death penalty is effective essay

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Death Penalty Can Ensure ‘Justice Is Being Done’

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

By Jeffrey A. Rosen

Mr. Rosen is the deputy attorney general.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Lee’s lawyers seem to endorse a system of endless delays that prevent a death sentence from ever becoming real. But his execution date was announced almost a year ago, and was initially set for last December. It was delayed when his lawyers obtained six more months of review by unsuccessfully challenging the procedures used to carry out his lethal injection.

After an appellate court rejected their claim as “without merit,” the Justice Department rescheduled Mr. Lee’s execution, providing an additional four weeks of notice. Yet on the day of the rescheduled execution, after family members of his victims had traveled to Terre Haute, Ind., to witness the execution, a District Court granted Mr. Lee’s request for further review. That court entered a last-minute reprieve that the Supreme Court has said should be an “extreme exception.”

Given the long delay that had already occurred, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to lift the order so the execution could proceed. Mr. Lee’s lawyers opposed that request, insisting that overturning the order would result in their client’s imminent execution. After reviewing the matter, the court granted the government’s request , rebuked the District Court for creating an unjustified last-minute barrier, and directed that the execution could proceed.

In the final minutes before the execution was to occur, Mr. Lee’s lawyers claimed the execution could not proceed because Mr. Lee still had time to seek further review of an appellate court decision six weeks earlier lifting a prior stay of execution. The Justice Department decided to pause the execution for several hours while the appellate court considered and promptly rejected Mr. Lee’s request. That cautious step, taken to ensure undoubted compliance with court orders, is irreconcilable with the suggestion that the department “rushed” the execution or disregarded any law. Mr. Lee’s final hours awaiting his fate were a result of his own lawyers’ choice to assert a non-meritorious objection at the last moment.

Mr. Lee’s lawyers also disregarded the cost to victims’ families of continued delay. Although they note that some members of Mr. Lee’s victims’ families opposed his execution, others did not. Nor did the family members of Wesley Purkey’s victim, Jennifer Long, who were in Terre Haute on Wednesday afternoon. When the District Court again imposed another last-minute stoppage, granting more time for Mr. Purkey’s lawyers to argue (among other things) that he did not understand the reason for his execution, the Justice Department again sought Supreme Court review.

As the hours wore on, Justice Department officials asked Ms. Long’s father if he would prefer to wait for another day. The answer was unequivocal: He would stay as long as it took. As Ms. Long’s stepmother later said, “We just shouldn’t have had to wait this long.” The Supreme Court ultimately authorized the execution just before 3 a.m. In his final statement, Mr. Purkey apologized to “Jennifer’s family” for the pain he had caused, contradicting the claim of his lawyers that he did not understand the reason for his execution.

The third execution, of Dustin Honken, occurred on schedule, but still too late for some of his victims’ families. John Duncan — the father of the victim Lori Duncan and grandfather of her slain daughters, Kandace (age 10) and Amber (age 6) — had urged Mr. Honken’s execution for years. As John Duncan was dying of cancer in 2018, he asked family members to promise they would witness the execution on his behalf. On July 17, they did. “Finally,” they said in a statement, “justice is being done.”

Mr. Lee’s lawyers and other death penalty opponents are entitled to disagree with that sentiment. But if the United States is going to allow capital punishment, a white-supremacist triple murderer would seem the textbook example of a justified case. And if death sentences are going to be imposed, they cannot just be hypothetical; they eventually have to be carried out, or the punishment will lose its deterrent and retributive effects.

Rather than forthrightly opposing the death penalty and attempting to change the law through democratic means, however, Mr. Lee’s lawyers and others have chosen the legal and public-relations equivalent of guerrilla war. They sought to obstruct by any means the administration of sentences that Congress permitted, juries supported and the Supreme Court approved. And when those tactics failed, they accused the Justice Department of “a grave threat to the rule of law,” even though it operated entirely within the law enacted by Congress and approved by the Supreme Court. The American people can decide for themselves which aspects of that process should be considered “shameful.”

Jeffrey A. Rosen is the deputy attorney general.

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 , Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram .

Is the Death Penalty Effective?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Works Cited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Death Penalty Effective? Essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 2). Is the Death Penalty Effective? https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-the-death-penalty-effective/

"Is the Death Penalty Effective?" IvyPanda , 2 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/is-the-death-penalty-effective/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Is the Death Penalty Effective'. 2 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Is the Death Penalty Effective?" February 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-the-death-penalty-effective/.

1. IvyPanda . "Is the Death Penalty Effective?" February 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-the-death-penalty-effective/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Is the Death Penalty Effective?" February 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/is-the-death-penalty-effective/.

• Gun Control in Deterring Repeat Offenders
• Deterring the Drunk Driver: An Investigation of the Effectiveness of DUI Legislation
• Criminal Justice System Deterring Illicit Drug Use
• The Suitability of the Death Penalty
• Capital Punishment: Proponents and Opponents Arguements
• Death Penalty: Arguments For and Against
• The Cons of the Current Drugs Used for Lethal Injection
• The Consequences of Capital Punishment
• The Death Penalty: Can It Ever Be Justified?
• Should Juvenile Offenders Be Tried as Adults?
• Death Penalty: Ryan Mathews Case
• Does the Death Sentence Offer Justice to the Criminal?
• The Death Penalty Debate in the United States of America
• Arguments in Favor and Against the Death Penalty
• Death Penalty: Utilitarian View on Capital Punishment

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

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

“When We Kill”

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

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

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

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

By: Willie Jasper Darden, Jr.

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

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

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

By: Bryan Stevenson | From: TED 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Paul Brown | From: The Marshall Project 2019

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

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

You may also like

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

15 Root Causes of Climate Change

15 Facts about Rosa Parks

Abolitionist Movement: History, Main Ideas, and Activism Today

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.

Essays About the Death Penalty: Top 5 Examples and Prompts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Check out these essays about police brutality .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View all posts

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty

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

The death penalty deters future murders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full text can be found at PBS.org .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here for the full text from the ACLU website.

Retribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The entire speech by Justice Kogan is available here.

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

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

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

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

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

Full text can be found here.

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The entire decision can be found here.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Most Americans Favor the Death Penalty Despite Concerns About Its Administration

78% say there is some risk of innocent people being put to death

Table of contents.

• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand Americans’ views about the death penalty. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,109 U.S. adults from April 5 to 11, 2021. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and its methodology .

The use of the death penalty is gradually disappearing in the United States. Last year, in part because of the coronavirus outbreak, fewer people were executed than in any year in nearly three decades .

Yet the death penalty for people convicted of murder continues to draw support from a majority of Americans despite widespread doubts about its administration, fairness and whether it deters serious crimes.

More Americans favor than oppose the death penalty: 60% of U.S. adults favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder, including 27% who strongly favor it. About four-in-ten (39%) oppose the death penalty, with 15% strongly opposed, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

The survey, conducted April 5-11 among 5,109 U.S. adults on the Center’s American Trends Panel, finds that support for the death penalty is 5 percentage points lower than it was in August 2020, when 65% said they favored the death penalty for people convicted of murder.

While public support for the death penalty has changed only modestly in recent years, support for the death penalty declined substantially between the late 1990s and the 2010s. (See “Death penalty draws more Americans’ support online than in telephone surveys” for more on long-term measures and the challenge of comparing views across different survey modes.)

Large shares of Americans express concerns over how the death penalty is administered and are skeptical about whether it deters people from committing serious crimes.

Nearly eight-in-ten (78%) say there is some risk that an innocent person will be put to death, while only 21% think there are adequate safeguards in place to prevent that from happening. Only 30% of death penalty supporters – and just 6% of opponents – say adequate safeguards exist to prevent innocent people from being executed.

A majority of Americans (56%) say Black people are more likely than White people to be sentenced to the death penalty for being convicted of serious crimes. This view is particularly widespread among Black adults: 85% of Black adults say Black people are more likely than Whites to receive the death penalty for being convicted of similar crimes (61% of Hispanic adults and 49% of White adults say this).

Moreover, more than six-in-ten Americans (63%), including about half of death penalty supporters (48%), say the death penalty does not deter people from committing serious crimes.

Yet support for the death penalty is strongly associated with a belief that when someone commits murder, the death penalty is morally justified. Among the public overall, 64% say the death penalty is morally justified in cases of murder, while 33% say it is not justified. An overwhelming share of death penalty supporters (90%) say it is morally justified under such circumstances, compared with 25% of death penalty opponents.

The data in the most recent survey, collected from Pew Research Center’s online American Trends Panel (ATP) , finds that 60% of Americans favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. Over four ATP surveys conducted since September 2019, there have been relatively modest shifts in these views – from a low of 60% seen in the most recent survey to a high of 65% seen in September 2019 and August 2020.

In Pew Research Center phone surveys conducted between September 2019 and August 2020 (with field periods nearly identical to the online surveys), support for the death penalty was significantly lower: 55% favored the death penalty in September 2019, 53% in January 2020 and 52% in August 2020. The consistency of this difference points to substantial mode effects on this question. As a result, survey results from recent online surveys are not directly comparable with past years’ telephone survey trends. A post accompanying this report provides further detail and analysis of the mode differences seen on this question. And for more on mode effects and the transition from telephone surveys to online panel surveys, see “What our transition to online polling means for decades of phone survey trends” and “Trends are a cornerstone of public opinion research. How do we continue to track changes in public opinion when there’s a shift in survey mode?”

Partisanship continues to be a major factor in support for the death penalty and opinions about its administration. Just over three-quarters of Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party (77%) say they favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, including 40% who strongly favor it.

Democrats and Democratic leaners are more divided on this issue: 46% favor the death penalty, while 53% are opposed. About a quarter of Democrats (23%) strongly oppose the death penalty, compared with 17% who strongly favor it.

Over the past two years, the share of Republicans who say they favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder has decreased slightly – by 7 percentage points – while the share of Democrats who say this is essentially unchanged (46% today vs. 49% in 2019).

Republicans and Democrats also differ over whether the death penalty is morally justified, whether it acts as a deterrent to serious crime and whether adequate safeguards exist to ensure that no innocent person is put to death. Republicans are 29 percentage points more likely than Democrats to say the death penalty is morally justified, 28 points more likely to say it deters serious crimes, and 19 points more likely to say that adequate safeguards exist.

But the widest partisan divide – wider than differences in opinions about the death penalty itself – is over whether White people and Black people are equally likely to be sentenced to the death penalty for committing similar crimes.

About seven-in-ten Republicans (72%) say that White people and Black people are equally likely to be sentenced to death for the same types of crimes. Only 15% of Democrats say this. More than eight-in-ten Democrats (83%) instead say that Black people are more likely than White people to be sentenced to the death penalty for committing similar crimes.

Differing views of death penalty by race and ethnicity, education, ideology

There are wide ideological differences within both parties on this issue. Among Democrats, a 55% majority of conservatives and moderates favor the death penalty, a position held by just 36% of liberal Democrats (64% of liberal Democrats oppose the death penalty). A third of liberal Democrats strongly oppose the death penalty, compared with just 14% of conservatives and moderates.

While conservative Republicans are more likely to express support for the death penalty than moderate and liberal Republicans, clear majorities of both groups favor the death penalty (82% of conservative Republicans and 68% of moderate and liberal Republicans).

As in the past, support for the death penalty differs across racial and ethnic groups. Majorities of White (63%), Asian (63%) and Hispanic adults (56%) favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. Black adults are evenly divided: 49% favor the death penalty, while an identical share oppose it.

Support for the death penalty also varies across age groups. About half of those ages 18 to 29 (51%) favor the death penalty, compared with about six-in-ten adults ages 30 to 49 (58%) and those 65 and older (60%). Adults ages 50 to 64 are most supportive of the death penalty, with 69% in favor.

There are differences in attitudes by education, as well. Nearly seven-in-ten adults (68%) who have not attended college favor the death penalty, as do 63% of those who have some college experience but no degree.

About half of those with four-year undergraduate degrees but no postgraduate experience (49%) support the death penalty. Among those with postgraduate degrees, a larger share say they oppose (55%) than favor (44%) the death penalty.

The divide in support for the death penalty between those with and without college degrees is seen across racial and ethnic groups, though the size of this gap varies. A large majority of White adults without college degrees (72%) favor the death penalty, compared with about half (47%) of White adults who have degrees. Among Black adults, 53% of those without college degrees favor the death penalty, compared with 34% of those with college degrees. And while a majority of Hispanic adults without college degrees (58%) say they favor the death penalty, a smaller share (47%) of those with college degrees say this.

Intraparty differences in support for the death penalty

Republicans are consistently more likely than Democrats to favor the death penalty, though there are divisions within each party by age as well as by race and ethnicity.

Republicans ages 18 to 34 are less likely than other Republicans to say they favor the death penalty. Just over six-in-ten Republicans in this age group (64%) say this, compared with about eight-in-ten Republicans ages 35 and older.

Among Democrats, adults ages 50 to 64 are much more likely than adults in other age groups to favor the death penalty. A 58% majority of 50- to 64-year-old Democrats favor the death penalty, compared with 47% of those ages 35 to 49 and about four-in-ten Democrats who are 18 to 34 or 65 and older.

Overall, White adults are more likely to favor the death penalty than Black or Hispanic adults, while White and Asian American adults are equally likely to favor the death penalty. However, White Democrats are less likely to favor the death penalty than Black, Hispanic or Asian Democrats. About half of Hispanic (53%), Asian (53%) and Black (48%) Democrats favor the death penalty, compared with 42% of White Democrats.

About eight-in-ten White Republicans favor the death penalty, as do about seven-in-ten Hispanic Republicans (69%).

Differences by race and ethnicity, education over whether there are racial disparities in death penalty sentencing

There are substantial demographic differences in views of whether death sentencing is applied fairly across racial groups. While 85% of Black adults say Black people are more likely than White people to be sentenced to death for committing similar crimes, a narrower majority of Hispanic adults (61%) and about half of White adults (49%) say the same. People with four-year college degrees (68%) also are more likely than those who have not completed college (50%) to say that Black people and White people are treated differently when it comes to the death penalty.

About eight-in-ten Democrats (83%), including fully 94% of liberal Democrats and three-quarters of conservative and moderate Democrats, say Black people are more likely than White people to be sentenced to death for committing the same type of crime – a view shared by just 25% of Republicans (18% of conservative Republicans and 38% of moderate and liberal Republicans).

Across educational and racial or ethnic groups, majorities say that the death penalty does not deter serious crimes, although there are differences in how widely this view is held. About seven-in-ten (69%) of those with college degrees say this, as do about six-in-ten (59%) of those without college degrees. About seven-in-ten Black adults (72%) and narrower majorities of White (62%) and Hispanic (63%) adults say the same. Asian American adults are more divided, with half saying the death penalty deters serious crimes and a similar share (49%) saying it does not.

Among Republicans, a narrow majority of conservative Republicans (56%) say the death penalty does deter serious crimes, while a similar share of moderate and liberal Republicans (57%) say it does not.

A large majority of liberal Democrats (82%) and a smaller, though still substantial, majority of conservative and moderate Democrats (70%) say the death penalty does not deter serious crimes. But Democrats are divided over whether the death penalty is morally justified. A majority of conservative and moderate Democrats (57%) say that a death sentence is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder, compared with fewer than half of liberal Democrats (44%).

There is widespread agreement on one topic related to the death penalty: Nearly eight-in-ten (78%) say that there is some risk an innocent person will be put to death, including large majorities among various racial or ethnic, educational, and even ideological groups. For example, about two-thirds of conservative Republicans (65%) say this – compared with 34% who say there are adequate safeguards to ensure that no innocent person will be executed – despite conservative Republicans expressing quite favorable attitudes toward the death penalty on other questions.

Overwhelming share of death penalty supporters say it is morally justified

Those who favor the death penalty consistently express more favorable attitudes regarding specific aspects of the death penalty than those who oppose it.

For instance, nine-in-ten of those who favor the death penalty also say that the death penalty is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder. Just 25% of those who oppose the death penalty say it is morally justified.

This relationship holds among members of each party. Among Republicans and Republican leaners who favor the death penalty, 94% say it is morally justified; 86% of Democrats and Democratic leaners who favor the death penalty also say this.

By comparison, just 35% of Republicans and 21% of Democrats who oppose the death penalty say it is morally justified.

Similarly, those who favor the death penalty are more likely to say it deters people from committing serious crimes. Half of those who favor the death penalty say this, compared with 13% of those who oppose it. And even though large majorities of both groups say there is some risk an innocent person will be put to death, members of the public who favor the death penalty are 24 percentage points more likely to say that there are adequate safeguards to prevent this than Americans who oppose the death penalty.

On the question of whether Black people and White people are equally likely to be sentenced to death for committing similar crimes, partisanship is more strongly associated with these views than one’s overall support for the death penalty: Republicans who oppose the death penalty are more likely than Democrats who favor it to say White people and Black people are equally likely to be sentenced to death.

Among Republicans who favor the death penalty, 78% say that Black and White people are equally likely to receive this sentence. Among Republicans who oppose the death penalty, about half (53%) say this. However, just 26% of Democrats who favor the death penalty say that Black and White people are equally likely to receive this sentence, and only 6% of Democrats who oppose the death penalty say this.

CORRECTION (July 13, 2021): The following sentence was updated to reflect the correct timespan: “Last year, in part because of the coronavirus outbreak, fewer people were executed than in any year in nearly three decades.” The changes did not affect the report’s substantive findings.

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Criminal Justice
• Death Penalty
• Politics & Policy

8 facts about Black Lives Matter

#blacklivesmatter turns 10, support for the black lives matter movement has dropped considerably from its peak in 2020, fewer than 1% of federal criminal defendants were acquitted in 2022, before release of video showing tyre nichols’ beating, public views of police conduct had improved modestly, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Persuasive Essay Writing

Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty

Craft an Effective Argument: Examples of Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty

Published on: Jan 27, 2023

Last updated on: Jan 29, 2024

People also read

How to Write a Persuasive Essay: A Step-by-Step Guide

Easy and Unique Persuasive Essay Topics with Tips

The Basics of Crafting an Outstanding Persuasive Essay Outline

Ace Your Next Essay With These Persuasive Essay Examples!

Persuasive Essay About Gun Control - Best Examples for Students

Top Examples of Persuasive Essay about Covid-19

Learn How To Write An Impressive Persuasive Essay About Business

Learn How to Craft a Compelling Persuasive Essay About Abortion With Examples!

Make Your Point: Tips and Examples for Writing a Persuasive Essay About Online Education

Learn How To Craft a Powerful Persuasive Essay About Bullying

Craft an Engaging Persuasive Essay About Smoking: Examples & Tips

Learn How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Social Media With Examples

Share this article

No matter what topic we're discussing, there is usually a range of opinions and viewpoints on the issues. 

But when it comes to more serious matters like the death penalty, creating an effective argument can become tricky. 

Although this topic may be difficult to tackle, you can still write an engaging persuasive essay to convey your point.

In this blog post, we'll explore how you can use examples of persuasive essays on death penalty topics.

So put your rhetorical skills to the test, and let’s dive right into sample essays and tips. 

On This Page On This Page -->

What Do We Mean by a Persuasive Essay?

A persuasive essay is a type of writing that attempts to persuade the reader or audience.

This essay usually presents an argument supported by evidence and examples. The main aim is to convince the reader or audience to take action or accept a certain viewpoint. 

Persuasive essays may be written from a neutral or biased perspective and contain personal opinions.

To do this, you must provide clear reasoning and evidence to support your argument. Persuasive essays can take many forms, including speeches, letters, articles, and opinion pieces. 

It is important to consider the audience when writing a persuasive essay. The language used should be tailored to their understanding of the topic. 

Read our comprehensive guide on persuasive essays to know all about crafting excellent essays.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Let's move on to some examples so that you can better understand this topic.

Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty Examples

Are you feeling stuck with the task of writing a persuasive essay about the death penalty? 

Looking for some examples to get your ideas flowing? 

You’re in luck — we’ve got just the thing! Take a look at these free downloadable examples.

Example of a Persuasive essay about death penalty

Persuasive essay about death penalty in the Philippines

Short Persuasive essay about death penalty

Persuasive essay about death penalty should be abolished

The death penalty pros and cons essay

Looking for some more examples on persuasive essays? Check out our blog about persuasive essay examples !

Argumentative Essay About Death Penalty Examples 

We have compiled some of the best examples to help you start crafting your essay.

These examples will provide dynamic perspectives and insights from real-world legal cases to personal essays. 

Have a look at them to get inspired!!

Argumentative essay about death penalty in the Philippines

Argumentative essay about death penalty with introduction body conclusion

Argumentative essay about death penalty should be abolished

Argumentative essay about death penalty conclusion

6 Tips To Write an A+ Persuasive Essay

We know it can be daunting to compose a perfect essay that effectively conveys your point of view to your readers. Worry no more. 

Simply follow these 6 tips, and you will be on your way to a perfect persuasive essay.

1. Understand the assignment and audience

 Before you start writing your essay, you must understand what type of essay you are being asked to write. Who your target audience should be?

Make sure you know exactly what you’re arguing for and against, as this will help shape your essay's content.

2. Brainstorm and research

Once you understand the topic better, brainstorm ideas that support your argument.

During this process, be sure to do additional research on any unfamiliar points or topics.

3. Create an outline

After doing your initial research, create an outline for your essay that includes all the main points you want to make. 

This will help keep your thoughts organized and ensure you cover all the necessary points cohesively.

Check out our extensive guide on persuasive essay outlines to master the art of creating essays.

4. Make an argument

Use persuasive language and techniques to construct your essay. Strong evidence, such as facts and statistics, can also help to strengthen your argument.

5. Edit and revise 

Before you submit your essay, take the time to edit and revise it carefully. 

This will ensure that your argument is clear and concise and that there are no grammar or spelling errors.

6. Get feedback

Lastly, consider asking someone else to read over your essay before you submit it.

Feedback from another person can help you see any weaknesses in your argument or areas that need improvement. 

Summing up, 

Writing a persuasive essay about the death penalty doesn’t have to be overwhelming. With these examples and tips, you can be sure to write an essay that will impress your teacher.

Whether it’s an essay about the death penalty or any other controversial topic, you can ace it with these steps! 

Remember, the key is to be creative and organized in your writing!

Don't have time to write your essay? 

Don't stress! Leave it to us! Our persuasive essay writing service is here to help! 

Contact the team of experts at our essay writing service. We can help you write a creative, well-organized, and engaging essay for the reader. 

Our persuasive essay writer will write the best essay for you at affordable rates! Moreover, we provide free revisions and other exclusive perks!

So don't delay! Ask us to write an essay for me today!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the most persuasive argument for the death penalty.

The most persuasive argument for the death penalty is that it is a deterrent to violent crime. 

The idea is that by punishing criminals, other potential criminals will be less likely to act out of fear of similar punishment.

How do you start a persuasive speech on the death penalty?

When starting a persuasive speech on the death penalty, begin by introducing and defining the topic. Provide an overview of the controversial issue. 

Outline your points and arguments clearly, including evidence to support your position. 

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

Good topics for persuasive essays include 

• Whether or not the death penalty is a fair punishment for violent crime
• Whether harsher punishments will reduce crime rates
• Will capital punishment is worth the costs associated with it
• How rehabilitation should be taken into consideration when dealing with criminals.

Cathy A. (Marketing, Literature)

For more than five years now, Cathy has been one of our most hardworking authors on the platform. With a Masters degree in mass communication, she knows the ins and outs of professional writing. Clients often leave her glowing reviews for being an amazing writer who takes her work very seriously.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

• Privacy Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Terms of Use
• Refunds & Cancellations
• Our Writers
• Success Stories
• Our Guarantees
• Affiliate Program
• Referral Program
• AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Study Today

Largest Compilation of Structured Essays and Exams

Essay on Is the Death Penalty Effective?

January 4, 2018 by Study Mentor Leave a Comment

What is penalty? Right from not obeying your mother’s instruction and getting scolding for same to the sanctions put on countries which disobey an agreement or treaty. Every reaction to any deviance from the expected outcome comes under the radar of punishment.

Every society or institution is based on rules regulations and norms to ensure smooth functioning of the system. If anyone breaks a law they are considered for punishment and sanctions. The whole purpose of these is to instill fear and deterrence so that similar act is not performed again.

Here deviance is a very broad term. As it includes petty issues like not doing one’s homework to participating in acts that are threat to national security. Therefore, depending upon the harm caused, the penalty is decided and imposed.  

No society across the world is free of crime. Be it the property disputes, theft, violation of a business clause or personal attacks in the form of murder, assault, kidnaping etc. Every social system works to contain and limit these crimes for maintaining harmony in a state.

That is why we find some formal or informal law and order enforcing agency at every level. It is here that punishment or penalty are thought to act as restraints. At a micro level like family punishments are menial. But at macro level to decide upon kind of punishment to be imposed a judicial set up is required.

Degree of damage or intensity of evil are considered while giving sentences. This restraint includes imposing huge sums of money as fines, imprisonment, corporal punishment, banishment from territory and even the death penalty.  

Death is the most feared of all things a human can ever experience. Death penalty is not a new way of deterring a crime. As death is end of a person’s existence even in traditional society it was a preferred way of punishing. Back then the rule was “eye for an eye” and this was unquestioned as repressive laws dominated.

But as humans evolved and civilized they relooked at death penalty. The purpose of the death penalty basically is twofold – it serves the purpose of vengeance (on the part of the state and the victims), and it serves the purpose of segregation (the prisoner who is sentenced to death will never rejoin society).

Both of these are, to some extent, are valid purposes and send a strong message to anti-social beings in society. Many argue “harsh crimes merit harsh punishment”.

So, we find support for death sentence in cases of heinous crimes like rape, mutilation, mass murder, child abuse and terrorist activities. It is not unjust but have to be used very rarely. As the threat of severe punishment certainly does dissuade potential offenders.  

Death penalty should not become the norm to curb crime and ensure deterrence. There are many vantage points to look at this controversial, costly and divisive issue. Firstly, there is no credible data supporting the fact that capital punishment has been deterrent and avoided similar crime that led to conviction.

Second as the civilized world prescribes under restitutive mechanism of justice death is the last option, more preference is given to corrective measures and rehabilitation of convict. Every person has right to life as per natural justice, one must not be forgiven for atrocity caused by him but a chance to repent, regret and change should as well not be ignored.

In case of death sentence the above cannot be done as there is no return after one dies. Thirdly human rights of convict are considered. What if an innocent being is trapped and convicted would it not be absolute grave thing to declare death penalty in such a case.

Are we confident of judicial results? Can it not be misused by people in power? Death sentence once executed offers no way of correcting a wrong judgement? Fourth encouragement of death penalty leaves entire onus of the offence on culprit, ignoring the reasons that led to his actions.

The role of society, dearth of resources, inequality or exploitation many such social issue might have turned a normal man into criminal. Thus, retrospective reflection on system is undermined with such punishments. Also, the sense of injustice caused can in turn breed more violators in protest.

Fifthly, the definition of grave crime termed rarest of the rare which can justify the death sentence is very subjective and left to discretion of the judges. Cases of mass murder and crime during riots cannot be equated to child abuse or gang rape. Each case has its own set of circumstances to consider.

Every victim can justify their loss as grave, or the number of people injured in the crime may be used to explain the death sentence. As judges are also part of same society they are affected by demand and expectation of the people, which impacts neutrality of their decision.

Media also acts as pressure group and indirectly influence the judgement. So, it is immensely difficult to demarcate what deserves capital punishment and what does not.  

Sixthly, every death sentence is an incredibly costly affair. As cases resulting in death sentence are challenged at every judicial level. From district to high court and then supreme courts of a country. Likewise, these cases end up spending years in various legal appeal, additionally eating up on time of judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers all at the expense of taxpayer’s money.  

Consider terrorist activities for instance where we see growing number of suicide bombers, these mass murderers typically expose themselves to far greater immediate risks. So, chances of execution many years after committing a crime if caught would not influence the behavior of such sociopathic deviants. To answer Is it effective for suicide bomber? Surely no.  

With little reason to continue this practice, death penalty is certainly an ineffective deterrent. Also, it has high monetary, human and social costs involved. Crime, atrocities, anti-social activities can be better curtailed by fixing the gaps in social system.

Reader Interactions

Leave a reply cancel reply.

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

Top Trending Essays in March 2021

• Essay on Pollution
• Essay on my School
• Summer Season
• My favourite teacher
• World heritage day quotes
• my family speech
• importance of trees essay
• autobiography of a pen
• honesty is the best policy essay
• essay on building a great india
• my favourite book essay
• essay on caa
• my favourite player
• autobiography of a river
• farewell speech for class 10 by class 9
• essay my favourite teacher 200 words
• internet influence on kids essay
• my favourite cartoon character

Brilliantly

Content & links.

Verified by Sur.ly

Essay for Students

• Essay for Class 1 to 5 Students

Scholarships for Students

• Class 1 Students Scholarship
• Class 2 Students Scholarship
• Class 3 Students Scholarship
• Class 4 Students Scholarship
• Class 5 students Scholarship
• Class 6 Students Scholarship
• Class 7 students Scholarship
• Class 8 Students Scholarship
• Class 9 Students Scholarship
• Class 10 Students Scholarship
• Class 11 Students Scholarship
• Class 12 Students Scholarship

STAY CONNECTED

• About Study Today
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions

Scholarships

• Apj Abdul Kalam Scholarship
• Ashirwad Scholarship
• Bihar Scholarship
• Canara Bank Scholarship
• Colgate Scholarship
• Dr Ambedkar Scholarship
• E District Scholarship
• Epass Karnataka Scholarship
• Fair And Lovely Scholarship
• Floridas John Mckay Scholarship
• Inspire Scholarship
• Jio Scholarship
• Karnataka Minority Scholarship
• Lic Scholarship
• Maulana Azad Scholarship
• Medhavi Scholarship
• Minority Scholarship
• Moma Scholarship
• Mp Scholarship
• Muslim Minority Scholarship
• Nsp Scholarship
• Oasis Scholarship
• Obc Scholarship
• Odisha Scholarship
• Pfms Scholarship
• Post Matric Scholarship
• Pre Matric Scholarship
• Prerana Scholarship
• Prime Minister Scholarship
• Rajasthan Scholarship
• Santoor Scholarship
• Sitaram Jindal Scholarship
• Ssp Scholarship
• Swami Vivekananda Scholarship
• Ts Epass Scholarship
• Up Scholarship
• Vidhyasaarathi Scholarship
• Wbmdfc Scholarship
• West Bengal Minority Scholarship
• Click Here Now!!

Mobile Number

Have you Burn Crackers this Diwali ? Yes No

Sample details

Death Penalty

• Views: 1,636

Related Topics

• Mandatory sentencing
• Life imprisonment
• Mass Incarceration
• Is The Death Penalty Effe...
• Capital Punishment

Death Penalty Pros And Cons

• Corporal punishment

Argument: Is the Death Penalty Effective? Argumentative Essay

The death penalty gives closure to the victims of families who have endured the tragedy that many of us fear the most. When someone Is executed who killed a family member, vengeance is a part of the emotions that everyone feels. Families of murder victims would get a sense of closure knowing the person who took the life of their loved one would not be afforded the same opportunity again. The void they had for so long would seem to be filled. When the perpetrator is finally put to death, It Is somewhat a personal revenge In my mind; most people Just want to see the person suffer like the victim did.

Our Justice system always shows more sympathy for criminals rather than victims, when criminals on death row have more than likely committed many crimes, and should be put to death. It also creates another form of crime deterrent. Crime would be out of control If there wasn’t some way to stop people from committing the acts that they do. Televised executions actually deter crime even more because people often react more to what they see rather than what they Imagine. People fear nothing more than death. If somebody knows he or she Is risking death for committing a crime, he or she may think twice before doing so.

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. Many prisoners still kill In prison, even when they have a life sentence, and sometimes this Is the only way to stop them. There Is an overpopulation of prisoners In America, and many facilities don’t have enough resources or space, making the death penalty a great option to reduce overcrowding. It makes the criminals understand they will be held accountable for their actions. We have to find WAP so they won’t allow the Jury to convict them and let them off the hook.

We need ways to keep our prisons from coming overcrowded and endangering the officers who work there. Just Imagine a criminal breaking Into your house and killing your whole family; would you want that person to live the rest of his or her life In Jail, getting free meals and having a roof over their head, and a TV In their cell? I would rather that person be killed than living a long life off my hard earned money! The death penalty Is effective because It protects the rest of the community from criminals, It teaches people not to Involve themselves In crime, and It gives Justice to the vellums.

Argument Essay: Is the Death Penalty Effective ? By enfolded tragedy that many of us fear the most. When someone is executed who killed a family so long would seem to be filled. When the perpetrator is finally put to death, it is somewhat a personal revenge in my mind; most people Just want to see the person of crime deterrent. Crime would be out of control if there wasn’t some way to stop they imagine. People fear nothing more than death. If somebody knows he or she is still kill in prison, even when they have a life sentence, and sometimes this is the only way to stop them.

There is an overpopulation of prisoners in America, and many accountable for their actions. We have to find ways so they won’t allow the Jury to imagine a criminal breaking into your house and killing your whole family; would you want that person to live the rest of his or her life in Jail, getting free meals and having a roof over their head, and a TV in their cell? I would rather that person be killed than living a long life off my hard earned money! The death penalty is effective because it protects the rest of the community from criminals, it teaches people not to involve themselves in crime, and it gives Justice to the victims.

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/argument-essay-is-the-death-penalty-effective/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Check more samples on your topics

Is the death penalty effective argumentative.

I'm for the death penalty because I believe intentionally taking another human beings life then, yours should be taken also. If the death penalty was not enforced the criminal would still be living with the satisfaction of killing someone. Although, they are locked up in prison for the rest of their life, they're still being

Reasoned Argument on the Death Penalty’s Job

The concept of using medicine to induce sanity before a death penalty is cruel in one point of view and just in another. In the ruling of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Arkansas that allow the government to use force to return sanity to the man sentenced to the death penalty is, as

The International and Domestic Legislation on the Death Penalty and Its Pros and Cons Side of the Argument

The debate over the death penalty has been one that has been around for decades. But despite this, it is still frequently carried out in developed countries such as The United Stated and in Middle Eastern countries. There have been legislations put in place. Both internationally and domestically- to address its use and arguments have

Yes to Death Penalty in the Philippines Argumentative Essay

Cases occur every second, whether in the country or worldwide, causing people to question justice and bringing problems and suffering, particularly for victims. The death penalty is carried out using an electric chair, where proven suspects or criminals are executed by electricity within seconds. Being predominantly Catholic, the Philippines strictly upholds moral standards. As a teenager,

Thesis statement pro death penalty Argumentative Essay

There Is nothing more final than death. As such before we decide such a major Issue as the Death Penalty we better be sure of what we are doing! Superficially it may seem very simple – you kill therefore you should die – but is it really that simple? Let’s take a closer look…. In

Re-imposition of death penalty in the philippines Argumentative Essay

Philippines

As this present days the rates of crimes are Increasing Like kidnapping, murder, rape, car-napping, riding In tandem, drug smuggling and many more. This gruesome crimes has been done by the criminal without any hesitation. Why? Because they know that the capital punishment of the Philippines was light. Criminal knows that If they committed a

Death penalty thesis statement Argumentative Essay

Throughout history, societies have punished criminals by executing them, but today many countries have abolished the death penalty. In the united States however, the federal government and many of the states continue to sentence convicted criminals to death. This leads us to the question: Should the government have the power to sentence convicted criminals to

The Death of the Death Penalty

Is The Death Penalty Effective

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.” (Tolkien, 1954) Majority of America have their own strong beliefs as to whether capital punishment should remain in todays society. Those who oppose the death penalty

Death to the Death Penalty

The death penalty has been around as far back as the Bible times. Perhaps even later. It hasn’t been until the last century or so that its ethicality has been questioned. As of now, every single country in Europe except Belarus has abolished the death penalty and this is actually a prerequisite to enter the

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

Crime Rates in Memphis Case Study

This essay about Memphis’s crime rate examines the city’s challenges with violent and property crimes, exploring factors contributing to its high crime statistics. Key factors include socioeconomic issues such as poverty and unemployment, as well as educational shortcomings and the influence of gangs and drug-related activities. The essay details various initiatives implemented by Memphis to combat these high crime rates, including enhanced community policing, youth outreach programs, and collaborations with state and federal law enforcement to target organized crime groups. Additionally, it discusses judicial reforms aimed at reducing recidivism, such as rehabilitation programs and alternative sentencing. Overall, the essay highlights the comprehensive efforts undertaken by Memphis to address both the symptoms and root causes of its crime problems, aiming to improve public safety and community well-being.

How it works

Memphis, Tennessee, a city renowned for its rich musical heritage and vibrant cultural scene, also faces significant challenges related to crime. In recent years, the crime rate in Memphis has been a topic of concern for both local residents and policymakers. This essay explores the current state of crime in Memphis, factors contributing to its crime rates, and efforts by the city to address these issues.

Statistics indicate that Memphis has one of the higher crime rates in the United States, particularly in terms of violent crimes, which include murder, assault, robbery, and aggravated assault.

According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports, Memphis frequently ranks above national averages for these types of crimes. Property crimes, such as burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft, also occur at rates higher than many other U.S. cities.

Several factors contribute to the high crime rates in Memphis. Socioeconomic challenges play a critical role, as Memphis has substantial rates of poverty and unemployment compared to national averages. These economic hardships are correlated with higher crime rates, as limited economic opportunities can lead to increased criminal activity. Additionally, educational challenges in some Memphis communities contribute to the cycle of poverty and crime. Lower educational attainment can restrict job opportunities, leading to a higher likelihood of involvement in criminal activities.

Another contributing factor is the prevalence of gangs and drug-related activities in certain areas of Memphis. These elements not only drive violent crime but also create environments where illegal activities can flourish. Efforts to combat gang violence and drug trafficking are ongoing, but these issues remain significant hurdles to reducing overall crime rates in the city.

In response to these challenges, Memphis has implemented several initiatives aimed at reducing crime and enhancing public safety. Community policing efforts have been intensified, focusing on building stronger relationships between police officers and community members. These initiatives are designed to foster trust and cooperation, which are crucial for effective crime prevention. Additionally, Memphis has invested in youth outreach programs that aim to provide alternatives to gang involvement and criminal activity. These programs focus on mentorship, education, and job training, addressing some of the root causes of crime by equipping young people with the skills and opportunities needed to lead productive lives.

The city has also collaborated with state and federal law enforcement agencies to tackle high-profile crimes more effectively. Joint task forces have been established to focus on violent criminals and organized crime rings, especially those involved in drug trafficking and gang activities. By pooling resources and intelligence, these task forces aim to dismantle criminal networks that are difficult to combat with isolated local efforts.

Moreover, Memphis is working to improve its criminal justice system to ensure that it is fair, efficient, and effective. Reform efforts include measures to reduce recidivism by providing better support systems for individuals released from incarceration. Rehabilitation programs, reentry services, and alternative sentencing options are part of these reforms, aiming to integrate former offenders back into society successfully and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

In conclusion, while Memphis faces significant challenges with respect to crime, concerted efforts by local government, law enforcement, and the community are in place to address these issues. The city’s approach combines immediate crime-fighting strategies with long-term initiatives aimed at tackling the underlying causes of criminal behavior. By continuing to focus on community engagement, economic development, educational opportunities, and judicial reforms, Memphis strives to create a safer and more prosperous environment for all its residents.

Cite this page

Crime Rates In Memphis Case Study. (2024, Apr 22). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/crime-rates-in-memphis-case-study/

"Crime Rates In Memphis Case Study." PapersOwl.com , 22 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/crime-rates-in-memphis-case-study/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Crime Rates In Memphis Case Study . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/crime-rates-in-memphis-case-study/ [Accessed: 22 Apr. 2024]

"Crime Rates In Memphis Case Study." PapersOwl.com, Apr 22, 2024. Accessed April 22, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/crime-rates-in-memphis-case-study/

"Crime Rates In Memphis Case Study," PapersOwl.com , 22-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/crime-rates-in-memphis-case-study/. [Accessed: 22-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Crime Rates In Memphis Case Study . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/crime-rates-in-memphis-case-study/ [Accessed: 22-Apr-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