short essay about death penalty

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

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

“When We Kill”

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

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

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

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

By: Willie Jasper Darden, Jr.

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

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

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

By: Bryan Stevenson | From: TED 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Paul Brown | From: The Marshall Project 2019

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

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

You may also like

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger 

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

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

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:

10 facts about the death penalty in the U.S.

Most U.S. adults support the death penalty for people convicted of murder, according to an April 2021 Pew Research Center survey . At the same time, majorities believe the death penalty is not applied in a racially neutral way, does not deter people from committing serious crimes and does not have enough safeguards to prevent an innocent person from being executed.

Use of the death penalty has gradually declined in the United States in recent decades. A growing number of states have abolished it, and death sentences and executions have become less common. But the story is not one of continuous decline across all levels of government. While state-level executions have decreased, the federal government put more prisoners to death under President Donald Trump than at any point since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976.

As debates over the death penalty continue in the U.S. , here’s a closer look at public opinion on the issue, as well as key facts about the nation’s use of capital punishment.

This Pew Research Center analysis examines public opinion about the death penalty in the United States and explores how the nation has used capital punishment in recent decades. 

The public opinion findings cited here are based primarily on a Pew Research Center survey of 5,109 U.S. adults, conducted from April 5 to 11, 2021. Everyone who took part in the 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  from this survey, along with responses, and its  methodology .

Findings about the administration of the death penalty – including the number of states with and without capital punishment, the annual number of death sentences and executions, the demographics of those on death row and the average amount of time spent on death row – come from the Death Penalty Information Center and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Six-in-ten U.S. adults strongly or somewhat favor the death penalty for convicted murderers, according to the April 2021 survey. A similar share (64%) say the death penalty is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder.

Support for capital punishment is strongly associated with the view that it is morally justified in certain cases. Nine-in-ten of those who favor the death penalty say it is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder; only a quarter of those who oppose capital punishment see it as morally justified.

A majority of Americans have concerns about the fairness of the death penalty and whether it serves as a deterrent against serious crime. More than half of U.S. adults (56%) say Black people are more likely than White people to be sentenced to death for committing similar crimes. About six-in-ten (63%) say the death penalty does not deter people from committing serious crimes, and nearly eight-in-ten (78%) say there is some risk that an innocent person will be executed.

Opinions about the death penalty vary by party, education and race and ethnicity. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are much more likely than Democrats and Democratic leaners to favor the death penalty for convicted murderers (77% vs. 46%). Those with less formal education are also more likely to support it: Around two-thirds of those with a high school diploma or less (68%) favor the death penalty, compared with 63% of those with some college education, 49% of those with a bachelor’s degree and 44% of those with a postgraduate degree. Majorities of White (63%), Asian (63%) and Hispanic adults (56%) support the death penalty, but Black adults are evenly divided, with 49% in favor and 49% opposed.

Views of the death penalty differ by religious affiliation . Around two-thirds of Protestants in the U.S. (66%) favor capital punishment, though support is much higher among White evangelical Protestants (75%) and White non-evangelical Protestants (73%) than it is among Black Protestants (50%). Around six-in-ten Catholics (58%) also support capital punishment, a figure that includes 61% of Hispanic Catholics and 56% of White Catholics.

Opposition to the death penalty also varies among the religiously unaffiliated. Around two-thirds of atheists (65%) oppose it, as do more than half of agnostics (57%). Among those who say their religion is “nothing in particular,” 63% support capital punishment.

Support for the death penalty is consistently higher in online polls than in phone polls. Survey respondents sometimes give different answers depending on how a poll is conducted. In a series of contemporaneous Pew Research Center surveys fielded online and on the phone between September 2019 and August 2020, Americans consistently expressed more support for the death penalty in a self-administered online format than in a survey administered on the phone by a live interviewer. This pattern was more pronounced among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents than among Republicans and GOP leaners, according to an analysis of the survey results .

Phone polls have shown a long-term decline in public support for the death penalty. In phone surveys conducted by Pew Research Center between 1996 and 2020, the share of U.S. adults who favor the death penalty fell from 78% to 52%, while the share of Americans expressing opposition rose from 18% to 44%. Phone surveys conducted by Gallup found a similar decrease in support for capital punishment during this time span.

A majority of states have the death penalty, but far fewer use it regularly. As of July 2021, the death penalty is authorized by 27 states and the federal government – including the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. military – and prohibited in 23 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Death Penalty Information Center . But even in many of the jurisdictions that authorize the death penalty, executions are rare: 13 of these states, along with the U.S. military, haven’t carried out an execution in a decade or more. That includes three states – California , Oregon and Pennsylvania – where governors have imposed formal moratoriums on executions.

A growing number of states have done away with the death penalty in recent years, either through legislation or a court ruling. Virginia, which has carried out more executions than any state except Texas since 1976, abolished capital punishment in 2021. It followed Colorado (2020), New Hampshire (2019), Washington (2018), Delaware (2016), Maryland (2013), Connecticut (2012), Illinois (2011), New Mexico (2009), New Jersey (2007) and New York (2004).

Death sentences have steadily decreased in recent decades. There were 2,570 people on death row in the U.S. at the end of 2019, down 29% from a peak of 3,601 at the end of 2000, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). New death sentences have also declined sharply: 31 people were sentenced to death in 2019, far below the more than 320 who received death sentences each year between 1994 and 1996. In recent years, prosecutors in some U.S. cities – including Orlando and Philadelphia – have vowed not to seek the death penalty, citing concerns over its application.

Nearly all (98%) of the people who were on death row at the end of 2019 were men. Both the mean and median age of the nation’s death row population was 51. Black prisoners accounted for 41% of death row inmates, far higher than their 13% share of the nation’s adult population that year. White prisoners accounted for 56%, compared with their 77% share of the adult population. (For both Black and White Americans, these figures include those who identify as Hispanic. Overall, about 15% of death row prisoners in 2019 identified as Hispanic, according to BJS.)

Annual executions are far below their peak level. Nationally, 17 people were put to death in 2020, the fewest since 1991 and far below the modern peak of 98 in 1999, according to BJS and the Death Penalty Information Center. The COVID-19 outbreak disrupted legal proceedings in much of the country in 2020, causing some executions to be postponed .

Even as the overall number of executions in the U.S. fell to a 29-year low in 2020, the federal government ramped up its use of the death penalty. The Trump administration executed 10 prisoners in 2020 and another three in January 2021; prior to 2020, the federal government had carried out a total of three executions since 1976.

The Biden administration has taken a different approach from its predecessor. In July 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered a halt in federal executions while the Justice Department reviews its policies and procedures.

The average time between sentencing and execution in the U.S. has increased sharply since the 1980s. In 1984, the average time between sentencing and execution was 74 months, or a little over six years, according to BJS . By 2019, that figure had more than tripled to 264 months, or 22 years. The average prisoner awaiting execution at the end of 2019, meanwhile, had spent nearly 19 years on death row.

A variety of factors explain the increase in time spent on death row, including lengthy legal appeals by those sentenced to death and challenges to the way states and the federal government carry out executions, including the drugs used in lethal injections. In California, more death row inmates have died from natural causes or suicide than from executions since 1978, according to the state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation .

Note: This is an update to a post originally published May 28, 2015.

• Criminal Justice
• Death Penalty

John Gramlich is an associate director at Pew Research Center .

What the data says about crime in the U.S.

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, black americans differ from other u.s. adults over whether individual or structural racism is a bigger problem, violent crime is a key midterm voting issue, but what does the data say, most popular.

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
• Politics & Policy
• 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

Rethinking Justice: why the Death Penalty should be Abolished

This essay about the reasons to abolish the death penalty discusses the ethical, practical, and financial implications of capital punishment. It argues that the irreversible nature of the death penalty, coupled with the risk of executing innocent people, raises serious moral concerns. The essay also points out the lack of evidence supporting the death penalty as a crime deterrent and highlights the biases in its application, which disproportionately affect minorities and those of lower socio-economic status. Additionally, it notes the higher costs of death penalty cases compared to life imprisonment. Finally, the essay emphasizes a shift in global norms, with a growing number of countries abolishing the death penalty in favor of more humane approaches to justice. This reflects a broader move toward upholding human rights and fostering a fair and equitable justice system.

How it works

The death penalty has always been a hot-button issue, sparking debates that cut deep into our moral and ethical fibers. But as society evolves, so too should our justice system. There are several powerful, human-centered reasons why the death penalty feels like an outdated relic in today’s legal landscape.

Let’s start with the moral quandary it presents. Taking a life, under any circumstance, raises a multitude of ethical questions. One of the most troubling aspects of capital punishment is the chilling possibility of executing an innocent person.

Since 1973, over 185 individuals on death row in the United States were exonerated. This isn’t just a statistic; it’s a glaring reminder of how irreversible and final the death penalty is. Mistakes in other areas of justice can often be rectified, but there is no undoing an execution.

Then there’s the argument about whether the death penalty actually deters crime. The evidence here is shaky at best. Numerous studies have shown that harsh penalties like execution do not effectively prevent crime more than life imprisonment. If deterrence is the goal, the death penalty misses the mark, which begs the question: why keep it?

Bias in the death penalty’s application adds another layer of concern. The system shows troubling disparities, particularly with racial biases and socioeconomic status influencing outcomes. Defendants accused of killing white victims are disproportionately sentenced to death, which speaks volumes about the prejudices skulking through the corridors of our courts. This isn’t just unfair; it’s a fundamentally flawed system that perpetuates inequality.

Financially, the death penalty doesn’t make much sense either. It’s far more expensive to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. This is due to the lengthy and complex legal process required in capital cases, designed to minimize errors. Every dollar spent here is a dollar that could be used more effectively elsewhere within the criminal justice system.

Globally, the trend is also moving away from capital punishment, with over two-thirds of countries having abolished it in law or in practice. This global shift isn’t just about being progressive; it’s about adhering to international human rights standards that recognize the death penalty as a violation of the right to life.

In the end, abolishing the death penalty isn’t just about eliminating a punishment option. It’s about building a justice system that reflects our values of fairness, redemption, and humanity. It’s about acknowledging that the state shouldn’t sanction the irreversible act of taking a life. Moving away from the death penalty would signal a commitment to these values and contribute to a more equitable society.

So, as we ponder the path forward, let’s consider a justice system that upholds life and offers chances for redemption. That’s the kind of progress that aligns with our collective growth as a compassionate society.

Cite this page

Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished. (2024, May 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

"Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished." PapersOwl.com , 12 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/ [Accessed: 17 May. 2024]

"Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished." PapersOwl.com, May 12, 2024. Accessed May 17, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

"Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished," PapersOwl.com , 12-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/. [Accessed: 17-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Rethinking Justice: Why the Death Penalty Should Be Abolished . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/rethinking-justice-why-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/ [Accessed: 17-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

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

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

Please check your inbox.

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

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

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

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

The Inhumanity of the Death Penalty

In America, the history of the criminal justice system—and of executions—is inseparable from white supremacy.

Fifteen years ago, Clayton Lockett shot Stephanie Neiman twice , then watched as his friends buried her alive. Last week, Lockett was tortured to death by the state of Oklahoma. The torture was not so much the result of intention as neglect. The state knew that its chosen methods—a triple-drug cocktail—could result in a painful death. (An inmate executed earlier this year by the method was heard to say, "I feel my whole body burning.") Oklahoma couldn't care less. It executed Lockett anyway.

Over at Bloomberg View, Ramesh Ponnuru has taken the occasion to pen a column ostensibly arguing against the death penalty. But Ponnuru, evidently embarrassed to find himself in liberal company, spends most of the column dismissing the arguments of soft-headed bedfellows:

On the core issue—yes or no on capital punishment—I'm with the opponents. Better to err on the side of not taking life. The teaching of the Catholic Church, to which I belong, seems right to me: The state has the legitimate authority to execute criminals, but it should refrain if it has other means of protecting people from them. Our government almost always does. Still, when I hear about an especially gruesome crime, like the one the Oklahoma killer committed, I can't help rooting for the death penalty. And a lot of the arguments its opponents make are unconvincing. Take the claims of racial bias—that we execute black killers, or the killers of white victims, at disproportionate rates. Even if those disputed claims are true, they don't point toward abolition of the death penalty. Executing more white killers, or killers of black victims, would reduce any disparity just as well.

Those of us who cite the disproportionate application of the death penalty as a reason for outlawing it do so because we believe that a criminal-justice system is not an abstraction but a real thing, existing in a real context, with a real history. In America, the history of the criminal justice—and the death penalty—is utterly inseparable from white supremacy. During the Civil War, black soldiers were significantly more likely to be court-martialed and executed than their white counterparts. This practice continued into World War II. "African-Americans comprised 10 percent of the armed forces but accounted for almost 80 percent of the soldiers executed during the war," writes law professor Elizabeth Lutes Hillman.

In American imagination, the lynching era is generally seen as separate from capital punishment. But virtually no one was ever charged for lynching. The country refused to outlaw it. And sitting U.S. senators such as Ben Tillman and Theodore Bilbo openly called for lynching for crimes as grave as rape and as dubious as voting. Well into the 20th century, capital punishment was, as John Locke would say, lynching "coloured with the name, pretences, or forms of law."

The youngest American ever subjected to the death penalty was George Junius Stinney . It is very hard to distinguish his case from an actual lynching. At age 14, Stinney, a black boy, walked to the execution chamber

with a Bible under his arm, which he later used as a booster seat in the electric chair. Standing 5 foot 2 inches (157 cm) tall and weighing just over 90 pounds (40 kg), his size (relative to the fully grown prisoners) presented difficulties in securing him to the frame holding the electrodes. Nor did the state's adult-sized face-mask fit him; as he was hit with the first 2,400 V surge of electricity, the mask covering his face slipped off, “revealing his wide-open, tearful eyes and saliva coming from his mouth ... After two more jolts of electricity, the boy was dead."

Living with racism in America means tolerating a level of violence inflicted on the black body that we would not upon the white body. This deviation is not a random fact, but the price of living in a society with a lengthy history of considering black people as a lesser strain of humanity. When you live in such a society, the prospect of incarcerating, disenfranchising, and ultimately executing white humans at the same rate as black humans makes makes very little sense. Disproportion is the point.

The "Hey Guys, Let's Not Be Racist" switch is really "Hey Guys, Let's Pretend We Aren't American" switch or a "Hey Guys, Let's Pretend We Aren't Human Beings" switch. The death penalty—like all state actions—exists within a context constructed by humans, not gods. Humans tend to have biases, and the systems we construct often reflect those biases. Understanding this, it is worth asking whether our legal system should be in the business of doling out an ultimate punishment, one for which there can never be any correction. Citing racism in our justice system isn't mere shaming, it's a call for a humility and self-awareness, which presently evades us.

I was sad to see Ponnuru's formulation, because it so echoed the unfortunate thoughts of William F. Buckley. In 1965, Buckley debated James Baldwin at the Cambridge Union Society. That was the year John Lewis was beaten at the Edmund Pettus Bridge, and Viola Liuzzo was shot down just outside of Selma, Alabama. In that same campaign, Martin Luther King gave, arguably, his greatest speech. (" How Long? Not long. Truth forever on the scaffold. Wrong forever on the throne. ")  In whole swaths of the country, black people lacked the basic rights of citizenship—central among them, the right to vote. Buckley spent much of his time sneering at complaints of American racism. When the issue of the vote was raised Buckley responded by saying that the problem with Mississippi wasn't that "not enough Negroes have the vote but that too many white people are voting."

There's something revealed in the logic—in both Ponnuru and Buckley's case—that we should fix disproportion by making more white people into niggers. It is the same logic of voter-ID laws , which will surely disenfranchise huge swaths of white voters, for the goal of disenfranchising proportionally more black voters. I'm not sure what all that means—it's the shadow of something I haven't worked out.

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.

84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples

If you’ve looked for capital punishment essay topics, you’re in luck! Below, our experts have collected some death penalty title ideas and samples for your paper.

📝 Capital Punishment Essay Writing Tips

✔️ top death penalty title ideas, 🏆 best death penalty essay titles & examples, 💡 most interesting death penalty topics to write about, ❓ capital punishment research questions.

Capital punishment has been a debatable issue for decades. Some people believe that the death penalty plays a crucial role in the criminal justice system, while others think that this procedure is highly unethical.

An essay on capital punishment may be a challenging assignment because students should know much about the subject. Do not worry, we have got you covered! Read this article until the end and learn some important tips on writing capital punishment essays.

Start with choosing the subject for your paper. Here are some capital punishment essay topics that you can use:

• Capital punishment in the media
• Crime and punishment in today’s world: Death penalty
• Capital punishment essay: Arguments against death penalty
• The legal and ethical implications of capital punishment
• Capital punishment should be forbidden: Anti-death penalty arguments
• Why capital punishment may target the poor
• Death penalty: An issue of life and death

Remember that these are just examples of topics and titles for your paper. You can choose any related capital punishment essay titles. Once you have selected a topic of your essay, you can start working on the assignment. Here are the key points you should use to write an outstanding essay:

• Study the subject thoroughly. Use reliable sources to analyze the legal and ethical aspects of the death penalty. Select the sources you will use in the paper and remember that they should be credible.
• A well-developed outline is key. Make sure that your paper includes an introduction, a conclusion, and several body paragraphs.
• If you are not sure about the structure of your paper, check out essays online to see how they are organized. This step can also help you to see whether the selected problem is relevant. Remember that you should avoid copying the information you will find online. Plagiarism will make your essay look unreliable and get you a bad grade.
• Remember that you should present your capital punishment essay thesis in the last sentence of your introductory paragraph. Hint: Start working on your introductory paragraph after you research the subject. It will help you to present the background information correctly.
• Identify the goals of your paper clearly. Do you want to prove your point or provide insight on the issue? Answer these questions before starting to work on your assignment.
• Define capital punishment. You can discuss its legal implications, its prevalence in different countries, and the offenses that can potentially lead to a death penalty.
• When working on an opinion piece, state your viewpoint clearly. Do you think that all countries should legalize death penalties? Do you believe that capital punishment is unethical? Do some offenders deserve a death penalty more than others do? Answer these questions in detail.
• Remember that the purpose of your paper should be to help the reader understand capital punishment better. Your essay should motivate the audience to develop an opinion about the subject.
• Always support your arguments with evidence. Cite articles in an appropriate style (MLA, APA, Harvard, or other). The best type of sources for your paper is peer-reviewed articles and other scholarly publications.
• Restate your arguments and the thesis in a concluding section. Provide a summary of your findings along with recommendations for future research.

Need more ideas for your essay? Check out our free samples on the website!

• Why should the death penalty be abolished?
• What are some unusual punishments for crimes?
• Can the death penalty be compared to killing in cold blood?
• Is life imprisonment more just than the death penalty?
• Reasons to criticize capital punishment in China.
• Analyzing A Descending Spiral by Marc Bookman.
• What are the pros of capital punishment?
• Executing the innocent people: the issue of mistake.
• Abolishing the death penalty in Texas.
• Serial killers sentenced to capital punishment.
• Death Penalty: Utilitarian View on Capital Punishment Another significant benefit offered by the death penalty to the society is that it leads to the permanent incapacitation of the convicted person.
• Capital Punishment in the UK Should be Reintroduced? ‘Capital Punishment’ or the ‘Death Penalty’ is the judicially ordered, lawful infliction of death as a punishment for a serious crime called a ‘capital offence’ or a ‘capital crime.
• Analysis: Speech In Favor of Capital Punishment by John Stuart Mills Mills rightly points out that the very grounds of humanity used to support the removal of the death penalty should also be the ones used to support retaining of the sentence.
• Capital Punishment and Deterrence of Crime For the case of murder or crimes that necessitate capital punishment, the incentive to commit murder is directly related to the uncertainties that punishments for the crime will generate.
• Capital Punishment: Advantages and Disadvantages This paper examines death penalty from an impartial view by considering disadvantages and advantages of capital punishment in society. Thirdly, Teeters views that death penalty is a retribution action in which a victim is punished […]
• The Death Penalty in the Modern Society The cost of maintenance of the convicted individuals is also one of the reasons that necessitate the death penalty. The reaffirmation of the death penalty is also attributed to the teachings portrayed by most religions.
• Capital Punishment Role in the World However, it is wrong and unjustified because it is inhuman, unfair, violates the human right to life, and it does not aid in reduction of crime.
• Capital Punishment and the Death Penalty Furthermore, the defense and, in the United States, the prosecution has the right of vexatious challenge, which allows it to confront several participants without providing a reason.
• Capital Punishment Is Morally and Legally Wrong The problem of the death penalty is complex and multifaceted. It affects the political, legal, moral, cultural, and other fields of life.
• Justifications for Capital Punishment This statement mostly appeals to a general deterrence argument, as the fear of punishment emerged from showing its implementation, but not from other justifications effects.
• The Significance of Capital Punishment in the UAE Current analysis of the importance of the death penalty worldwide focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of the punishment. The UAE has a mandatory death penalty which is susceptible to the judgment of authorities and […]
• Capital Punishment: Utilitarianism and Retributivism Theories However, to rule out chances of an innocent person being punished, the theory advocates for justice; before punishment is administered, the court should proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
• Capital Punishment Interpretation and Exceptions Under custody, the law applies to cases in which the conditions of custody are compromised and to situations where the suspect is held unfairly. The suspect responded with a yes and this was used as […]
• Capital Punishment Debates: Death Penalty The capital punishment has been practiced in almost all the societies and all epochs in the development of the mankind. The author educates the society as a whole on litigious issues of the death penalty […]
• Capital Punishment in Florida The system is erroneous and cases that almost end up in the ‘chair’ are overturned contrary to the expectations of the family members of the murdered.
• Capital Punishment: Term Definition In that regard, taking such issues such as euthanasia, abortion and capital punishment, the latter can be considered as the most delicate, especially considering many cases that represent exceptions that are feared to be repeated.
• Capital Punishment – Moral or Immoral? It would not be a futile exercise to interpret capital punishment in the light of religion before proceeding to the subject of my argument. Countries that give importance to such punishments should tone down and […]
• Capital Punishment in the US Analysis Capital Punishment is the lawful infliction of death as a punishment for a major crime. The first argument against Capital Punishment is that it is inhumane.
• An Orwellian Look at Capital Punishment His reaction to the actual hanging of a puny Hindu man borders on a strategy of remaining as a detached viewer and subconsciously, his gorge rises at the thought of a human being with a […]
• Public Opinion on Capital Punishment for Juveniles This essay is a study of the public opinion on Capital Punishment for juveniles, this is a very controversial subject as many people are against Captial punishment, and many are for life imprisonment, capital punishment […]
• Capital Punishment and Race Factor in the US First of all, it is necessary to briefly discuss the history of race in the U.S.to provide a foundation for the bias and explain its causes.
• The Controversy Over Capital Punishment It is as a result of this that he concludes that Ford calls for the execution of capital punishment as a penalty in criminal offences.
• Capital Punishment in Melville’s “Billy Budd, Sailor” One of the reasons for the triumph of Billy Budd, Sailor in America and the United Kingdom, was the precision, with which the author portrayed the historical and cultural context, particularly Melville analyzed both issues […]
• Capital Punishment in Indonesia The government is also known to safeguard the details of capital punishment in the country. The targeted prisoners are “executed in the middle of the night”.
• Capital Punishment, Its Ethics and Infair Justice The main factors leading to differences in stands between the anti-capital punishment and pro-death are the morality and religious issues surrounding the matter.
• Capital Punishment and Unusual Punishment The issue of capital punishment has always been on the radar of the Supreme Court of the United States. The key question that should be answered is the future of capital punishment and unusual punishment […]
• Capital Punishment in United States The most compelling argument in support of capital punishment is that failing to execute murderers may in itself put more lives in danger.
• Debates on Capital Punishment in the US For example, capital punishment is the best punishment for murder because it is equal to the crime. Thirdly, capital punishment is a violation of the human right to life.
• The Ethical and Legal Standards of Capital Punishment This is one of the details that should be considered. This is one of the pitfalls that should be avoided.
• Isolation and Capital Punishments On the other hand, capital punishments such as deaths deprives of people the freedom of life and goes against God’s command which disallows intentional killings of persons, or murder. Similarly, capital punishment in the form […]
• Does the Death Sentence Offer Justice to the Criminal? It is not enough to be locked in prison for ending the life of a fellow human being. Revenge is one of the ways that can be used.
• The Consequences of Capital Punishment The appeals in the death penalty cases are usually many and cause the social costs of the cases to be even more expensive.
• Moral Issue of Capital Punishment Capital punishment is also a form of premeditated death as the action is planned for, does it mean that the state has the right to premeditate deaths for some of its citizens because they are […]
• The Death Penalty Debate in the United States of America The punishment is believed to have been there even at the time of the earlier colonies of the United States; it as well continued to be in force within the states that came to form […]
• Psychological Aspects of Capital Punishment According to research done by Freedman and Hemenway on a group of death row inmates, it was established that almost a two-thirds of the death row inmates are retarded.
• Avoiding of Capital Punishment Capital punishment is also unnecessary since there are better ways of punishing criminals such as life imprisonment to keep the society in order and at peace.
• The Economic Significance of Capital Punishment The survival of any civilization hinges on the establishment of laws and codes of conduct and the subsequent obeying of the same by the society’s members.
• Capital Punishment in Modern American History: Lists of Capital Crimes That Varied From Region to Region Politicians are frequently trying to expand the scope of capital punishment by bringing in a host of crimes under it.”The US public has deep concern over violent crimes due to the cynical manipulation of capital […]
• Analysis of Capital Punishment in the Films Those for the death penalty in the movie are represented by Ramunda who becomes a strong advocate for the death penalty and in many instances, is a counterpart of Cushing.
• Capital Punishment Legislation The main reasons that opponents of the death penalty give for their position are, the fact that the death penalty is inhumane and cruel.
• Capital Punishment as an Option in Maryland Death penalty is the most serious punishment that can be used by the government against people; and even if it costs less then keeping a person in jail till the end of his/her life and […]
• Capital Punishment in Political View This is because quiet a number of the abolitions have been associated with democratic developments in political systems of the countries that have abolished the penalties. Conservatives have in the United States been strongly opposed […]
• Capital Punishment: A Critical Evaluation of Its Appropriateness in Modern Society In line with the above argument, supporters of capital punishment argue that the practice permanently removes thieves, murderers, rapists, and other criminals from the face of society, in the process making it safer for compliant […]
• Capital Punishment: Proponents and Opponents Arguements The opponents of capital of capital punishment argue that it is not a just and humane way of punishing heinous criminals in the society because everybody has right to life.
• What Does Capital Punishment Mean in History?
• How Can Death Penalty Prevent Repeat Offenders?
• Why Should Capital Punishment Be Reinstated in Australia?
• How Objective and Justifiable Are Our Reasons for Enforcing the Death Penalty?
• Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect?
• How Has the Death Penalty Changed Over Time?
• What Is Wrong With Capital Punishment?
• Should Federal Courts Review State Death Penalty Cases?
• Can Capital Punishment Ever Be Justified?
• Should the Death Penalty Apply to Juvenile Criminals?
• Does the Death Penalty Breach Human Rights?
• Can Capital Punishment Keep Us Safe?
• Should the Death Penalty Be a Part of the System of Justice?
• Does Capital Punishment Equate to Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
• Should the Death Penalty Be Enforced?
• How Does Capital Punishment Affirm Life?
• Should the Death Penalty Be Imposed for Drug Offences?
• Does Capital Punishment Have a Local Deterrent Effect on Homicides?
• Should the Death Penalty Be Mandatory for Homicide?
• How Does Capital Punishment Work in the United States?
• Should the Death Penalty Be Morally Acceptable?
• Does Race Affect the Way of Capital Punishment?
• What Crimes Are Charged With Death Penalty?
• Does the Capital Punishment Have a Role in Civilized Society?
• Why Should Capital Punishment Be Abolished?
• What Effects Does the Death Penalty Cause on Society?
• How Does Legislation Help to Prevent Racial Bias in Death Penalty Convictions?
• Is the Death Penalty Fair?
• Does Jodi Arias Deserve the Death Penalty?
• What Attitudes Might Christians Hold About Capital Punishment?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 22). 84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/capital-punishment-essay-examples/

"84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 22 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/capital-punishment-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples'. 22 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples." February 22, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/capital-punishment-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples." February 22, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/capital-punishment-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "84 Capital Punishment Essay Topics & Examples." February 22, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/capital-punishment-essay-examples/.

• Constitution Research Ideas
• Prison Paper Topics
• Euthanasia Titles
• Mass Incarceration Essay Topics
• Crime Ideas
• Murder Questions
• Crime Prevention Research Topics
• Serial Killer Paper Topics

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Death Penalty — The Death Penalty: Pros and Cons

The Death Penalty: Pros and Cons

• Categories: Capital Punishment Death Penalty

About this sample

Words: 2398 |

12 min read

Published: Oct 11, 2018

Words: 2398 | Pages: 5 | 12 min read

Table of contents

Pros and cons of death penalty, works cited.

• Bedau, H. A., & Cassell, P. G. (Eds.). (2016). Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? Oxford University Press.
• Fagan, J., & Zimring, F. E. (2019). Death Penalty, Deterrence, and Homicide Rates: Empirical Evidence Contradicting Many Years of Research. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 16(2), 221-243.
• Garvey, S. P. (2017). The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. Oxford University Press.
• Haag, E. V. D. (1983). A defense of capital punishment. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 11, 1-28.
• Kastenberger, C., & Weyringer, M. (2017). The Impact of Capital Punishment on the Social Fabric of American Society: The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty. Lambert Academic Publishing.
• Liebman, J. S., & Clarke, P. (2013). The Fallibility of Fairness: An Analysis of Louisiana's Death Penalty as a Case Study in How a Death Penalty Jurisdiction Can Get It Wrong. American Journal of Criminal Law, 40, 207-251.
• Marzilli, A. (2017). Reassessing the Proportionality Requirement for Death Penalty Cases. Notre Dame Law Review, 92(5), 1989-2026.
• Peterson, A., & Bailey, W. C. (2019). The Relationship between Poverty and the Death Penalty. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(3), 317-333.
• Schabas, W. A. (2015). The Death Penalty as Cruel Treatment and Torture: Capital Punishment Challenged in the World's Courts. Harvard University Press.
• Zimring, F. E. (2019). The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment. Oxford University Press.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

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

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

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

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 694 words

2 pages / 760 words

4 pages / 1959 words

3 pages / 1531 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

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

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

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

Related Essays on Death Penalty

In conclusion, the ethical considerations surrounding the death penalty for murderers are complex and multifaceted. The arguments for deterrence, retribution, and justice are countered by concerns about the risk of wrongful [...]

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, has been a contentious issue in the United States for decades. The history of the death penalty in the US is fraught with controversy, and its current state continues to be a subject of [...]

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, has been a contentious issue around the world for centuries. This form of punishment involves the judicial execution of a convicted individual for committing a serious crime, [...]

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a highly debated and controversial topic. While some argue that it serves as a deterrent for heinous crimes and provides justice for victims and their families, others [...]

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

The Death Penalty has frequently been on the rise lately. In Micheal Cohen’s “Death Penalty should be Abolished now”, he gives some very good valid point on why the Death Penalty should be Abolished. Starting off with one being [...]

Related Topics

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

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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

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

Argumentative essay on death penalty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aggravated murder charge filed against truck driver accused of killing Utah police officer

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Prosecutors in Utah filed an aggravated murder charge Tuesday against a truck driver accused of intentionally killing a police officer during a traffic stop , but the Utah County attorney said it he has not yet decided whether to pursue the death penalty for the capital offense.

Michael Aaron Jayne, 42, is scheduled to make a court appearance on Wednesday to be informed of the nine felony charges, including two counts of attempted aggravated murder for allegedly trying to run over a Utah Highway Patrol trooper and a woman who Jayne is charged with kidnapping. Other charges allege Jayne stole other vehicles and broke into a house while fleeing officers following the May 5 traffic stop.

Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray said if, after a preliminary hearing, a judge determines prosecutors have enough evidence to go to trial and if Jayne pleads not guilty, he will have 60 days to decide whether to seek the death penalty. An aggravated murder conviction in Utah carries a penalty of at least 25 years in prison, up to life, or the death penalty.

Court documents do not list an attorney for Jayne, but Gray said he would be granted legal representation during Wednesday’s court hearing.

Gray said he would notify the public when his office decides whether to pursue the death penalty. He declined to take questions Tuesday after announcing the charges and said he would not comment on the case while it was ongoing.

Santaquin Police Sgt. Bill Hooser and Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Dustin Griffiths stopped the semitrailer at 6:30 a.m. on May 5 in Santaquin, 65 miles (105 kilometers) south of Salt Lake City after a 911 caller who declined to identify himself reported that a person was standing on the back of a semitrailer as it traveled north on Interstate 15.

Charging documents filed Tuesday revealed that it was Jayne who made the 911 call and that he also reported members of the Hells Angels motorcycle gang were after him. It’s not clear why Jayne called 911.

After the truck stopped, a woman escaped from the passenger side of the semitrailer and Jayne drove away. He made a U-turn and sped toward the officers, court records said.

Hooser was struck by the semitrailer. Griffiths and the woman were able to avoid being hit, charging documents said.

The woman told investigators that she had been riding willingly with Jayne until they argued at a truck stop in Utah. He eventually forced her back into the truck with threats of violence, court records said.

Hooser’s funeral was held on Monday in Orem.

Top headlines by email, weekday mornings

Get top headlines from the Union-Tribune in your inbox weekday mornings, including top news, local, sports, business, entertainment and opinion.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

More in this section

Nation-World

Lawyers discuss role classified documents may play in bribery case against US Rep Cuellar of Texas

Prosecutors and defense attorneys have discussed in court whether classified documents might play a role in the trial of U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas

Repeal of a dead law to use public funds for private school tuition won’t be on Nebraska’s ballot

A measure to repeal a now-defunct Nebraska law that would use public money to fund private school tuition has been pulled from the November ballot

Federal prosecutor in Arkansas stepped down while being investigated, report says

Justice Department documents show a federal prosecutor in Arkansas stepped down from the post while under investigation for having an inappropriate relationship with an employee

Transgender girl faces discrimination from a Mississippi school’s dress code, ACLU says

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a complaint against a Mississippi school district over a dress code policy based on students’ sex assigned at birth

Oregon man convicted of sexually abusing 2 teen girls he met online gets 12 1/2 years in prison

Prosecutors say an Oregon man who met two 15-year-old girls on Snapchat, sexually abused them while traveling through three states and finally abandoned them at a park has been sentenced to over a decade in prison

What to know about how much the aid from a US pier project will help Gaza

A U.S.-built pier is in place to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza by sea, but no one will know if the new route will work until a steady stream of deliveries begins reaching starving Palestinians

Gavin Newsom, during his speech at the Vatican on climate change, accuses Trump of ‘open corruption’

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Gov. Gavin Newsom accused former President Trump of “open corruption” in a speech Thursday at a climate summit of Catholic officials and international leaders, elevating his criticism of the Republican leader in the hallowed halls of the Vatican.

The California governor referenced news stories alleging that Trump recently s olicited campaign donations from oil executives and at the same event vowed to walk back climate protections if elected in the 2024 presidential contest.

“He openly asked them for $1 billion to roll back the environmental progress of the Biden administration, environmental progress that we’ve made over the course of the last half century,” Newsom said. “Open corruption. A billion dollars to pollute our states, to pollute our country, and to pollute this planet and roll back progress.”

The governor spoke at a three-day “From Climate Crisis to Climate Resilience” summit organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Newsom said he decided to call out Trump by name at the international gathering of governors, mayors and policy experts because he felt stories about Trump’s meeting with oil executives didn’t get enough attention.

“It’s an expression of my sincerity about how serious I take this moment and how consequential it is,” the governor said about the possible negative effects on climate change if Trump returns to the White House.

His comments were also strategic. Climate change isn’t necessarily driving American Catholics to the polls, but drawing attention to an accusation of pay-to-play political corruption might resonate more with Pope Francis’ supporters in the U.S. More than 50 million Americans identify as Catholic.

Newsom’s appearance is likely to elevate his position as a climate leader on a world stage.

With temperatures and carbon emissions rising worldwide, the aim of the conference is for local and state governments to share best practices about fighting climate change and adapting to hotter temperatures, rising seas and a more volatile environment.

Parts of Newsom’s talk matched the tenor of a critique of the oil industry he delivered last fall at the United Nations Climate Ambition Summit in New York.

“It’s because of the burning of gas, the burning of coal, the burning of oil,” Newsom said at the Vatican. “We have the tools. We have the technology. We have the capacity to address the issue at a global scale and they’ve been fighting every single advancement and we have got to call that out.”

Bob Salladay, Newsom’s top communications advisor, said his candid assessment earlier in New York of the industry, which he said was playing everyone for fools, caught the attention of the Vatican and is one of the reasons he was invited to speak at the climate summit.

Climate change is central to both Pope Francis and Newsom. But do Catholic voters care?

Gov. Gavin Newsom is speaking at the Vatican at a climate conference that gives him and his party an opportunity to align with Pope Francis in a critical election year.

May 15, 2024

The setting of his speech, in a carpeted auditorium at the Vatican that typically houses gatherings of bishops, drew a stark contrast to the marbled floors and renaissance murals that lined the walls and ceilings of Clementine Hall, where Newsom spoke with Pope Francis on Thursday morning.

In an address to government leaders and climate scientists in Clementine Hall, Pope Francis cast the destruction of the environment as an offense against God.

“This is the question: Are we working for a culture of life or for a culture of death?” Pope Francis said.

Newsom and his wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, sat in the second row of the audience in an Apostolic Palace near St. Peter’s Basilica.

A pope’s body is placed in the hall for private visitation upon his death. It’s also the same room that former President Obama visited in 2009.

Pope Francis called the refusal to protect the most vulnerable who are exposed to climate change caused by human activity a “grave violation of human rights.”

He said around 1 billion people in wealthier nations “produce more than half the heat trapping pollutants” of the world. Poorer people, he said, contribute less than 10% and suffer 75% of the resulting damage.

Pope Francis also took a shot at fossil fuel companies.

“An orderly progress is being held back by the greedy pursuit of short-term gains by polluting industries and by the spread of disinformation, which generates confusion and obstructs collective efforts for a change in course,” Francis said.

The governor called the pope’s address “remarkable.”

“I knew what I was going to say already, but he said it before I said it,” Newsom said.

Saying the stakes could not be higher, Newsom to speak at Vatican climate summit

Gov. Gavin Newsom will speak at a climate summit of mayors and governors hosted by Pope Francis at the Vatican in May.

April 29, 2024

After Francis’ speech, Newsom and Siebel Newsom walked along an aisle of ornate stone tiles to the front of the room, where the governor briefly spoke with the leader of the Catholic Church. The governor said the pope commended his administration’s work on the death penalty.

The governor said he was struck by the pope’s support for what Newsom described as a difficult decision to issue a moratorium on the death penalty and close California’s execution chambers in 2019.

At the time, more than 700 people were on death row. Newsom met with families of some of the victims who had been killed by the inmates.

“It was nice that he brought up the issue and thanked California for the direction we’re going,” Newsom said.

Newsom’s action ran counter to the expressed will of California voters, who over the previous six years had rejected two statewide ballot measures to repeal the death penalty.

A procession of attendees also greeted the pope, who took time to shake hands with every person in the room.

The pope signed a planetary compact after his speech, which Newsom and other government leaders also signed Thursday.

Wade Crowfoot, California’s Natural Resources secretary, described the compact as an unprecedented agreement among international governors, mayors, Indigenous leaders and scientists to work together to confront climate change with a focus on resiliency and equity.

Crowfoot and Lauren Sanchez, Newsom’s top climate advisor, also participated in hours of meetings at the conference on Wednesday.

Newsom is hosting a state climate summit in Southern California this fall as a continuation of the work at the Vatican conference. The state will be inviting local leaders and experts from California.

“We’re taking the torch of subnational leadership back to California, where it belongs, to convene scientists, local governments and leaders to tackle the climate threat that is the existential crisis of our time,” Sanchez said.

Some environmentalists in California said Newsom’s rhetoric on the global stage is not entirely matched by his actions at home. Though Newsom has championed many environmental measures and has waged a battle with oil companies as governor, he proposed cutting $3.6 billion for climate-related programs to help address the state budget deficit.

Susan Stephenson, executive director of a religious environmental advocacy organization called Interfaith Power and Light, took issue with a recent decision by Newsom’s appointees on the California Public Utilities Commission that she said would slow the use of rooftop solar power.

“He’s saying a lot of the right things,” Stephenson said. “And it is not matched by the urgency of action that we need as climate change is worsening.”

Newsom has also received criticism from some Republicans for traveling abroad instead of staying home to focus exclusively on California’s problems.

That was not the sentiment of a Democratic couple from Riverside who saw Newsom and his wife on a tour of the Roman Forum after the speech. They said they were surprised to see the governor in Rome.

Walter and Susan Davis said they believe in climate change and support the governor coming to deliver the speech, which they called “a real reason.”

“That’s what I’m talking about,” Walter Davis said.

Times Sacramento Bureau Chief Laurel Rosenhall contributed to this report.

More to Read

Newsom touts billions in climate spending through California’s cap-and-trade program

May 9, 2024

Column: Trump loves fossil fuels; California wants clean energy. Cue collision

March 31, 2024

Editorial: California can’t let big polluters win by undermining climate change disclosure laws

March 8, 2024

Start your day right

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Taryn Luna covers Gov. Gavin Newsom and California politics in Sacramento for the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Single-payer healthcare meets its fate again in the face of California’s massive budget deficit

Secret FBI files: Former L.A. city attorney lied to federal investigators and likely obstructed justice

California psychedelics bill that would bring ‘magic mushrooms’ into the mainstream fails – again

Column: Champagne wishes and caviar dreams ... of a Senate seat in Wisconsin?

May 16, 2024

Election Updates: Trump has ‘no problem’ including R.F.K. Jr. in debates, an idea Biden has rejected.

• Share full article

Chris Cameron

The stock market briefly hit a record high milestone today , and the Biden campaign has taken the opportunity to needle Donald Trump for his claims — both recently and during the 2020 campaign — that Joe Biden would crash the economy if elected. Biden just joined in on the victory lap from a personal social media account, posting a meme of himself handing Trump an “L” while holding an ice cream cone.

Jazmine Ulloa

Representative Henry Cuellar’s indictment may reinforce the distrust of public officials, local Democrats in his district said, at a time when the party is seeking to engage the larger Hispanic electorate nationwide. Latinos now make up the largest and one of the fastest-growing segments of voters of color in the nation, yet have the lowest levels participation at the ballot box.

Democrats in Washington have refrained from calling for Representative Henry Cuellar’s resignation after he was indicted on federal bribery charges. But tensions are brewing in Cuellar’s South Texas district, where local leaders fear his case could dampen Democratic turnout in the historically blue, majority-Hispanic counties that have lately seen a surprising rightward turn.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs

President Biden announced today that he has taken another step to reclassify the way the federal government treats marijuana. We reported last month the Justice Department recommended easing restrictions on marijuana, which is currently classified on the same level as substances like heroin, sparking an arduous rule-making process. But the decision to release a video announcement reflects the eagerness among Democrats to use the marijuana announcement to energize young voters.

Even though the process for reclassifying marijuana will take months, Democrats are hoping such a move can appease those still hoping for systemic changes to the criminal justice system. “It’s an important move towards reversing longstanding inequities,” Biden says in a video posted to social media announcing the decision. “No one should be in jail for merely using or possessing marijuana. Period.”

Neil Vigdor

Mike Pence, who was Donald J. Trump’s vice president, offered Trump’s yet-to-be named running mate advice about debating Vice President Kamala Harris. “Just remember, she’s a prosecutor,” he told the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt . “I think, look, we’ve got the better portion on our side.” He continued: “She’ll try and raise the question of abortion. She’ll try and relitigate the past.”

Rebecca Davis O’Brien

Last night’s “Night of Comedy” fund-raiser for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in Nashville was notable for a range of hippie sentiment and embittered conspiracy mongering that has become typical of his independent presidential campaign. It’s not every show that begins with an acoustic singalong of “You Are My Sunshine,” and ends with Russell Brand describing Anthony Fauci as a “ghoulish little gnome.”

Nicholas Nehamas

The Biden campaign told CBS that it had accepted the network’s invitation to participate in a vice presidential debate, on either July 23 or Aug. 13. The Trump campaign, which does not have a vice presidential candidate, has not yet accepted.

Former President Donald J. Trump taunted President Biden over his opposition to including the independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the debates that the rivals agreed to on Wednesday. In a social media post, Trump said that Kennedy was “sharper and far more intelligent” than Biden and that the two would be “debating over the same territory, like ridiculous Open Borders and the Green New Scam.”

There is growing tension over the rules for the CNN debate that President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump agreed to. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an independent, has vowed to qualify and participate — and it is possible he could qualify. But the Biden campaign has said its terms were “for two one-on-one debates” with Trump, slamming the door on any third-party participation.

Donald J. Trump weighed in on the grisly story of Kristi Noem shooting her family dog in an interview that aired on Tuesday, suggesting that Noem had not read the book carefully after her ghostwriter completed it. “That’s a tough story,” Trump said, adding, with a chuckle, “She had a bad week. We all have bad weeks.”

Trump says he has ‘no problem’ including R.F.K. Jr. in debates.

Former President Donald J. Trump said on Thursday that he would be open to including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the independent presidential candidate, in two upcoming debates between him and President Biden, though Mr. Biden’s team has made clear that is not an option.

Speaking to Scripps News , Mr. Trump said that as long as Mr. Kennedy met the criteria for participation set by the networks hosting the debates — CNN and ABC News — he would not object to having Mr. Kennedy onstage.

“Well, I have no problem with him,” Mr. Trump told Charles Benson, a political correspondent for the Scripps television station WTMJ in Milwaukee, before taking a swipe at Mr. Kennedy. “I think he’s really not doing well in the polls at all. His numbers have gone down a lot lately.”

President Biden’s campaign stipulated in a recent memo that the debates should be limited to him and Mr. Trump . While Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump agreed to participate in two debates, one on June 27 and another on Sept. 10, the terms are still being worked out.

In a social media post on Thursday, Mr. Trump taunted Mr. Biden about the possible inclusion of Mr. Kennedy, writing that Mr. Kennedy was “sharper and far more intelligent” than Mr. Biden, and that the two would be “debating over the same territory, like ridiculous Open Borders and the Green New Scam.”

A spokesman for Mr. Biden’s campaign referred to a statement on Wednesday from Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, Mr. Biden’s campaign chair, asserting that “Donald Trump has a long history of playing games with debates.”

Mr. Kennedy vowed to qualify for next month’s debate on CNN in a social media post on Wednesday. He also vented about his possible exclusion. “They are afraid I would win,” he said of Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump.

CNN and ABC News are using similar criteria, requiring participants to have received at least 15 percent support in four approved national polls and to have qualified for the ballot in enough states to have the chance to earn the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

Only two national polls currently have Mr. Kennedy above the 15 percent threshold — one from Quinnipiac University and another from CNN — and he is presently on the ballot in just six states, worth a combined 89 electoral votes.

His campaign is trying to secure ballot access in all 50 states, an expensive and time-consuming process that is expected to draw legal challenges from Democrats aligned with Mr. Biden.

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California accuses Trump of ‘open corruption’ at climate meeting.

Burnishing his climate credentials at a conference hosted by Pope Francis at the Vatican on Thursday, California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, criticized former President Donald J. Trump for reportedly meeting with fossil fuel executives and asking them for $1 billion in contributions to his election campaign.

“Open corruption,” Mr. Newsom said to a gathering of religious officials, scientists and politicians from around the world. “A billion dollars to pollute our states, to pollute our country, and to pollute this planet and to roll back progress in the open.”

Mr. Newsom hasn’t been shy about his stance on climate change. He often attends climate conferences and as governor he has signed a raft of laws and regulations to speed the nation’s most populous state away from fossil fuels, including a ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035 and a mandate to stop adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2045. He wants to end oil drilling in his state, a major oil producer, also by 2045.

Under his watch, the state of California has also sued several of the world’s biggest oil companies , claiming that their actions have caused tens of billions of dollars in damage and that they deceived the public by downplaying the risks posed by fossil fuels.

Mr. Trump, on the other hand, has promised to reverse laws intended to accelerate the nation’s transition to electric vehicles, and to push policies aimed at opening up more public lands to oil and gas exploration.

The conference at the Vatican is being attended by many global mayors and governors, including Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York and London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan. Pope Francis also used the occasion to call out world leaders as doing too little to limit global warming. In remarks on Thursday to attendees, he said, “This is the question: Are we working for a culture of life or for a culture of death?”

The pope called for particular attention to be paid to developing countries that are less able to adapt to a changing climate, and that have contributed far less to the accumulation of greenhouse gases causing those changes.

In 2015, the pope wrote an encyclical letter, “Laudato Si,” in which he exhorted political and corporate interests to act on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, he updated the letter, lamenting how little progress had been made since he refocused the Roman Catholic Church more fully on environmental issues.

Like Mr. Newsom, he, too, on Thursday called for the elimination of fossil fuel use and an end to the “greedy pursuit of short-term gains by polluting industries and by the spread of disinformation.”

Here’s what to know about CNN’s presidential debate.

President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump will participate in a CNN debate on June 27, just six weeks away.

It is one of the earliest presidential debates ever scheduled, and the event was brokered without the involvement of the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has hosted debates for nearly 40 years. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the independent presidential candidate, could qualify for the debate as well if he meets certain criteria.

Here’s what to know:

What are the terms of the debate?

Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump will face off against each other at CNN’s studios in Atlanta, just a few miles from the Fulton County jail where the former president was booked last year in his felony criminal case in the state. That case concerns his effort to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.

The debate will be held in a crucial swing state that Mr. Biden won in 2020 by just 11,779 votes . But it will take place without an audience, satisfying a condition from Mr. Biden’s team, which wanted to avoid an in-person audience that could cheer, boo or otherwise derail the discussion. Mr. Biden’s team also called for CNN to cut off the candidates’ microphones when they use up their allotted time.

The debate will be moderated by Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, the hosts of CNN’s marquee political news program, “State of the Union.”

Could R.F.K. Jr. participate?

Yes, it is possible. CNN has laid out several conditions for third-party candidates. One requires earning at least 15 percent support in four national polls, approved by the network, between March 13 and June 20. Mr. Kennedy already has at least two approved polls that show him above 15 percent, one from CNN and one from Quinnipiac University . He has another five weeks to pick up two more qualifying polls.

Mr. Kennedy must also get on the ballot in enough states that he has a chance to win the 270 electoral college votes needed to be elected president. He is currently on the ballot in five states , worth a total of 84 electoral college votes.

Mr. Biden, in announcing his desired format on Wednesday, said that he expected the debates to be one on one. Mr. Trump said on Thursday that he was not wedded to that condition.

CNN did not comment.

What makes this debate different from ones in previous elections?

Both the Trump and Biden campaigns have a mutual interest in circumventing the Commission on Presidential Debates and excluding Mr. Kennedy, who is drawing support from their own voters .

But it might actually be easier for a third-party candidate like Mr. Kennedy to qualify for the CNN debate, as compared with a traditional debate hosted by the commission. Under the rules for the commission’s debates, Mr. Kennedy would need an average of 15 percent support across five recent national polls , instead of 15 percent support in any four of the approved polls.

The average could have sharply decreased Mr. Kennedy’s viability. One poll released this week by The Economist and YouGov showed Mr. Kennedy with just 3 percent support , and Mr. Kennedy has polled only as high as 16 percent in other recent polls . Even the most favorable average of five recent polls would give Mr. Kennedy about 13.8 percent support.

Maggie Astor contributed reporting.

Rebecca Davis O’Brien and Chris Cameron

Rebecca Davis O’Brien reported from Nashville, and Chris Cameron from Washington

R.F.K. Jr. draws another $8 million from his running mate, Nicole Shanahan.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s running mate, the Silicon Valley investor Nicole Shanahan, said on Wednesday night that she had given another $8 million to their independent presidential campaign as it carries out the expensive endeavor of gaining ballot access across the country and tries to propel Mr. Kennedy onto debate stages.

Ms. Shanahan’s new donation, which she announced at a comedy fund-raiser in Nashville, brings her total contribution to the campaign to $10 million, not including the $4 million she gave to a super PAC backing Mr. Kennedy to help pay for a Super Bowl advertisement early this year. Ms. Shanahan, a lawyer who was formerly married to the Google co-founder Sergey Brin, gave the campaign $2 million shortly after Mr. Kennedy named her as his running mate in March.

After a nod to the media, Ms. Shanahan said, “I think I know what they’re going to say — they’re going to say Bobby only picked me for my money,” a remark that drew laughter from the crowd.

Ms. Shanahan’s comments came near the end of a four-hour event at the storied Ryman Auditorium in Nashville. She followed performances by comedians including Russell Brand, Rob Schneider and Jim Breuer, a former “Saturday Night Live” cast member. Many of the performers praised Mr. Kennedy, but they also used their time onstage to rail against Covid vaccinations, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the mainstream news media and President Biden.

Ms. Shanahan’s personal wealth has been a significant asset for Mr. Kennedy. While campaign finance laws constrain individuals from donating more than $6,600 to a campaign, the candidates themselves can give unlimited sums of their own money.

Her cash has provided a financial lifeline as their campaign undertakes a costly effort to get on the ballot in all 50 states — which would be a challenging and expensive undertaking under any circumstances, even more so because the Democratic Party and its allies have pledged to mount legal challenges to the effort.

Ms. Shanahan made her announcement the same day that Mr. Biden and former President Donald J. Trump agreed to two debates , one on June 27 on CNN and another on Sept. 10 on ABC News. In doing so, they rejected the traditional Commission on Presidential Debates, which had hosted the events for decades.

Both candidates were seeking to keep Mr. Kennedy off the stage, with Mr. Biden’s campaign chair, Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, writing explicitly in a letter to the commission, “President Biden made his terms clear for two one-on-one debates, and Donald Trump accepted those terms.”

But Mr. Kennedy could potentially qualify for the CNN debate, and the effort could actually be easier under the network’s polling rules than it would have been under the guidelines set by the debates commission. Mr. Kennedy needs to show at least 15 percent support in four approved national polls between March 13 and June 20. He already has at least two polls that show him above that threshold, one from CNN and one from Quinnipiac University . He has another five weeks to earn more qualifying polls.

To qualify for the CNN debate, Mr. Kennedy must also get on the ballot in enough states so that he could potentially win the 270 Electoral College votes needed to be elected president. He is currently on the ballot in five states , which in total have 84 electoral votes, but his campaign has another five weeks to place him on the ballot in other states before the deadline to qualify for the debate.

Mr. Kennedy criticized both Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump after news of their planned debates became public on Wednesday.

“They are trying to exclude me from their debate because they are afraid I would win,” he wrote on social media . “Keeping viable candidates off the debate stage undermines democracy.”

Adam Nagourney

With debate deal, Trump and Biden sideline a storied campaign institution.

The agreement by President Biden and Donald J. Trump to move ahead with two presidential debates — and sideline the Commission on Presidential Debates — is a debilitating and potentially fatal blow to an institution that had once been a major arbiter in presidential politics.

But the roots of the commission’s decline go back at least a decade and came to a head in 2020, when the commission struggled to stage a debate with Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden during the pandemic.

The candidates’ first encounter that year was caustic and raucous, as Mr. Trump shouted over Mr. Biden and the moderator. “I’m a pro: I’ve never been through anything like this,” the moderator, Chris Wallace , said.

As it later turned out, Mr. Trump had a Covid diagnosis days before the event, leading to strong objections from the Biden campaign to the commission. The second debate was canceled by Mr. Trump after the commission sought to make it virtual because Mr. Trump was recovering from the illness. By the third debate, the commission gave the moderator a mute button to cut off a candidate who broke the rules.

But even before then, the commission has been on political thin ice. Anita Dunn, a longtime senior adviser to Mr. Biden, helped write a 2015 report that called for the debates to be updated for a modern media environment. Mr. Trump accused the nonpartisan commission, created by the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in 1987, of bias toward the Democrats. The Republican National Committee announced in 2022 that it would not work with the commission.

“The campaigns have always wanted to take the debates back for themselves,” said Alan Schroeder, a professor emeritus at the Northeastern University School of Journalism in Boston, who has written several books about presidential debates. “They have been trying for years to get rid of the commission. So we are back to the future with this and back to a future that didn’t work that well.”

Frank Fahrenkopf Jr., who as Republican Party chairman helped create the commission and is now its co-chair, said in an interview that he was stunned by the campaigns’ decision to bypass the organization — and skeptical about how it might work.

“I would love to be a fly on the wall when the campaigns start to get together to go over the details of this,” he said. “Who sits where, who is the moderator, who is there, where these are. We were created to do all of this.”

Indeed, the commission was created to insert a bipartisan and empowered negotiator into the planning, covering matters such as moderator choices, how many guests each campaign could bring into the studio and the height of the lecterns the candidates stood behind.

It took over from the League of Women Voters, which had overseen the debates for a decade and was criticized for its lack of success in managing the demands of campaign operatives maneuvering for advantage. In 1984, the campaigns of Ronald Reagan, the Republican president, and Walter F. Mondale, his Democratic challenger, vetoed the names of 100 journalists suggested as panel questioners.

“The problem was that the league didn’t have a lot of clout against the campaign so the campaigns tended to run roughshod over them when it came to details of the format, the schedule, whether there would be a live audience,” Mr. Schroeder said.

The commission pushed aside practices that had evolved since the first televised presidential debates, in 1960, between Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy. Panels of questioners, which made it more difficult to stay focused on a topic, or allow for follow-up, were replaced by a single moderator. The commission decided who could participate and where the debates would be held, and made sure that they would be televised on all the major networks.

Locations, dates and the focus of the debate — would they be about foreign policy or domestic issues — were announced well in advance, with the idea of making it harder for the campaign to try to influence the rules of the game.

“I am a fan of the commission,” said Gibbs Knotts, a professor of political science at the College of Charleston. “They have a consistent record of good work. It’s unfortunate if it’s going to be returned back to the campaigns; there will be more strategic calculations going on and less overall what’s in the best interest in the American public.”

Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden were quick to agree on the dates and networks sponsoring the debates, but tough negotiations lie ahead. Mr. Biden wants debates without an audience and with microphones that automatically cut off when a speaker exceeds his allotted time. It’s unclear whether Mr. Trump has agreed to those terms.

It is also unresolved whether the debate would be carried exclusively on the host network, or shared with other broadcasters and streamers. One of the sponsors, ABC, said it would allow other networks to show the debates as well; CNN, at least initially, said it would not.

For viewers, there might be no obvious difference between a commission-organized debate and one negotiated by the candidates and a network.

“A debate is a live program. It doesn’t have a script. Because as history has shown us over and over again, the debates have a mind of their own and take on a life of their own,” Mr. Schroeder said.

Despite the years of discontent, Mr. Fahrenkopf said the commission was caught off guard by Mr. Biden’s proposal on Wednesday. “We had no head’s up,” he said. But he said he was hopeful the campaigns, after taking into account how difficult these negotiations can be, will ultimately allow the commission to step in and run the show.

“We are set to go,” he said.

Michael M. Grynbaum contributed reporting.

Far-right candidate in Missouri draws backlash for homophobic video.

It was a fringe Republican campaign ad that could be ripe for parody on late-night television, ideal material for a skit on “Saturday Night Live” or the target of a monologue from a bewildered Jon Stewart. Except it was real, and it is hard to imagine how it could be further satirized.

“In America, you can be anything you want,” Valentina Gomez, a 25-year-old immigrant from Colombia and real estate investor running in the G.O.P. primary for secretary of state in Missouri, says in the video as she jogs through a historic district of St. Louis to the uplifting beats of “The Show Goes On” by Lupe Fiasco.

“So don’t be weak and gay. Stay hard,” she continues, emphasizing her statement with an expletive. The neighborhood where the video was filmed, Soulard, has a significant L.G.B.T. community.

The campaign ad, which Ms. Gomez shared on her social media accounts, then transitions from the video of Ms. Gomez — wearing running shorts and a vest resembling body armor — to a still photo of the candidate in front of a truck and wearing a National Rifle Association hat, with an American flag at her side and a gun in each hand.

The campaign ad, first posted on Sunday, has drawn condemnation and scrutiny online. Mr. Fiasco, who has condemned homophobia in the hip-hop scene , distanced himself from the video that featured one of his hit singles, saying in a statement that he was “currently taking action.” Jason Kander, a former Democratic secretary of state in Missouri and a former Army intelligence officer , mocked Ms. Gomez in a social media post on Tuesday.

“So refreshing to see a female GOP candidate who never served in the military doing the whole veteran cosplay, stolen valor, bigotry as a substitute for strength routine as well as any man,” wrote Mr. Kander , who deployed to Afghanistan in 2006 and has since struggled with symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder .

But Ms. Gomez’s online trolling campaign, rife with homophobia and attacks against transgender people, has also earned her the admiration of far-right lawmakers, including Representative Matt Gaetz, online conservative influencers and the expelled former Representative George Santos — who is himself gay.

The jogging video is also not the first such homophobic stunt from Ms. Gomez, who appears eager to stand out as a political newcomer in a crowded Republican primary to be Missouri’s top elections official. In February, she posted a video of herself burning L.G.B.T.Q. books with a homemade flamethrower . A month later, she said that countries that ban flamethrowers were also “weak and gay,” and has since repeatedly used the homophobic phrase as an insult, wielding it as a campaign slogan.

Ms. Gomez has spent little on the race so far in comparison with some of her better-known opponents, including Dean Plocher, the speaker of the Missouri House . But her social media posts — which come at a frantic pace on X — have lifted her profile as she rails against the state party as corrupt and compromised.

“I speak the truth, and I am waking up the lions to save America,” Ms. Gomez wrote on social media on Wednesday, in defense of her ad. “Weakness will get us nowhere. The gloves are off, and I am here to protect and fight for Missouri.”

Ms. Gomez did not respond to a request for comment on social media.

Ms. Gomez’s remarks stand out not just for their provocative nature, but also because they are something of a non sequitur in the race she is running. A secretary of state is essentially a state’s chief bureaucrat, in charge of record-keeping and overseeing the state’s elections. Ms. Gomez is a 2020 election denier, and has said she would abolish voting machines and deploy the National Guard — an authority a secretary of state does not have — to secure elections.

Neil Vigdor and Yan Zhuang

Trump’s jet clipped a parked plane in Florida.

Former President Donald J. Trump landed in Cincinnati on Wednesday for a campaign fund-raiser, but without his ubiquitous Boeing 757, which had clipped a parked plane as it was taxiing at a Florida airport early on Sunday morning.

It was not immediately clear whether Mr. Trump was aboard his plane at the time of the mishap, according to details released by the Federal Aviation Administration and public information about the two aircraft that were involved. The incident happened several hours after Mr. Trump held a campaign rally at the Jersey Shore .

No injuries were reported, according to the F.A.A.’s notice about the incident , which listed the Boeing’s registration number as N757AF .

That is the same tail number as “Trump Force One,” the moniker for Mr. Trump’s airliner, which regularly shuttles the former president to campaign rallies and court appearances. The aircraft has been a source of braggadocio for Mr. Trump over the years — not to mention speculation about whether it might be seized as part of his civil fraud penalty in New York.

But on Wednesday, the aircraft was conspicuously absent as Mr. Trump descended from a considerably smaller private jet at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.

Mr. Trump’s campaign did not respond to questions about the status of his plane.

According to the F.A.A., a Boeing 757 landed at Palm Beach International Airport at about 1:20 a.m. on Sunday and was taxiing when one of its winglets struck the rear elevator of a parked plane. A winglet is a small tip curving off the end of an aircraft’s wing in order to reduce aerodynamic drag.

No one was inside the parked plane, which was registered to VistaJet, a private charter company, the F.A.A. said in a statement , adding that the incident occurred in an area of the airfield where the agency does not direct aircraft. The agency said it was investigating the incident.

According to the F.A.A.’s aircraft registry, the Boeing plane is registered to DJT Operations I LLC, one of the companies Mr. Trump owned and resigned from at the beginning of 2017, when he became president.

The agency did not say how much damage the two planes sustained or specify the type of VistaJet aircraft that was involved. VistaJet did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

Mr. Trump, who is in New York several days each week for a criminal trial related to a hush-money payment , lives just a few miles from the Palm Beach International Airport, at Mar-a-Lago, his private club.

He has frequently used airport tarmacs and hangars as a setting for his campaign rallies, saving him time and giving his supporters a chance to cheer on the plane’s approach.

Advertisement

Governor Newsom Joins Pope Francis at Vatican Climate Summit, Calls for Global Action on Climate Crisis

Published: May 16, 2024

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: Governor Gavin Newsom spoke at the Vatican Climate Summit highlighting California’s climate leadership and called for greater global partnership, and urged world leaders to protect democracy against the rise of extremism and in the face of climate deniers.

“Fossil fuel companies have been deceiving us. They’ve known the science. They’ve denied the science. They’ve delayed advancement. But we have the capacity to address this issue at a global level and we all must bring the moral authority that is needed and that this time demands.” – Governor Gavin Newsom

“The refusal to act quickly to protect the most vulnerable who are exposed to climate change caused by human activity is a serious offense and a grave violation of human rights…. An orderly progress is being held back by the greedy pursuit of short-term gains by polluting industries and by the spread of disinformation, which generates confusion and obstructs collective efforts for a change in course.” – Pope Francis

VATICAN CITY – At the Vatican Climate Summit, Governor Newsom spoke before other governors, mayors and civic and faith leaders from around the globe, highlighting California’s nation-leading efforts on clean energy and calling out the propaganda and lies from Big Oil.

While in Vatican City, the Governor and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom had an audience with Pope Francis. His Holiness acknowledged California’s leadership on the climate crisis and the state’s moratorium on the death penalty while the Governor thanked the Pope for his advocacy on climate. The Pope, Governor Newsom, and other leaders signed a Planetary Compact aimed at accelerating global efforts to combat the climate crisis and build climate resilience.

The Governor’s address to the Vatican Climate Summit focused on climate resilience in the Golden State and made the case for taking urgent action on the climate crisis – just as California has in recent years. The Governor also called for defending democracy as one of the essential tools for combating climate change.

While at the Summit, the Governor spoke with mayors, governors and indigenous leaders who are all committed to tackling the climate crisis. Following the Summit on Thursday, Governor Newsom met with the President of Italy, Sergio Mattarella.

The Governor and President Mattarella discussed the challenges states and countries face in addressing the climate crisis particularly during times of geopolitical instability. The President noted California’s global leadership and emphasized the importance of acting with urgency to combat the climate crisis.

WHY IT MATTERS: With half the world’s population poised to elect their leaders amid a backdrop of escalating political extremism, the stakes couldn’t be higher for our climate future. The climate crisis transcends every border and boundary, and does not recognize partisan lines. Regardless of the world’s political future, extreme weather will continue to threaten lives. California is leading the charge to build bridges around the world to ensure decisive action against the climate crisis.

Below are the Governor’s full remarks, as delivered at the Vatican Climate Summit. Watch the Governor’s remarks here.

My name is Gavin Newsom, I come from a state you may have heard of – California [in] the United States. The most diverse state in the most diverse democracy in the world. 

California is a state of dreamers, of doers, of entrepreneurs, of innovators. At our best, we pride ourselves on being on the leading and cutting edge of new ideas. 

We’re a state where 27% of its population is foreign born. A majority minority state. A state that’s proud to have been the home state of the founding papers of the United Nations. We’re a pluralistic state that practices pluralism. 

And we’re a state that at our best — not always — but at our best, we believe the world, in many respects, looks to us to see that it’s possible to live together and advance together across many imaginable differences. 

And that – that absolutely is the case when it comes to the issue of addressing the crisis of our time in climate change. 

I’m here with humility and respect and appreciation to the work each and every one of you do in your respective jurisdictions. I’m grateful for the opportunity to share a little bit about the journey of California –  its history, its proud past, its relationship to the moment and the work together we’re doing to advance a brighter future. 

I’m proud of California’s leadership that dates back to the late 1960s. It was interesting, someone you may have heard of by the name of Ronald Reagan. Governor at the time, Ronald Reagan, that established the first environmental regulations in the United States of substance: regulating tailpipe emissions. Exactly for the reason the mayor was just advancing to address the issue of smog, air pollution in the city of Los Angeles. 

1967 marks a moment of consciousness as it relates to affordification of sorts of the modern environmental movement in the United States of America. 

Just three years later, interestingly, another Republican leader in the context of American politics, by the name of Richard Nixon – President Richard Nixon, through the Clean Air Act, codified California’s authority and allowed California to maintain its leadership where it allowed us to punch above our weight in terms of advancing our low-carbon, green growth future. 

That has carried over the course of generations. In the 70s, California led on energy efficiency in appliances. California led in the 70s on the first tax incentives around solar. 

California continues to lead in a myriad of different areas. But we recognize, despite that leadership, the acuity of the crisis at hand. The hots are getting a lot hotter, the dries are getting a lot drier, the wets are getting a lot wetter. 

The extremes – not just extremes in mother nature, as the Mayor was referencing — the extremes in our politics as well. And it marks the moment, in many respects, we’re in. How do we together address those extremes? 

It’s not lost on me, there’s a wonderful old African proverb, that says if you want to go fast, go alone. But if you want to go far, go together. 

Our consciousness in the context of addressing this crisis is the framework of partnerships. Advancing partnerships. An open hand, not a closed fist. 

And we are beginning anew to advance with vigor partnerships at the subnational level all around the globe. We’re part of an MOU – MOU under 2, many of you are associated with, now 270 jurisdictions around the world. Subnational jurisdictions representing 50% of the planet’s GDP. 

In the United States, we’re part of an alliance of bipartisan governors – 24 – that represent over 50% of American population with the US Climate Alliance, that allows us to maintain our leadership regardless of what happens at the federal level. 

And if there’s anything I want to impress upon you, is the stability of California’s relationship to the issue of changing the way we produce and consume energy and the issue of environmental stewardship. Regardless of what happens at the national level, we are a trusted and stable partner. 

And I say that mindful that we are, from an economic output, the fifth largest economy in the world. Just behind Japan and Germany, slightly ahead of India. 

I say that not to impress you, but to impress upon you, how proud I am to represent a state that is able to assert itself from an economic paradigm, but at the same time assert its values of not just growth, but the spirit of this conference, inclusion, of equity. 

California has led in many areas — and one area in particular — our cap-and-trade program. $11 billion of completed programs since, sister, the 2014 convening – 76% of the investments have gone back into low-income communities. We write equity into the laws. We write equity and inclusion into the work we do each and every day. 

But we’re also writing in this moment a deeper level of consciousness, and that is calling this climate crisis what it is: the climate crisis is a fossil fuel crisis. The climate crisis is a fossil fuel crisis. It’s because the burning of coal, the burning of gas, and the burning of oil. 

And with respect and, forgive me, if this comes off a little too harsh. It’s been said and I’ll repeat it: the polluted heart of the climate crisis are these fossil fuel companies that have been lying to us. They’ve been deceiving us. They’ve known the science. They’ve denied the science. They’ve delayed advancement. 

We have the tools, we have the technology, we have the capacity to address this issue at a global level, a scaled level and they’ve been fighting every single advancement. And we have got to call that out. 

And in peril of further alienating some, I have to call this out as well. I don’t want to talk in the paradigm of a political conscience – I mentioned two Republicans, but let me mention one other. 

Former President Donald Trump, who just last week, I never thought I’d see this. I’ve heard it, but I’ve never seen it. Donald Trump, just last week, had oil executives convening, talking about his election. And he openly asked them for $1 billion to roll back the environmental progress of the Biden Administration, the environmental progress that we’ve made over the course of the last half century. Open corruption. 

A billion dollars to pollute our states, to pollute our country, and to pollute this planet and to rollback progress in the open. 

This is the moment we’re living in, and it calls for clarity. And it calls for understanding of what we’re up against. 

And so I’m very proud of living in a state that is pushing back against that agenda to roll back progress – frankly, to roll back a lot of the progress of the last century across a spectrum of issues, not just environmental stewardship, and to assert ourselves and stand tall. Again, in the principle of partnership. 

And I’ll close on this. I’m very proud as well, and I think this is important, that California is exceeding its audacious goal-setting. And I want this to be said because I think it’s important to promote the progress, to also promote optimism as it relates to this issue, as we deal with so many of these challenges.

In every single instance, California has exceeded its nation-leading environmental goals. 

I’m reminded there was someone very familiar to the Vatican by the name of Michelangelo, who once said the biggest risk in life is not that we aim too high and miss it – it’s that we aim too low and reach it. 

We have got to maintain our stretch goals. And California has done that across the spectrum. Goal-setting is no longer the issue in my state. It’s about the great implementation. It’s about the application. 

We’re in the “how” business, and it’s about the power of emulation, proving that we can run the fifth largest economy, its economic engine, as we change the way we produce and consume energy. 

And let me give you a proof point as I conclude my remarks. I come here today, day 32. 32 straight days – over one month — where California’s economy is literally being run with 100% clean energy. 100%, 32 days straight. 

Proving the paradigm that this can be done. In every case, exceeding our nation-leading goals. 

So it’s in that spirit again, with grace and humility – we’re hardly perfect, I’m mindful of that, across a spectrum of issues that I look forward to working collaboratively with each and every one of you, being inspired by the work you’re doing at a local level. 

There’s an old adage, if you don’t like the way the world looks when you’re standing up, stand on your head and go local. Because remarkable things are happening, as the Mayor said, at the local level. Localism is determinative. 

And we think about climate, we think about greenhouse gas emissions. It’s the sum total of all those emissions that happen on a local basis, that is what we need to confront. 

And so, again, with gratitude, with graciousness, with appreciation to His Holiness, to each and every one of you for your faith and devotion to this cause. 

We look forward to maintaining our position of leadership. And we look forward to all of us bringing into our positions of formal authority, the moral authority that is needed and demands of this time. 

Thank you very, very much.