Supporters of the death penalty ask the question, “Why should I, an honest hardworking taxpayer, have to pay to support a murderer for the rest of their natural life? Why not execute them and save society the cost of their keep?” Many Americans believe that the death penalty is wrong. However, it seems obvious to some Americans that the death penalty is a just and proper way to handle convicted murderers.

Essay: Against Euthanasia & Robert Latimer Case
Essay Analysis Structure
Death in Hamlet
Essay Against Gun Control
Death Penalty: Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right?

10 Comments

The title is Arguments against the Death Penalty yet the author spent the whole time counterclaiming any arguments brought up rather than explaining the logistics behind the arguments. No side was taken in this essay however the title clearly states that the essay should be on arguments against.

Who is the Author?

I agree with y’all the death penalty is wrong because why make them die really quick when you can make them suffer for what they did?

I disagree entirely

I agree with you!

Are you Gonna pay for them to be alive then? We are wasting money that could be spent helping the homeless or retired vetrans.

more money is spent on actually executing prisoners ? so how that makes any sense i dont know?

Whatever henious crime one does,we are not uncivilised and barbaric to take the lives of others.If we ought to give them death sentence as punishment,then what distinguishes us from the criminals?Also I don’t think that giving death sentence would deter the other criminals from doing the same and reduce the number of crimes.If insecurity is the major issue behind demanding capital punishment,then the best solution is framing the punishment in such a way that the culprit would never be a threat to the society,not hanging to death.

what distinguishes us from murderers is that we ONLY kill when necessary, if for example there was a serial killer arrested a death penalty is necessary because 1. if said killer ever breaks out they could kill many more people, and 2. the government is already pouring enough money into the prisons right now. more people means more money needed. money that could go to our military or police.

now there is also (as said above) problems with the current situation in the courts, a rich man will get a great lawyer while a poor man gets the best they can afford, though the reasoning behind the long wait I do understand, it is to reduce the likelihood of an innocent man or woman from being put to death.

by the way we don’t hang people anymore we give them painless deaths

also, in response to your idea of a different punishment to stop a criminal from committing crime again do YOU have any ideas because if you do I please post them. I AM willing to have a actual debate if you are willing to calmly do so.

It’s been proven that it costs more to put a prisoner to death by death penalty than letting them sit in jail for the rest of their life. The death penalty is funded by the taxes we pay to the government. As a taxpayer, i don’t want to spend extra money that i make to put a murdered etc. to death when they could sit in jail for the rest of their life and this is just as much punishment for them. They have time to think about their actions and hopefully get their mind right, get some help, and get right with God or whatever faith they believe in if they do. Some cases may be acceptable for the death penalty, but it should be the absolute worse ones, or if the prisoner breaks out as stated before.

Finding Sources for Death Penalty Research

Barry Winiker/photolibrary/Getty Images

Writing Research Papers
Writing Essays
English Grammar
M.Ed., Education Administration, University of Georgia
B.A., History, Armstrong State University

One of the most popular topics for an argument essay is the death penalty . When researching a topic for an argumentative essay , accuracy is important, which means the quality of your sources is important.

If you're writing a paper about the death penalty, you can start with this list of sources, which provide arguments for all sides of the topic.

Amnesty International Site

Amnesty International views the death penalty as "the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights." This website provides a gold mine of statistics and the latest breaking news on the subject.

Mental Illness on Death Row

Death Penalty Focus is an organization that aims to bring about the abolition of capital punishment and is a great resource for information. You will find evidence that many of the people executed over the past decades are affected by a form of mental illness or disability.

Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty

This extensive article provides an overview of arguments for and against the death penalty and offers a history of notable events that have shaped the discourse for activists and proponents.

Pro-Death Penalty Links

This page comes from ProDeathPenalty and contains a state-by-state guide to capital punishment resources. You'll also find a list of papers written by students on topics related to capital punishment.

50 Argumentative Essay Topics
100 Persuasive Essay Topics
100 Persuasive Speech Topics for Students
Capital Punishment: Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty
Pros & Cons of the Death Penalty
5 Arguments in Favor of the Death Penalty
Ethos, Logos, Pathos for Persuasion
History of Capital Punishment in Canada
Recent Legal History of the Death Penalty in America
The Death Penalty in the United States
Preparing an Argument Essay: Exploring Both Sides of an Issue
New Challenges to the Death Penalty
Tips on How to Write an Argumentative Essay
Furman v. Georgia: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
"The Penalty of Death" by H.L. Mencken
Coker v. Georgia: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact

The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment Essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parole system in the United States
Oil Crisis of 1973: Article Study
Probation and Parole: Causes and Factors
Capital Punishment: Term Definition
Capital Punishment in the UK Should be Reintroduced?
Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral?
The Death Penalty in the United States
The Death Penalty, a Matter of Morals
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

Share full article

Supported by

Guest Essay

Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases

A white chain in the foreground, with the pillars of the Supreme Court Building in the background.

By Jamie Raskin

Mr. Raskin represents Maryland’s Eighth Congressional District in the House of Representatives. He taught constitutional law for more than 25 years and was the lead prosecutor in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

Many people have gloomily accepted the conventional wisdom that because there is no binding Supreme Court ethics code, there is no way to force Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves from the Jan. 6 cases that are before the court.

Justices Alito and Thomas are probably making the same assumption.

But all of them are wrong.

It seems unfathomable that the two justices could get away with deciding for themselves whether they can be impartial in ruling on cases affecting Donald Trump’s liability for crimes he is accused of committing on Jan. 6. Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, was deeply involved in the Jan. 6 “stop the steal” movement. Above the Virginia home of Justice Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, flew an upside-down American flag — a strong political statement among the people who stormed the Capitol. Above the Alitos’ beach home in New Jersey flew another flag that has been adopted by groups opposed to President Biden.

Justices Alito and Thomas face a groundswell of appeals beseeching them not to participate in Trump v. United States , the case that will decide whether Mr. Trump enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, and Fischer v. United States , which will decide whether Jan. 6 insurrectionists — and Mr. Trump — can be charged under a statute that criminalizes “corruptly” obstructing an official proceeding. (Justice Alito said on Wednesday that he would not recuse himself from Jan. 6-related cases.)

Everyone assumes that nothing can be done about the recusal situation because the highest court in the land has the lowest ethical standards — no binding ethics code or process outside of personal reflection. Each justice decides for him- or herself whether he or she can be impartial.

Of course, Justices Alito and Thomas could choose to recuse themselves — wouldn’t that be nice? But begging them to do the right thing misses a far more effective course of action.

The U.S. Department of Justice — including the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointed U.S. special counsel and the solicitor general, all of whom were involved in different ways in the criminal prosecutions underlying these cases and are opposing Mr. Trump’s constitutional and statutory claims — can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law.

The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455. The Constitution has come into play in several recent Supreme Court decisions striking down rulings by stubborn judges in lower courts whose political impartiality has been reasonably questioned but who threw caution to the wind to hear a case anyway. This statute requires potentially biased judges throughout the federal system to recuse themselves at the start of the process to avoid judicial unfairness and embarrassing controversies and reversals.

The constitutional and statutory standards apply to Supreme Court justices. The Constitution, and the federal laws under it, is the “ supreme law of the land ,” and the recusal statute explicitly treats Supreme Court justices as it does other judges: “Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The only justices in the federal judiciary are the ones on the Supreme Court.

This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. Ignoring it would trespass on the constitutional separation of powers because the justices would essentially be saying that they have the power to override a congressional command.

When the arguments are properly before the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor will have both a constitutional obligation and a statutory obligation to enforce recusal standards.

Indeed, there is even a compelling argument based on case law that Chief Justice Roberts and the other unaffected justices should raise the matter of recusal on their own, or sua sponte. Numerous circuit courts have agreed with the Eighth Circuit that this is the right course of action when members of an appellate court are aware of “ overt acts ” of a judge reflecting personal bias. Cases like this stand for the idea that appellate jurists who see something should say something instead of placing all the burden on parties in a case who would have to risk angering a judge by bringing up the awkward matter of potential bias and favoritism on the bench.

But even if no member of the court raises the issue of recusal, the urgent need to deal with it persists. Once it is raised, the court would almost surely have to find that the due process clause and Section 455 compel Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves. To arrive at that substantive conclusion, the justices need only read their court’s own recusal decisions.

In one key 5-to-3 Supreme Court case from 2016, Williams v. Pennsylvania, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained why judicial bias is a defect of constitutional magnitude and offered specific objective standards for identifying it. Significantly, Justices Alito and Thomas dissented from the majority’s ruling.

The case concerned the bias of the chief justice of Pennsylvania, who had been involved as a prosecutor on the state’s side in an appellate death penalty case that was before him. Justice Kennedy found that the judge’s refusal to recuse himself when asked to do so violated due process. Justice Kennedy’s authoritative opinion on recusal illuminates three critical aspects of the current controversy.

First, Justice Kennedy found that the standard for recusal must be objective because it is impossible to rely on the affected judge’s introspection and subjective interpretations. The court’s objective standard requires recusal when the likelihood of bias on the part of the judge “is too high to be constitutionally tolerable,” citing an earlier case. “This objective risk of bias,” according to Justice Kennedy, “is reflected in the due process maxim that ‘no man can be a judge in his own case.’” A judge or justice can be convinced of his or her own impartiality but also completely missing what other people are seeing.

Second, the Williams majority endorsed the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct as an appropriate articulation of the Madisonian standard that “no man can be a judge in his own cause.” Model Code Rule 2.11 on judicial disqualification says that a judge “shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” This includes, illustratively, cases in which the judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party,” a married judge knows that “the judge’s spouse” is “a person who has more than a de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding” or the judge “has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision or opinion, that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result.” These model code illustrations ring a lot of bells at this moment.

Third and most important, Justice Kennedy found for the court that the failure of an objectively biased judge to recuse him- or herself is not “harmless error” just because the biased judge’s vote is not apparently determinative in the vote of a panel of judges. A biased judge contaminates the proceeding not just by the casting and tabulation of his or her own vote but by participating in the body’s collective deliberations and affecting, even subtly, other judges’ perceptions of the case.

Justice Kennedy was emphatic on this point : “It does not matter whether the disqualified judge’s vote was necessary to the disposition of the case. The fact that the interested judge’s vote was not dispositive may mean only that the judge was successful in persuading most members of the court to accept his or her position — an outcome that does not lessen the unfairness to the affected party.”

Courts generally have found that any reasonable doubts about a judge’s partiality must be resolved in favor of recusal. A judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” While recognizing that the “challenged judge enjoys a margin of discretion,” the courts have repeatedly held that “doubts ordinarily ought to be resolved in favor of recusal.” After all, the reputation of the whole tribunal and public confidence in the judiciary are both on the line.

Judge David Tatel of the D.C. Circuit emphasized this fundamental principle in 2019 when his court issued a writ of mandamus to force recusal of a military judge who blithely ignored at least the appearance of a glaring conflict of interest. He stated : “Impartial adjudicators are the cornerstone of any system of justice worthy of the label. And because ‘deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges,’ jurists must avoid even the appearance of partiality.” He reminded us that to perform its high function in the best way, as Justice Felix Frankfurter stated, “justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.”

The Supreme Court has been especially disposed to favor recusal when partisan politics appear to be a prejudicial factor even when the judge’s impartiality has not been questioned. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. , from 2009, the court held that a state supreme court justice was constitutionally disqualified from a case in which the president of a corporation appearing before him had helped to get him elected by spending $3 million promoting his campaign. The court, through Justice Kennedy, asked whether, quoting a 1975 decision, “under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness,” the judge’s obvious political alignment with a party in a case “poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.”

The federal statute on disqualification, Section 455(b) , also makes recusal analysis directly applicable to bias imputed to a spouse’s interest in the case. Ms. Thomas and Mrs. Alito (who, according to Justice Alito, is the one who put up the inverted flag outside their home) meet this standard. A judge must recuse him- or herself when a spouse “is known by the judge to have an interest in a case that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

At his Senate confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts assured America that “judges are like umpires.”

But professional baseball would never allow an umpire to continue to officiate the World Series after learning that the pennant of one of the two teams competing was flying in the front yard of the umpire’s home. Nor would an umpire be allowed to call balls and strikes in a World Series game after the umpire’s wife tried to get the official score of a prior game in the series overthrown and canceled out to benefit the losing team. If judges are like umpires, then they should be treated like umpires, not team owners, fans or players.

Justice Barrett has said she wants to convince people “that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.” Justice Alito himself declared the importance of judicial objectivity in his opinion for the majority in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overruling Roe v. Wade — a bit of self-praise that now rings especially hollow.

But the Constitution and Congress’s recusal statute provide the objective framework of analysis and remedy for cases of judicial bias that are apparent to the world, even if they may be invisible to the judges involved. This is not really optional for the justices.

I look forward to seeing seven members of the court act to defend the reputation and integrity of the institution.

Jamie Raskin, a Democrat, represents Maryland’s Eighth Congressional District in the House of Representatives. He taught constitutional law for more than 25 years and was the lead prosecutor in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Elections Today

Recent projections, delegate tracker, latest election news, as hunter biden goes to trial on gun charges, here's how his attorneys plan to defend a 'simple case'.

The president's son faces charges of lying on a form to obtain a firearm.

Federal prosecutors pursuing a conviction of President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden on three felony gun charges have characterized their upcoming trial as "a simple case" -- and the facts presented in charging documents certainly appear to support that claim.

According to special counsel David Weiss' office, in October of 2018, Hunter Biden knowingly lied on a federal form about his drug use in order to procure a Colt Cobra 38SPL revolver -- conduct that, at face value, would constitute a federal crime. He is charged with two counts related to false statements in purchasing the firearm and a third count of illegally obtaining a firearm while addicted to drugs.

But Hunter Biden's legal team believes it can throw a wrench in Weiss' tidy narrative. At a recent pretrial hearing, an attorney for Biden suggested the firearm form at the heart of the case was "much more complicated than [the] special counsel indicates it is."

MORE: Special counsel plans to use infamous laptop as evidence in Hunter Biden's firearm trial

Jury selection for the trial is set to begin on Monday. And if 12 Delaware residents accept the government's story, the president's only living son could face a prison sentence.

The task of fighting that outcome falls to Abbe Lowell, a veteran defense attorney who has represented several other high-profile figures, including Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.

How Lowell plans to fight the charges remains somewhat unclear. He has signaled to U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika that the contours of his case would depend in large part on how prosecutors proceed at trial.

But in court records and at pretrial hearings, he has offered some tea leaves -- and suggested he will attempt to cast doubt on some of the government's most crucial evidence and witnesses.

'Tampered' or 'annotated'?

Lowell has, for example, latched onto revelations in court that two copies exist of the federal gun form at the heart of the case, called an ATF Form 4473. A shop employee created the original document when Hunter Biden purchased the firearm in 2018. It lists Biden's passport as the ID he presented to the shop employee.

Years later, however, a copy was made. The copy included a handwritten note, "DE Vehicle Registration," on a line left blank for "Supplemental Government Issued Documentation." Store employees did so in 2021 to rectify a requirement that gun buyers present a form of ID that includes an address, which passports do not.

Lowell contends that gun store employees "tampered with" the document, and that it raises questions about "who wrote what on the form, and when."

Weiss' office has said the gun shop employees merely "annotated" the document. But they took Lowell's argument seriously enough to re-interview the gun store owner, Ronald Palimere, on May 16.

During the interview, according to notes filed on the case docket, Palimere said Hunter Biden's legal tribulations were becoming "a big scandal and there was intense attention on the incident," and that employees at the store "were all scared to death."

Palimere "felt it was necessary to annotate the Form 4473 because he felt they were going to get in trouble just for going up against Biden," according to the notes.

PHOTO: Hunter Biden departs the House Rayburn Office Building following a surprise appearance at a House Oversight Committee markup and meeting on Capitol Hill, Jan. 10, 2024.

If jurors are persuaded by Lowell's tack, the argument could undermine the credibility of some key government witnesses -- the people who sold Biden the gun -- and potentially create a reasonable doubt that Hunter Biden was the one who actually checked that box.

At least two gun store employees, including Palimere, are expected to testify at the trial.

The definition of 'is'

Lowell may also advance the argument that Hunter Biden may have been confused by the language on the ATF Form 4473. The box he checked "no" asked of the buyer, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to" various narcotics.

Attorney: Trump will appeal conviction

Jun 2, 9:55 AM

Takeaways: GOP grills Fauci over COVID response

Jun 3, 5:55 PM

Key voting groups' thoughts on Trump conviction

Jun 3, 5:06 PM

"The issue here is Mr. Biden's understanding of the question, which asks in the present tense if he 'is' a user or addict," Lowell wrote in court papers.

"The terms 'user' or 'addict' are not defined on the form and were not explained to him," he continued. "Someone like Mr. Biden, who had just completed an 11-day rehabilitation program and lived with a sober companion after that, could surely believe he was not a present tense user or addict."

MORE: Special counsel in Hunter Biden case plans to call his ex-wife, brother's widow as witnesses in upcoming trial

Finally, Lowell has raised "an issue of chain of custody" with a leather pouch that allegedly held the revolver Hunter Biden purchased. In court documents filed earlier this year, prosecutors said this pouch had cocaine residue on it.

After purchasing the firearm in 2018, Hunter Biden possessed it for less than two weeks before his then-romantic partner, Hallie Biden – who is also the widow of his brother, Beau – discovered the weapon and the pouch, discarded them in a dumpster.

The gun was soon recovered by the authorities, but the pouch was not tested for drug residue until five years later, in 2023. Lowell said at the pretrial hearing that he wants to question witnesses about what happened to the pouch during those five years when it was in police custody to see if it was "tampered with."

One of the witnesses Lowell plans to call for the defense is a chemical residue expert.

The government's case

Prosecutors hope these arguments fall flat, and that jurors rely on the voluminous evidence they plan to present to find Hunter Biden guilty of committing the three felony charges he faces.

Prosecutors seem poised to use Hunter Biden's own words against him -- excerpts from his 2021 memoir, "Beautiful Things," and text messages he exchanged around the time of the gun purchase -- to demonstrate that he was in fact a drug user when he filled out the ATF Form 4473 and procured the weapon.

In one text message prosecutors included in court filings, Hunter Biden wrote two days after allegedly purchasing the gun: "I was sleeping on a car smoking crack on 4th Street and Rodney," referring to an intersection in Wilmington.

Weiss' office also plans to show jurors the original ATF Form 4473, in which Biden represented that "he was not an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance" -- despite allegedly knowing it not to be true.

Prosecutors indicated that they plan to call as many as 12 witnesses , including Hallie Biden and Hunter Biden's ex-wife, Kathleen Buhle.

MORE: Judge denies Hunter Biden's attempt to dismiss federal gun charges

Lowell has not yet decided whether Hunter Biden will testify in his own defense.

The trial begins on Monday and is expected to last two to three weeks. If he's found guilty, Biden could face a prison sentence of up to 25 years, though legal experts suggest that, as a first-time and nonviolent offender, he would not likely serve time.

Weiss' office also charged Hunter Biden in December with nine felony and misdemeanor charges stemming from his failure to pay $1.4 million in taxes for three years during a time when he was in the throes of addiction. The back taxes and penalties were eventually paid in full by a third party, identified by ABC News as Hunter Biden's attorney and confidant, Kevin Morris. Hunter Biden has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The trial in that case was scheduled to begin on June 20 in California, but Lowell successfully petitioned the judge to postpone it until Sept. 5 -- raising the likelihood that a jury could be deliberating whether to convict the president’s son on several felony counts in the waning weeks of the 2024 election.

Biden to sign order on immigration: Sources

Jun 4, 11:00 AM

Court sets date for Trump's appeal of Fani Willis

Jun 3, 3:51 PM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

The Ethical and Practical Failings of the Death Penalty

This essay about the death penalty argues that it is fundamentally wrong due to ethical, practical, and systemic issues. It highlights the violation of human rights, the risk of wrongful executions, and the failure of the death penalty to deter crime effectively. Additionally, it points out the significant economic burden it imposes on the judicial system and the deep-seated biases and inequalities in its application. The psychological impact on those involved in its administration is also discussed. The essay concludes that abolishing the death penalty in favor of more humane and effective approaches to justice would uphold the dignity of human life and contribute to a more equitable society.

How it works

One of the most contentious issues in the fields of criminal justice and human rights is still the death penalty. Many contemporary nations are debating the morality, effectiveness, and ramifications of the death penalty despite its historical roots. There are many reasons why the death sentence is inherently immoral, ranging from moral conundrums to pragmatic issues.

Human rights are inherently violated by the death sentence, which is one of the strongest grounds against it. The idea that each and every person has the right to life and dignity is the foundation of human rights.

By its inherent nature, the death penalty completely violates human rights. The state-approved, irreversible act of terminating a life creates a risky precedent that diminishes the value of human life. Furthermore, there is a serious possibility of erroneous executions. Since new information is frequently discovered too late, there is not always a guarantee that someone on death row will remain acquitted. This is evidence that legal systems are imperfect. Due to the death penalty’s irreversible nature, any errors made after an execution made cannot be corrected, leading to an unjust and tragic loss of life.

In addition to the moral arguments, the death penalty fails to serve as an effective deterrent to crime. Numerous studies have shown that the death penalty does not significantly reduce crime rates compared to life imprisonment. The assumption that harsher punishments lead to lower crime rates oversimplifies the complex social, economic, and psychological factors that drive criminal behavior. Instead, a more rehabilitative approach to justice, focusing on prevention, education, and social support, has proven to be more effective in reducing crime in the long term. By addressing the root causes of criminal behavior, society can foster an environment where crime is less likely to occur, rather than relying on the fear of capital punishment.

The economic burden of the death penalty also raises significant concerns. Contrary to popular belief, the process of prosecuting and executing a death sentence is far more costly than sentencing an individual to life imprisonment without parole. The extensive legal proceedings required to ensure a fair trial, including numerous appeals and lengthy trials, place a substantial financial strain on the judicial system. These funds could be better allocated to crime prevention programs, victim support services, and other areas that contribute to the overall well-being of society. By diverting resources away from the costly death penalty process, communities can invest in initiatives that have a more profound and positive impact on public safety and justice.

Furthermore, the application of the death penalty often reveals deep-seated biases and inequalities within the judicial system. Studies have shown that factors such as race, socioeconomic status, and geography can significantly influence who is sentenced to death. Minority groups and those from disadvantaged backgrounds are disproportionately represented on death row, highlighting systemic injustices. This disparity not only undermines the principle of equal justice under the law but also perpetuates cycles of discrimination and inequality. A justice system that claims to be fair and impartial cannot condone a practice that so blatantly reflects and reinforces social biases.

The psychological impact of the death penalty on those involved in its administration also warrants attention. Executioners, prison staff, and even judges and jurors can experience severe emotional and psychological distress as a result of their participation in the process. The act of taking a life, even in a legal context, can lead to long-term mental health issues and moral injury. These often-overlooked consequences further illustrate the pervasive harm caused by capital punishment, extending beyond the individuals directly affected by its implementation.

In conclusion, the death penalty is an inadequate form of punishment in contemporary society due to a number of ethical, practical, and structural problems. It infringes upon fundamental human rights, is a poor deterrent to crime, causes heavy financial costs, and exacerbates social injustices. It also causes psychological damage to those who carry out its implementation. Society may respect human life and strive toward a more just and equitable system for all by doing away with the death penalty and concentrating on more compassionate and successful methods to justice.

Cite this page

The Ethical and Practical Failings of the Death Penalty. (2024, Jun 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-ethical-and-practical-failings-of-the-death-penalty/

"The Ethical and Practical Failings of the Death Penalty." PapersOwl.com , 1 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-ethical-and-practical-failings-of-the-death-penalty/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Ethical and Practical Failings of the Death Penalty . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-ethical-and-practical-failings-of-the-death-penalty/ [Accessed: 4 Jun. 2024]

"The Ethical and Practical Failings of the Death Penalty." PapersOwl.com, Jun 01, 2024. Accessed June 4, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-ethical-and-practical-failings-of-the-death-penalty/

"The Ethical and Practical Failings of the Death Penalty," PapersOwl.com , 01-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-ethical-and-practical-failings-of-the-death-penalty/. [Accessed: 4-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

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

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

Please check your inbox.

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

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

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

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

The Tragedy of Sacrificing Good Public Policy While Pandering for Votes

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Caught up in the swirling tides of a presidential election year, citizens are rightfully concerned that much of what we’re seeing from candidates are actions primarily intended to influence voters. That’s quite different than formulating good, sound public policy that relies less on politicians or their Republican vs. Democrat battles and more on actually providing “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

The examples are legion right now, including absolutely off-the-charts crazy moves such as Texas preparing to “endorse the death penalty for abortion providers and patients.” Or how about Florida’s benighted governor Ron DeSantis mandating that teachers take training to instruct students in Christian Nationalism — despite the Constitution’s clear separation of church and state?

Of course up here on the northern tier we can shake our heads and say, “Well, it’s the South and they’ve been bats–t crazy for a long time.” But the unfortunate truth is, political expediency taking priority over good public policy is endemic across the nation.

Here in Montana, for instance, our Congressional delegation continues to support Colstrip’s archaic and massively polluting coal-fired plants. Given the cheapest power available to Montanans comes from wind and solar, both of which are significantly on the rise, one might credibly ask why our politicians would continue to support dirty and expensive coal power. The answer, of course, is they think they’ll garner a few votes for “protecting” Montana jobs.

The same goes for the timber industry, where suddenly the closure of Pyramid Lumber in Seeley Lake is a crucial, election-year issue. Only it’s not. As the mill owners explained, the real problem is finding housing for their work force and the cost to upgrade (job killing) automation — neither of which will be changed anytime soon no matter for whom you vote.

Political expediency will soon be on full display since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed halting private grazing on National Wildlife Refuges and ranchers are already howling about losing access to tens of thousands of acres on the C.M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge — while continuing to claim cattle are necessary to meet some “management goals.”

What’s not said is that we have an abundance of wild buffalo in Yellowstone National Park that would dearly love to go to the refuge instead of being shot or sent to slaughter when they cross the invisible park boundary. Doing so would meet the purpose for which the Refuge was established, solve the problem of what to do with Yellowstone’s wandering bison, and fulfill any “management goals” purportedly achieved by large ungulate grazing.

But Montana’s politicians won’t do what’s right. Instead, seeking votes, they’ll promise to defeat the proposal, undoubtedly led by Democratic Sen. Jon Tester since he’s up for election, to show he’s not in thrall to the Biden administration as he’s done before with any number of issues that would have benefitted Montanans.

Likewise, Republican Sen. Steve Daines just killed the nomination of Montana’s Danna Jackson, an attorney for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, who would be Montana’s first Native American federal judge. Why? For exactly no credible reason except perhaps to show how political expediency is oh so bipartisan. Who loses? Montanans, who are now deprived of a tremendously talented and experienced judicial candidate.

The more you look, the more you’ll find political expediency crushing good public policy decisions. The more you find, the more repulsive it becomes as the stupid battle between Republicans and Democrats increasingly ignores doing the right thing for their constituents in favor of pandering for votes.

George Ochenski is a columnist for the Daily Montanan, where this essay originally appeared.

CounterPunch+

Divest from Death
Netanyahu’s Alliance With Hamas
It’s Coming From Within the House
Capitalism Attacks Argentine Workers and You May be Next
Blaming Soros for Campus Protests is Anti-Semitic — Just Ask Israel

Newsletters
Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

Texas’ New Plan for Responding to the Horror of Its Abortion Ban: Blame Doctors

Last week, in a widely watched case, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the claims of Amanda Zurawski and her fellow plaintiffs that they had suffered injuries after being denied emergency access to abortion due to lack of clarity in the state’s abortion ban. Zurawski v. State of Texas has offered an important model for lawyers seeking to chip away at sweeping state bans and even eventually undermine Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , the 2022 decision that overturned Roe v. Wade . Now the state Supreme Court’s decision offers a preview of conservatives’ response to the medical tragedies that have been all too common after Dobbs : to blame physicians and hint that the life of the fetus ultimately counts as much as or more than that of the pregnant patient.

From the beginning, Zurawski had significance for patients outside Texas. Republicans have been increasingly hostile to abortion exceptions since 2022, demanding that sexual assault victims report to law enforcement when such exemptions do exist, dropping rape and incest exemptions altogether in many other states, and going so far as to require physicians to prove their innocence rather than necessitating that prosecutors prove their guilt . Nevertheless, exceptions are critical to the post- Dobbs regime: They are popular with voters and offer the hope—in reality the illusion—that abortion bans do not operate as harshly as we may expect.

The Zurawski litigation illuminated how exceptions fail patients in the real world. Physicians, afraid of harsh sentences up to life in prison, turn away even those they feel confident will qualify under exceptions. The exemptions, by their own terms, do not apply to any number of serious medical complications or fetal conditions incompatible with life. The Zurawski plaintiffs argued that Texas’ law should cover these circumstances and that if the opposite was true, it was unconstitutional.

Although this did not succeed in Texas, Zurawski created a blueprint for litigation in other states. It also kicked off a political nightmare for Republicans. Earlier this year, when Kate Cox, a Texas woman who learned that her fetus had trisomy 18, a condition that usually proves fatal within the first year, the state’s Supreme Court denied her petition for an abortion. In the aftermath, Republicans were flummoxed about how to respond.

The Texas Supreme Court offered Republicans one way to address the emergencies Dobbs has produced. The court began by limiting physicians’ discretion about when to intervene. The plaintiffs in Zurawski argued that physicians require protection when they believe in good faith that they need to protect the life or health of their patients. The court disagreed, suggesting that the standard was whether a reasonable physician would believe a particular procedure to be lifesaving.

On the surface, this doesn’t sound so bad. Who doesn’t want doctors to have to act reasonably? But determining how sick a patient must be is never straightforward—and is all the more complicated when the wrong answer will be determined after the fact by a prosecutor and the physicians with whom they consult, and when guessing wrong will result in a penalty of up to life in prison.

The court’s message was that physicians were the problem. They had misunderstood what the court portrayed as a perfectly clear law. Doctors were the ones who had refused to act reasonably and denied help to the patients that the court thought were deserving, like Amanda Zurawski herself. Texas had stressed the same argument throughout litigation in the case.

Republicans may well borrow the same strategy. If Americans don’t like the new reality that Dobbs has brought on, the party will argue, the GOP is not to blame. It is all the doctors’ fault. This allows conservatives to have it both ways: They frighten—or, in the case of Kate Cox’s doctor, block—physicians who might be willing to offer “reasonable” care, then blame the physicians for failing to care for their patients.

The court’s interpretation of the state constitution was just as revealing. The plaintiffs had argued that Texas’ ban discriminated on the basis of sex because only some persons are capable of pregnancy. The court rejected this argument, drawing both on Dobbs and on claims that have emerged in cases about transgender youth. Regulating abortion, the court reasoned, was no different from regulating gender-affirming care—it was a rule governing a specific medical procedure, not discrimination on the basis of sex.

What about the right to life? The Dobbs case held that U.S. citizens have 14 th Amendment rights only when that liberty was deeply rooted in history and tradition. Is there a federal or state right to access abortion to avoid death or serious bodily harm? As Reva Siegel and I have written elsewhere , there seems to be historical evidence to support this argument. And the political case for such a right is strong too. If courts say that there is no constitutional limit on state abortion bans—even if patients bleed to death—that will raise yet more grave questions about what Dobbs permits.

The Texas Supreme Court did not rule out the idea that the state constitution recognizes a right to life for the patient—or deny that high courts in other conservative states had identified a right to lifesaving abortions. But if there was such a right, the court noted, it would account for “the lives of pregnant women experiencing life-threatening complications while also valuing and protecting unborn life.” In other words, the court suggested, fetuses too have rights to life, and that means that the state has every right to deny treatment to pregnant patients in an effort to prioritize the well-being of unborn ones. Texas may not yet have written fetal personhood—the idea that fetuses are rights-holding people—into its constitutional law in clear terms, but the idea of fetal rights has already affected the lives of pregnant patients in the state.

Voters don’t seem to like the idea that fetal rights trump patients’ rights. The Texas Supreme Court has suggested that judges, not voters, may be the ones who decide the question.

But even in dictating what happens to pregnant patients across the state, other Republicans will join the court in pointing the finger at the doctors charged with implementing draconian bans. “The law entrusts physicians,” the court explained, “with the profound weight of the recommendation to end the life of a child.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is likely to make things worse for pregnant patients later this month, when it hands down a ruling on whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act preempts an Idaho ban with very narrow emergency exceptions . None of this makes Zurawski a waste. It may not have changed the reality on the ground for patients in Texas, but it did tell an important story about the kind of America Dobbs has created—and it delivered voters a reminder that they still have the power to change it.

IMAGES

Calaméo
Argumentative Essay. Death Penalty / Essays / ID: 462589
Argumentative Against Death Penalty
💄 Argument essay against death penalty. Against the Death Penalty
💌 Essays on the death penalty pro and cons. Death Penalty: Pros and
The death penalty argumentative essay

VIDEO

death penalty essay finished
IELTS Writing task 2 Essay
They put Death Stranding on a phone and I have thoughts
Critical Issues in Shakespeare’s Play “Hamlet”
Death Proof Full Movie Facts , Review And Knowledge / Kurt Russell / Rosario Dawson
Victim Impact Statement in the Booth v. Maryland Case

COMMENTS

Argumentative essay on death penalty
The further argument presented in support of the death penalty states that the execution of a convicted felon guarantees that the killer will never be engaged in the act again. This argument has been supported by the fact that a significant number of people have been killed by convicted felons who managed to get parole or escaped from jail.
Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished?
In the July Opinion essay "The Death Penalty Can Ensure 'Justice Is Being Done,'" Jeffrey A. Rosen, then acting deputy attorney general, makes a legal case for capital punishment:
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments. 1. Legality. The United States is one of 55 countries globally with a legal death penalty, according to Amnesty International. As of Mar. 24, 2021, within the US, 27 states had a legal death penalty (though 3 of those states had a moratorium on the punishment's use).
The Death Penalty: Arguments and Alternative Solutions
Arguments against the Death Penalty. A. Human rights. One of the strongest arguments against the death penalty is that it violates the right to life as stated in various international human rights conventions. Critics argue that the death penalty is a form of cruel and inhumane punishment, as it involves intentionally taking a person's life.
≡Essays on Death Penalty: Top 10 Examples by GradesFixer
1 page / 454 words. The death of a moth may seem like a trivial event, but Virginia Woolf's essay "The Death of the Moth" suggests otherwise. Through her vivid and poetic language, Woolf portrays the inevitability of death and the fragility of life. In this essay, I will analyze... Death Penalty. 4.
Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty
The death penalty is applied unfairly and should not be used. Agree. Disagree. Testimony in Opposition to the Death Penalty: Arbitrariness. Testimony in Favor of the Death Penalty: Arbitrariness. The Death Penalty Information Center is a non-profit organization serving the media and the public with analysis and information about capital ...
Death Penalty Free Essay Examples And Topic Ideas
80 essay samples found. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, remains a contentious issue in many societies. Essays on this topic could explore the moral, legal, and social arguments surrounding the practice, including discussions on retribution, deterrence, and justice. They might delve into historical trends in the application ...
Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against Essay
Arguments against Death Penalty. The first argument against the lethal sentence is a lack of deterrence among criminals. According to Amnesty International Australia (2019), there is no evidence that the prospect of death prevents potential perpetrators. Furthermore, some authorities state that the lethal sentence does not decline the number of ...
The Death Penalty Can Ensure 'Justice Is Being Done'
The death penalty is a difficult issue for many Americans on moral, religious and policy grounds. But as a legal issue, it is straightforward. ... In a New York Times Op-Ed essay published on July ...
Examining the Death Penalty: An Argumentative Perspective
The death penalty, a highly controversial topic, has ignited passionate debates across societies worldwide. This short argumentative essay seeks to dissect the key arguments for and against the death penalty, exploring its potential deterrence effect, ethical implications, and the complexities of implementing such a grave punishment.
5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know
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.
Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty
The death penalty ensures that some of the society's most vicious criminals; murderers, arsons, etc. are rid off the society for good. The society can therefore continue without fear of there undesirable elements every coming back and causing chaos. From an economic point on view, the cost of maintaining prisoners in the correctional ...
Against The Death Penalty: a Persuasive Argument for Abolition
According to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death penalty, a 2012 study has shown that 4 billion dollars have been used for the death penalty since 1978, in California alone, and that changing the death sentence to a life imprisonment or another type of sentence could save at least 170 million dollars a year.
Argumentative essay on The death penalty
View PDF. Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty ARGUMENT 1 DETERRENCE The death penalty prevents future murders. charity mae dacut. Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action. Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter ...
Arguments against the Death Penalty
This essay about the arguments against the death penalty explores its ethical, practical, and moral shortcomings. It presents a vivid narrative that critiques the justice system's fallibility, highlights discrimination based on race and class, and questions the human rights implications of state-sanctioned executions.
Death Penalty Arguments for and against
Death Penalty Arguments for and against. In a tapestry human conversation, a few themes weave an example effort and moral self-examination tangled more, that death stop. Through epochs and cultures, discussions, fasten the high measure of punishment, mixed up the deepest wellsprings human consciousness, drawing arguments near acharnés both his ...
Essay: Arguments against the Death Penalty
The second argument against capital punishment is that it is unfair in its administration. Statistics show that the poor and minorities are more likely to receive the death penalty. Once again, this is a separate issue. It can't be disputed sadly, the rich are more likely to get off with a lesser sentence, and this bias is wrong.
Argumentative Essay on the Death Penalty
The death penalty is the ultimate punishment with no harsher inferior damnation than death itself. For centuries, the government has wanted the death penalty to be portrayed as a help in deterring murder and also as an ultimate way of "giving murders a dose of their own medicine" but it isn't the given image, the death penalty has caused ...
Argumentative Essay On The Death Penalty
Argumentative Essay On The Death Penalty. The Death Penalty has a powerful meaning to it; it's not just a punishment for those criminals who commit a horrific crime. The Death Penalty offers the execution, gas chamber, lethal injection, hanging, and firing squad. The capital punishment is a topic that can cause arguments because some say it ...
Death Penalty Essay: Argumentative Essay Sample
Death Penalty Essay Writing Assistance from Pro Writers. As you can see, the author of the argumentative essay about the death penalty above considers capital punishment to be an irrational and useless tool of the justice system. The death penalty doesn't have any impact on the number of crimes and causes serious legal and moral issues.
Death Penalty Research Paper: Sources for Arguments
One of the most popular topics for an argument essay is the death penalty.When researching a topic for an argumentative essay, accuracy is important, which means the quality of your sources is important.. If you're writing a paper about the death penalty, you can start with this list of sources, which provide arguments for all sides of the topic.
Death Penalty Argumentative Essay
The idea of capital punishment was brought over from Britain, when the founding fathers declared independence. Our ancestors loved the idea of the death penalty, since it was a common part of life. Europeans gave the death penalty for various crimes. The first recorded execution in America occurred in Jamestown, 1608.
The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment
The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment Essay. Exclusively available on IvyPanda®. The use of the death penalty is considered by some to be the most obvious and heinous example of cruel and unusual punishment. The book An Eye for an Eye (Nathanson, 2001) articulates the opposition viewpoint. It and like-minded opponents to capital punishment do ...
Applying the Death Penalty Fairly
Amdt8.4.9.5 Applying the Death Penalty Fairly. Eigh th Amendment: ... Th is argument has not carried th e day. Al th ough th e Court has acknowledged th e possibility th at th e dea th penalty may be administered in a racially discriminatory manner, ... Jump to essay-5 Id. at 339-40 ...
Opinion
Indeed, there is even a compelling argument based on case law that Chief Justice Roberts and the other unaffected justices should raise the matter of recusal on their own, or sua sponte.
As Hunter Biden goes to trial on gun charges, here's how his attorneys
Weiss' office has said the gun shop employees merely "annotated" the document. But they took Lowell's argument seriously enough to re-interview the gun store owner, Ronald Palimere, on May 16.
The Ethical and Practical Failings of the Death Penalty
Essay Example: One of the most contentious issues in the fields of criminal justice and human rights is still the death penalty. Many contemporary nations are debating the morality, effectiveness, and ramifications of the death penalty despite its historical roots. There are many reasons why
The Tragedy of Sacrificing Good Public Policy While Pandering for Votes
The examples are legion right now, including absolutely off-the-charts crazy moves such as Texas preparing to "endorse the death penalty for abortion providers and patients."
The Texas plan to blame doctors for the horror of its abortion ban
Texas had stressed the same argument throughout litigation in the case. Republicans may well borrow the same strategy. If Americans don't like the new reality that Dobbs has brought on, the ...

Argumentative essay on death penalty

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

Retribution

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

Examining the Death Penalty: An Argumentative Perspective

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

“When We Kill”

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

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

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

You may also like

15 Political Issues We Must Address

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for LGBTQ+ Rights

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Against The Death Penalty: a Persuasive Argument for Abolition

Works Cited

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Death Penalty

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Argumentative essay on The death penalty

Related Papers

RELATED TOPICS

Essay: Arguments against the Death Penalty

Related Posts

10 Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Finding Sources for Death Penalty Research

Amnesty International Site

Mental Illness on Death Row

Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty

Pro-Death Penalty Links

The Death Penalty, a Just Punishment Essay

Works Cited

Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases

Elections Today

MORE: Special counsel plans to use infamous laptop as evidence in Hunter Biden's firearm trial

'Tampered' or 'annotated'?

The definition of 'is'

Trending Reader Picks

Attorney: Trump will appeal conviction

Takeaways: GOP grills Fauci over COVID response

Key voting groups' thoughts on Trump conviction

MORE: Special counsel in Hunter Biden case plans to call his ex-wife, brother's widow as witnesses in upcoming trial

The government's case

MORE: Judge denies Hunter Biden's attempt to dismiss federal gun charges

Related Topics

Biden to sign order on immigration: Sources

Court sets date for Trump's appeal of Fani Willis

ABC News Live

The Ethical and Practical Failings of the Death Penalty

Cite this page

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

The Tragedy of Sacrificing Good Public Policy While Pandering for Votes

CounterPunch+

Texas’ New Plan for Responding to the Horror of Its Abortion Ban: Blame Doctors

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS