7/30/2019 Anti Death Penalty Essay

1/2

Lauren Novak

Hour 6

Death Penalty Essay

Death Penalty

The death penalty is a controversial issue that has been up for debate for over sixty years. We

understand the human desire for retribution, but we need to question whether revenge is

equivalent to justice. After gathering professional research, testimonials, and other

experiments we will convince you of why the death penalty should be abolished. The main

concerning issues of the death penalty are the cost, error rate, constitutionality, and the

effectiveness of deterrence. So before we begin this debate, ask yourself these questions:

should we be spending more of our tax money for government to pay for the execution of

vicious criminals? Should there be a chance that we kill an innocent person for someone elses

crime? Lastly, should we be attempting to end violence by perpetrating it?

According to the death penalty information center, the average cost of defending a trial in a

federal death case is $620,932, which is about eight times the cost of a federal murder case in

which the death penalty is not present. According to Amnesty International, the death penalty

cost totals up to 1.26 million dollars and cases that do not include the death penalty average up

to only $740,000. More pretrial time, experts, attorneys, and appeals, are needed for inmates

being held on death row, which is how the cost of cases including the death penalty outnumber

cases that do not. Why should we be spending more money than needed by executing criminals

when a life in prison is debatably a worse sentence for a criminal anyway?

Lorrain Taylor is the mother of two twin boys who were murdered while working on theirstalled car. Despite her unimaginable pain and grief, she decided to speak out against the death

penalty: Revenge is notjustice, says Lorrain Taylor, Taking anotherpersons life does not

stop violence. Theres a contradiction in responding to murder by executing people. She also

stated: If the government really wanted to end the violence, it would take the millions of

dollars it is wasting on the death penalty in California and use it for violence prevention for

youth, rehabilitation, and victim services. Lorrains testimony shows that the death penalty is

not necessary or relevant to gaining justice or relief from the death of her loved ones. In fact,

she completely opposes the death penalty because of its hypocriticalness and lack of

deterrence.

Eighty-eight percent of the countrys top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as

a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and

Criminology. Additionally, eighty-seven percent of the expert criminologists believe that

abolishment of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates.

According to the ACLU, the death penalty has not been proven to be more effective than life in

prison without parole. There has been no reliable research to back up the notion that states

with executions lead to reduced crime rates. As the ACLU also mentions, the vast majority of

7/30/2019 Anti Death Penalty Essay

2/2

killers dont think about the consequences of their actions. Usually, it is either a crime of

passion, committed while intoxicated, or the individual does not believe he/she will get caught

anyhow. The notion that he/she will receive the death penalty rather than life in prison will not

typically affect the decision to commit crime.

Is the death penalty Constitutional? No. The death penalty violates the eighth amendmentstating that no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted and also the right to life as

proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The death penalty is unusual in its

pain, its finality, and in its enormity. The fatal constitutional weakness in the punishment of the

death penalty is that it treats members of the human race as nonhumans, as objects to be

toyed with and discarded (William J. Brennan-Justice of U.S. Supreme Court). Contrary to

popular belief, studies done by Michigan State University affirm that the death penalty isn't

reserved for the worst crimes, but for defendants with the worst lawyers. It almost never

applies to people with a lot of money or a higher social rank. This fact makes capital

punishment even more cruel and unusual because it targets a specific class of society and the

discriminatory aspect adds another unconstitutional factor.

The death penalty would be fair if guilt was always guaranteed. However, our legal system is

flawed and this leads to wrongful convictions and executions. According to Senator Russ

Feingold, theres an error rate of one out of every seven people executed. 87 people have been

released from death row because they were found innocent in recent history. Theres no

telling for sure how many more of those executed were not truly guilty of the crimes. An article

on acadp.org revealed in 2009 that a Texas man had been convicted and executed for arson

wrongfully when forensic evidence proved his innocence. It was too late to take back this grave

mistake at the hands of the legal system. Frank Lee Smith was sentenced to death based on

one witnesss testimony. There wasnt any DNA or evidence to prove his guilt and that same

witness later realized she had pointed out the wrong man. It was later reaffirmed by DNA thatSmith had been innocent.

In conclusion, the support for the death penalty is indefensible. The cost benefit analysis

doesnt justify it. It cant be justified for deterrent purposes. Revenge is not justice. Injustice

cannot be undone with the finality of the death penalty. Finally, based upon the discriminatory

application of the death penalty and the imperfections built within the system, the death

penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and must be outlawed.