argument for death penalty essay

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.

Finding Sources for Death Penalty Research

Barry Winiker/photolibrary/Getty Images

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

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

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

Amnesty International Site

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

Mental Illness on Death Row

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

Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty

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

Pro-Death Penalty Links

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

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

Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty

Introduction, a case for the death penalty, works cited.

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. Due to the fact that not all members of the society are going to follow the law on their own accord, forms of punishment for wrongs done may be used both for retribution and deterrence purposes. In the United States, capital punishment has been used as the most harsh form of retribution for the society’s most vicious offences.

However, not all people believe that the death sentence is justifiable notwithstanding the brutality of the crime that a person may have perpetrated. This paper argues that the death penalty is not only necessary but also the most efficient means for deterring future offenders. The paper will reinforce this proposition by delving into the merits of the death penalty.

An article on “Public Support for the Death Penalty” indicates that the support for capital punishment has risen over the years with 77% of Americans supporting capital punishment. While this statistics do not in any way offer justification for the death penalty, they do show that many Americans are of the opinion that the death penalty is a just retribution for the evils perpetrated by the accused.

In most of the states, capital punishment is only issued when the accused party is convicted of crimes such as first degree murder or treason. Capital punishment therefore affords the federal state with a means of dispensing justice. The public and the parties affected by the accused actions can therefore find some solace in the fact justice has been served.

The most desirable function of punishments should be to act as a deterrence to would be criminals. In an ideal environment, punishments should never have to be executed but their mere presence should cause all to abide to the rules and regulations in place therefore peacefully coexist. Capital punishment presents the highest level of deterrence since death is indeed the ultimate punishment. This is especially so in cases where the criminal feels immune to the other forms of punishment such as restriction on freedom of movement or even hard labor.

“Televised Executions” indicates that executions, in this case televised ones, serviced an important social purpose of deterrence as the public is afforded a glimpse as to the fate that awaits those who engage in despicable acts thus making would be future offenders think twice about the results of their acts.

According to “Update: Death Penalty”, one of the most unique attributes of capital punishment is that it irrevocably protects the society from repeat offenders. This is an especially significant point since convicts have been known to reenter society either as a result of parole or more dramatic happenings such as jail breaks.

The death penalty ensures that some of the society’s most vicious criminals; murderers, arsons, etc. are rid off the society for good. The society can therefore continue without fear of there undesirable elements every coming back and causing chaos.

From an economic point on view, the cost of maintaining prisoners in the correctional facilities is fairly expensive. Opponents of the death penalty propose that in its place, life imprisonment without parole should be implemented. What this boils down to is that the prisoner will have to be maintained in the penitentiary for his entire life. This is a very costly affair and the brunt of it is bore by the taxpayer.

Capital punishment as executed by methods such as the lethal injection is not only radically cheaper but it also spares the state of the resources it would have utilized to ensure that the prisoner is maintained for a lifetime. While most of the opponents of the death penalty point to its execution being inhumane and hence torturous to the victim, a report on “lethal injection” indicates that not only is the lethal injection method (which is greatly favored by most states) almost entirely painless but the method presents a great advancement from past methods such as hanging and the use of the gas chamber. As such, capital punishment provides a cheap and human and relatively human method of dealing with criminals.

This paper has argued that the death penalty possess numerous advantages that make it a necessary tool in the justice system. It has been articulated that through the death penalty, retribution is served and the society is purged off its most vicious criminals. In addition to this, capital punishment presents the strongest form of deterrence to would be offenders as an example is made of those who have already been convicted.

While some people do contend that the death penalty should never be imposed on anyone, regardless of their crimes, it can be authoritatively stated from the above discussions that capital punishment does serve a significant role in the society and as such, it’s use should be perpetuated albeit with a lot of caution so as to avoid subjecting innocent parties to this ultimate form of punishment.

“Lethal Injection.” Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 19 Oct. 2007. Web.

“Public Support for the Death Penalty Remains Strong (sidebar).” Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 29 Dec. 1995. Web.

“Televised Executions.” Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 11 May 2001. Web.

“Update: Death Penalty.” Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 1 Apr. 2004. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 23). Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argumentative-paper-on-the-pros-of-the-death-penalty/

"Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty." IvyPanda , 23 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/argumentative-paper-on-the-pros-of-the-death-penalty/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty'. 23 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty." November 23, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argumentative-paper-on-the-pros-of-the-death-penalty/.

1. IvyPanda . "Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty." November 23, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argumentative-paper-on-the-pros-of-the-death-penalty/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty." November 23, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argumentative-paper-on-the-pros-of-the-death-penalty/.

• Should Trials Be Televised?
• Candid Camera: Should Trials Be Televised?
• Colin Kaepernick’s Protest: The Revolution Will Be Televised
• Argumentative Essay Writing
• The Cons of the Current Drugs Used for Lethal Injection
• Argumentative Essay: Uighur Genocide
• Should Animals be Used in Research: Argumentative Essay
• Death Penalty: James a Inciardi Perspective
• Aspects of the Writing an Argumentative Essay
• An Argumentative Essay: How to Write
• Democratic and Undemocratic Elements of the Constitution
• State and local public policies
• How Did It Feel Being a Governor?
• The Conflict Between Armenia and Azerbaijan
• The Articles of Confederation. Nullification and Secession

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

15 Great Charities to Donate to in 2024

15 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

15 Root Causes of Climate Change

15 Facts about Rosa Parks

Abolitionist Movement: History, Main Ideas, and Activism Today

The Biggest 15 NGOs in the UK

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.

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My watchlist
• Stock market
• Biden economy
• Personal finance
• Stocks: most active
• Stocks: gainers
• Stocks: losers
• Trending tickers
• World indices
• US Treasury bonds
• Top mutual funds
• Highest open interest
• Highest implied volatility
• Currency converter
• Basic materials
• Communication services
• Consumer cyclical
• Consumer defensive
• Financial services
• Industrials
• Real estate
• Mutual funds
• Credit cards
• Credit card rates
• Balance transfer credit cards
• Business credit cards
• Cash back credit cards
• Rewards credit cards
• Travel credit cards
• Checking accounts
• Online checking accounts
• High-yield savings accounts
• Money market accounts
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Car insurance
• Home buying
• Options pit
• Investment ideas
• Research reports
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing
• Newsletters

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

Why is the death penalty still used? Let's look at the pros and cons and then the facts

• Oops! Something went wrong. Please try again later. More content below

On a cold, wet November morning in 1972, Roger Bontems was marched to the guillotine for complicity in two murders, neither of which he committed. He had requested a little extra time to comb his hair before meeting his fate.

The spectacle and crack of the blade so haunted his attorney and future French justice minister, Robert Badinter , that he became a staunch champion of abolition. When the French parliament overwhelmingly outlawed the death penalty in 1981, he put his hand on the plaque commemorating Victor Hugo’s seat, also a strident abolitionist, and said “It is done.”

I recently heard a law professor argue that lethal injection was tantamount to water boarding and fraught with administrative problems. I was compelled to point out the elephant in the room. Why do we still administer the death penalty?

Apologists argue that it is valuable as a deterrent and essential for maintaining public safety. They may see it as a cheap alternative to a lifetime of imprisonment or as justice for taking another’s life. But are these legitimate arguments?

The death penalty is sought in only a fraction of murder cases, and it is often doled out capriciously.

The National Academy of Sciences concludes that its role as a deterrent is ambiguous.

In Tennessee, federally prosecuted capital trials where the death penalty is sought cost about 50% more than those where it is not, and 29% of these sentences are overturned on appeal.

The cost of seeking capital punishment is higher at every point in the process and in some states can multiply the cost as much as eight times. In Maryland, for example, between 1978 and 2008, taxpayers paid more than $37 million per prisoner executed.

With most states spending half of their budgets on education and health care alone, the opportunity cost of that money is great.

There is virtually no difference for public safety between life sentences and execution. It usually takes many years or even decades to bring someone to an execution stage. Even if the convict is ultimately released, the rate of violent crime recidivism drops significantly in older age.

Brain science tells us that our decision making is mostly the product of competing brain centers that have been trained by our experiences, so it is misguided having a criminal justice system motivated primarily by retribution − itself an atavistic instinctual response.

If 80% of all homicides in the U.S. are committed with guns and most of these crimes are committed with the types of guns that are designed to kill people − 25% of all gun deaths are from 9 mm handguns − then why not tightly regulate these types of guns?

Unfortunately, there is a human tendency for someone to double down on bad policy instead of admitting to themselves or others that they are wrong.

More guns and state-sanctioned killings do not represent any form of moral high ground and will never make us safer.

William Culbert is a retired physician. He lives in Oak Ridge.

This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Why is the death penalty still used? Let's look at the facts

Recommended Stories

Lando norris takes f1 chinese grand prix sprint pole from hamilton.

McLaren's Lando Norris had his fastest lap deleted and reinstated as he seized pole position for the Chinese Grand Prix sprint race at the end of a wet and chaotic qualifying on Friday.

Jets QB Zach Wilson is skipping offseason workouts while hoping to be traded

New York Jets quarterback Zach Wilson has skipped the team's offseason workouts as he hopes to be traded to another club. But there has been little interest from other teams thus far.

Pirates phenom Paul Skenes still has 'steps he needs to take' after comically dominant start to season

Skenes has struck out 27 in 12 2/3 scoreless innings pitches at Triple-A so far this season.

Commanders hosted 4 top QB prospects at once, and Jayden Daniels' agent wasn't happy

The Commanders had an unusual visit with multiple QB prospects.

How the jury was selected in Trump's hush money trial

Jury selection concluded Friday with six alternate jurors picked to join the panel of 12 that will ultimately decide the former president's fate.

Arnold Palmer's Green Jacket reportedly among items stolen from Augusta National Golf Club

One of the Green Jackets Arnold Palmer was awarded for winning the Masters was among the items stolen from Augusta National Golf Club over a 13-year span, according to a report.

How to watch ‘The Jinx: Part Two’ — Everything you need to know about the true crime series

The chilling story of Robert Durst continues to unfold with 'The Jinx: Part Two.'

Finally, someone used Pareto’s economic theories to find the best Mario Kart 8 racer

Who hasn’t spent sleepless nights pondering what would happen if we applied the theories of Vilfredo Pareto, the early 20th-century Italian economist, to Mario, the Mushroom Kingdom’s Italian high-jump champion and part-time elephant cosplayer? Data scientist Antoine Mayerowitz, PhD, tackled that age-old question.

Smelly fridge? This deodorizer can keep it fresh for 10 years — and it's on sale for just $22

'I've tried many, many baking soda boxes over the years … and this little gem is it!' says one fan.

Justin Pippen, Scottie Pippen's youngest son, commits to Michigan

Justin Pippen, the youngest son of NBA legend Scottie Pippen, announced he will be playing college basketball next season at Michigan.

I'm a home product tester — and I did a double-take when I saw these chic patio chairs on sale for $37 each

Outdoor furniture can be ridiculously expensive, but this 'sturdy and beautiful' rattan set won't break the bank.

The 30 best Walmart deals to shop this weekend — save up to 80% on outdoor gear, gardening supplies, tech and more

Some major deals on board: a Mother's Day-ready digital picture frame for $30 off, a cordless 6-in-1 stick vac for just $90, and a Chromebook laptop for under $150.

Trump's hush money trial, as seen through courtroom sketches

Since it’s not being televised — and news photographers are only permitted in for 45 seconds at the start of each day — the only other images from inside the courtroom are portraits being done by sketch artists.

This sale is money: An identity-protecting travel wallet for $10 — could 53,000+ shoppers be wrong?

'No unexpected coin avalanche': The slim, secure bifold easily keeps all your essentials organized, fans say.

Lotus Eletre will land at U.S. dealers starting at $107,000

Lotus has priced its battery-electric Eletre SUV at $107,000 before destination and options for the U.S. market, the Eletre R starting at $145,000.

Rebel Moon Part 2 review: A slow-mo sci-fi slog

Rebel Moon: Part 2 - The Scargiver is an empty feast, a relentless onslaught of explosions, sci-fi tropes and meaningless exposition that amounts to nothing.

NCAA approves helmet communication, sideline tablets, two-minute warning for FBS

The NCAA approved the use of helmet communiation devices and sideline tablets for college football next season. Additionally, a two-minute warning will be incorporated into gameplay.

Harvard's startup whisperer, Peter Gladstone, reveals secrets to validating consumer demand at TechCrunch Early Stage

Validating consumer demand is a crucial step for any startup, and TechCrunch Early Stage is offering a golden opportunity to learn how to do it right. Peter Gladstone, senior adviser for startups at Harvard Innovation Labs, is set to lead an engaging roundtable titled "Validating Consumer Demand: How to Make the Most of Your Expertise." With decades of experience as an entrepreneur, marketer, and investor, Gladstone brings a wealth of knowledge to the table.

Fantasy Baseball Relief Pitcher Rundown: 8 key updates

There have been some noteworthy moves in the fantasy baseball reliever landscape. Dalton Del Don breaks down the most important.

Driving the Cadillac Lyriq, Hyundai Santa Fe and a bunch of Lucid Airs | Autoblog Podcast #828

We discuss driving a bunch of new EVs, including the Cadillac Lyriq and Lucid Air lineup in this Autoblog Podcast.

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

• Death Penalty Essays

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty Essay

The use of death penalty or capital punishment is one of the most controversial issues in Social Science studies. Scholars in social sciences are divided on whether or not the use of death penalty as a mean of punishing offenders is justifiable. One group of the scholars contend that death penalty is the most effective form of punishment for the criminals who have committed heinous crimes like murder and robbery with violence (Macdonald, 88). The other group of scholars, on the other hand, argue that death penalty is not an effective method of punishing the offenders and that the punishment does not lead to the intended objectives. A review of these arguments in favour of and against death penalty shows that death penalty is, indeed, an efficacious mean of punishing criminals guilty of serious and heinous crimes. This paper, therefore, evaluates the debates in favour of and against capital punishment and presents a coherent and logical debate in favour of death punishment. In the presentation of the arguments in favour of death penalty, Stephen Toulmin’s model of argumentation is applied (Stephen Toulmin, online). The application of the Toulmin’s model of argumentation helps in presenting the arguments in a coherent and logical manner.

Struggling with your HW?

Get your assignments done by real pros. Save your precious time and boost your marks with ease. Just fill in your HW requirements and you can count on us!

• Customer data protection
• 100% Plagiarism Free

There are three main arguments in support of death penalty as an effective mean of punishing the offenders who are guilty of crimes of high magnitude. The first argument is based on the claim that death penalty deters crime. Death penalty as a deterrent mean to further commission of crime is one of the main reasons why death penalty is practiced in many jurisdictions. As a mean of punishing the criminals for their offences, death penalty deters further commission of crime in two ways.

In the first way, by killing the offenders of crimes of high magnitude, for instance a murderer, the murderer will have no further opportunity to commit the crime again (Maulsby, 28). This in effect means that the crimes of murder will drastically reduce in that particular area. Although there are some studies that tend to refute this fact, there are, however numerous studies that corroborate this fact. For instance in the study by Erhlich, carried out in USA in an attempt to find out whether, really, capital punishments lead to reduction in crime rate, it was found that, there is, indeed, a strong correlation between death penalty and the rate of crimes, especially crimes of high magnitude like murder ( Arguments for and against Death Penalty, online). The study showed a significant reduction in crime, in places where death penalty is practiced as compared to other places where different means of punishing such criminals is practiced. But, apart from the studies that tend to support the view that death penalty can lead to reduction in crime, it is also, a matter of common sense that, when the people who are committing crimes are abolished or killed, then the rate of crimes will significantly reduce because they will not have another opportunity to commit the crimes.

The second reason why death penalty leads to reduction in crime is due to the fact that by killing the offenders of serious crimes, other people with the intent to kill will be afraid of doing so for fear of the consequences that would befall them(Goel, 2008). People, naturally, fear severe punishments, especially death, and so, when the law prescribes death penalty for serious crimes, then many people, utterly out of fear for the death, will refrain from committing such crimes. Although there are some studies contradicting this fact, arguing that death penalty does not deter criminals from committing crimes( Arguments for and Against Death Penalty, online) there are contrary studies supporting the view that death penalty instils fear among the criminals and, therefore, prevents them from committing crimes. But it is a fact that some people commit crimes due to psychological problems and for these kinds of people, death penalty cannot prevent them from committing crimes because, they commit crimes out of uncontrollable strong psychological impulse. But it is not true that all people who commit crimes do so out of psychological disorder. This therefore shows that use of death penalty as a mean of punishing the criminals can lead to reduction of crimes.

Used our essay samples for inspiration ?

For more help, tap into our pool of professional writers and get expert essay editing services!

The third reason why death penalty can act as a deterrent, is due to the fact by killing criminals, you break the chain of crimes. It is a fact that some criminals have organised themselves into an elaborate network and that operates from a central command point. These groups of organised criminals also do recruitments for new members. In order to effectively dismantle such criminal organisations, it is necessary to eliminate, through killing, the think tanks and the commanders of such criminal gangs. By dismantling such organised criminals, through killing, you will have broken the chain of crimes and by that; the killing of the criminals will have deterred more crimes from being committed.

Apart from deterrence, the second ground on which death penalty can be justified is on the retribution ground. The proponents of this position hold that criminals deserve to be punished because they deserve punishment. By committing crimes, retribution theory of justice holds, the criminals are inviting upon themselves punishment that is proportionate to the crime that they commit (Bowers, 4). Punishing the criminals therefore on this ground is justifiable since it is giving the offenders their just and fair deserts. On this ground, therefore, death penalty is a just and fair to the criminals who have committed serious crimes like murder or robbery with violence. There are two reasons to support this position.

First, when criminals commit felony (Serious crimes like murder), they do so freely without compulsion from anybody, otherwise the criminals wouldn’t be held culpable for their actions. This means that the person is free either to commit the offence or not to commit it. Secondly, for the criminal to be regarded as responsible for their actions, the criminal must be mentally sound, they shouldn’t be insane. This means that the criminal knew very well of the consequences of their actions, including the consequence of them being punished for their crimes. But the punishments that they should be subjected to should be proportionate to the magnitude of the crimes that they commit, the higher the crime in magnitude the higher the punishment.

The above facts mean that by choosing to commit crime, the criminals have freely, without compulsion and with full knowledge of the consequences, chosen to commit crime, and therefore this means that they have freely chosen to be punished for their crimes. And with death penalty being the most severe form of punishment that one can be subjected to, the offenders who commit serious crimes that threaten or take away the lives of other people should be killed. For example, a serial murderer should be killed because by killing other people deliberately, they should also be killed because by killing other people, they are wishing, as it were, to be also killed. This is the only punishment that befits this kind of crimes. While some people would argue that life imprisonment without any possibility of parole is the harshest type of punishment compared with death penalty, death penalty is the punishment that is proportionate to the punishment of taking away another person’s life. Also, death punishment is the most feared form of punishment and this shows that it is, indeed, the most severe and the most effective form of punishment for the offenders of serious crimes.

This position that criminals commit crime deliberately and with full knowledge of the consequences for their crimes is severely criticized by the people who oppose death penalty as a form of punishment for the offenders guilty of serious crimes. In their arguments, they contend that it is not true that people who commit crimes do so willingly, and by so doing, they wish upon themselves the bad consequences of their actions (crimes) to befall them. This group or scholars, who mainly understand crime as having originated from the society, or as being some form of psychological disorder, argue that criminals do not cause crime willingly and intentionally. And for this reason, they contend that the primary reason for punishing criminals should be to reform them but not to punish them for the sake of their actions. This group of scholars, therefore, are greatly opposed to the use of death penalty as a form of punishment for the criminals who commit crimes of highest magnitude.

But a critical look at this position that criminals should not be punished because of their crimes shows that the position is wrong and misleading. The only group of people who can be claimed to commit crimes unintentionally and without knowledge of the consequences for their actions are the mentally incapacitated criminals. But in all the jurisdictions of the world, this concern has been taken care of by the principle of mens rea (The Intention to commit a wrongful act, online). But for the mentally sound criminals, who commit crime without any form of compulsion, they should account for their crimes and they should be punished for the crimes. This will help in making people responsible and will rid the society of the criminals.

The second reason to support death penalty on retribution ground is that death penalty restores the moral balance that has been disturbed by the felonious crimes (Burleigh, chapter 1). All crimes bring about a certain moral imbalance, and this therefore calls for a restoration of the disturbed moral balance. This can be achieved through appropriate punishment that is proportionate to the crime committed. And for this reason, some severe crimes like murder, which is actually the severest form of crime, requires the most severe form of punishment. And since death penalty is the most dreaded form of punishment, death penalty is the most severe form of punishment. Death penalty, therefore, is an effective form of punishment for the serious crimes. Unless this form of punishment is administered for the serious crimes that threaten other human beings life, the moral imbalance that is brought about by crimes of this sort will remain uncorrected. For instance, when a terrorist kills innocent people for religious or any other reason, moral balance is affected by the injustice that the terrorist has done to the innocent people. To counter or to assuage this injustice, the terrorist also must be killed. And by the killing of the terrorist, moral balance that had been offset by the terrorist’s offences will be restored. Death penalty, therefore, is a necessary and just form of punishment.

The main criticism that is directed against this position is that death penalty does not serve any good purpose, since it does neither lead to the reform of the criminal nor does it give back /pay back to the offended what the offender had deprived of them ( Bedau, online). For this reason, the anti-death penalty proponents contend that death penalty is an ineffective form of punishment, and that it does not lead to the restoration of the moral balance that had been offset by the criminal acts. There are scholars who contend that death penalty, actually, leads to increase in crime in the society (Ross, 626). The view that death penalty brings about restoration of the moral balance is also criticised on the ground that, it is very difficult to determine exactly the kind of punishment that would be proportionate to the crime committed. Owing to this fact, the anti-death penalty proponents argue that death penalty doesn’t in any way bring about restoration of justice. It is also claimed that due to human errors and inability to do thorough investigations and to know exactly whether a person is guilty for an offence of high magnitude or not, some innocent people have been executed and for this reason, death penalty in such a case doesn’t bring about any restoration of justice. Hence, it is argued that death penalty should be abolished.

But, although, as a matter of fact it is quite difficult to determine precisely the exact amount of punishment that would match the crime committed and thus restore the moral balance that has been offset by the crime, we can, however, approximate the amount of punishment that would be proportionate to the crime committed. And in some instances like in the case of murder, it is possible to determine the exact amount of punishment that would be proportionate to the crime committed. In the case of murder, the murderer is also executed just as they murdered other people. And this, of course, will bring about the restoration of justice. And on the claim that death penalty is a useless form of punishment because it doesn’t bring about reformation of the criminal or restoration of justice, I would respond that the purpose of punishment is not merely to bring about reformation of the criminal. While indeed the restoration of the offender is one of the main objectives of punishing criminals, it is, however, not the only aim of punishing the offenders. And for this reason, death penalty shouldn’t be discarded only because it does not bring about reformation of the offender. Death penalty, therefore, should be practiced for it brings about restoration of justice, although, sometimes it is hard to determine with exactness the correct form or amount of punishment that would be proportionate to the crime committed. On human error and execution of innocent people, thorough investigations should be done, and there should be enough evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, before holding a person culpable of a crime deserving death penalty as its punishment.

The third reason why death penalty should be practiced is that it brings about closure and vindication for the offender’s family. Once a member of a family commits a crime, all the other members of the family feel psychologically disturbed by the misconduct of one of their member, this psychological torture continues till when the whole issue is brought to a closure. But some form of punishments takes a very long time before the issue is brought to a closure. For instance in life imprisonment, the offender is imprisoned for life, and the offender undergoes sufferings throughout their lives. This kind of punishment haunts the members of the offender family till when the offender dies. But with death penalty, the whole matter is brought to closer when the offender is executed. The family, although, will be greatly affected psychologically by the execution of one of their member, the psychological torture, however, will last for a short time as compared to the lifelong torture that they would have to undergo in case of life imprisonment. This therefore shows that in terms of saving the other members of the family from the embarrassment and the psychological torture that goes with one of their member being prosecuted and punished for their wrong doing, death penalty is far better than life imprisonment for in death penalty the whole matter is brought to closure within a very short time.

One of the obvious criticism that would be levelled against this point is that death penalty brings about far more psychological torture and shame to the members of the executed person’s family, as compared to the life imprisonment. Critics would contend that execution of an offender brings about a permanent shame and psychological torture to the members of the offender’s family, as compared to life imprisonment of one of their family member.

A critical look at these two opposing positions shows that in terms of bringing vindication and closer of the whole matter to the family members of the offender, death penalty is far better as compared to life imprisonment. While it is true that death penalty will lead to an awful psychological torture to the family members of the offender, the executed criminal, the psychological torture will, nonetheless, not be life long as the critics of death penalty would argue, but it will wane away after some time. But in case of life imprisonment, the shame and the psychological torture for a having one member of a family in prison throughout their lives, will be a lifelong experience. This is because the memory and the futile hope that somehow one day in future their imprisoned family member will be set free, keeps torturing them throughout their lives. And for this reason, death penalty should be practiced for it brings abound vindication and closer of the matter to the members of the offender’s family.

In conclusion, we can say that, despite the fact that death penalty has a number of short comings, its advantages, however, far outweighs its disadvantages. Death penalty helps to maintain law and order in the society by serving as a lesson and instilling fear upon the potential criminals. Death penalty also restores the moral balance that has been offset by the commission of crime. Lastly, death penalty brings about closure and vindication to the family members of the offender. And in the light of these far reaching advantages, death penalty should be practiced as an effective mean of punishing the offenders who are guilty of serious crimes.

Works Cited

Arguments for and Against the Death Penalty.Web. http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/arguments.PDF Bedau, H. The Case Against Death Penalty. Web.

Bowers, D.C. Life Imprisonment versus Death Penalty. USA: Nashville: Allied Printing Trading Council, 1913. Web. Google Books.

Burleigh, C.C. Thoughts on Capital Punishment.USA: Philadelphia, 1945. Web. Google books.

Goel, V. ‘’Capital Punishment: A human Right Case Study and Jurisprudence’’. International NGO journal vol.3 (9), pp. 152-161, September 2008.

Macdonald, A. ‘’Death Penalty and Homicide’’, July 1, 1910. Vol.16. USA: The American Journal of Sociology.

Maulsby, D. ‘’ The Death Penalty’’ February 1, 1893. Vol. 55. USA: American Advocates of Peace. Web. Google Books. Mens rea. Web. https://www.usadojo.com/articles/kapap/mens-rea.htm

Ross, W. ‘’The Death Penalty: Reasons For its abolition’’, Dec.1, 1905.Vol. 11. USA: The V Virginia Law Registrar. Stephen Toulmin. Web. http://www.stephentoulmin.com/

Related Essays

Find Free Essays

We provide you with original essay samples, perfect formatting and styling

Request must contain at least 2 characters

Popular Topics

Samples by Essay Type

Cite this page

About our services

Topic Death Penalty

Level Masters

This sample is NOT ORIGINAL. Get 100% unique essay written under your req

• Only $11 per page
• Free revisions included

Studyfy uses cookies to deliver the best experience possible. Read more.

Studyfy uses secured cookies. Read more.

Death Penalty - Essay Samples And Topic Ideas For Free

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, remains a contentious issue in many societies. Essays on this topic could explore the moral, legal, and social arguments surrounding the practice, including discussions on retribution, deterrence, and justice. They might delve into historical trends in the application of the death penalty, the potential for judicial error, and the disparities in its application across different demographic groups. Discussions might also explore the psychological impact on inmates, the families involved, and the society at large. They could also analyze the global trends toward abolition or retention of the death penalty and the factors influencing these trends. A substantial compilation of free essay instances related to Death Penalty you can find at Papersowl. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Death Penalty and Justice

By now, many of us are familiar with the statement, "an eye for an eye," which came from the bible, so it should be followed as holy writ. Then there was Gandhi, who inspired thousands and said, "an eye for an eye will leave us all blind." This begs the question, which option do we pick to be a good moral agent, in the terms of justice that is. Some states in America practice the death penalty, where some states […]

The Controversy of Death Penalty

The death penalty is a very controversial topic in many states. Although the idea of the death penalty does sound terrifying, would you really want a murderer to be given food and shelter for free? Would you want a murderer to get out of jail and still end up killing another innocent person? Imagine if that murder gets out of jail and kills someone in your family; Wouldn’t you want that murderer to be killed as well? Murderers can kill […]

Stephen Nathanson’s “An Eye for an Eye”

According to Stephen Nathanson's "An Eye for an Eye?", he believes that capital punishment should be immediately abolished and that the principle of punishment, "lex talionis" which correlates to the classic saying "an eye for an eye" is not a valid reason for issuing the death penalty in any country, thus, abolishment of Capital Punishment should follow. Throughout the excerpt from his book, Nathanson argues against this principle believing that one, it forces us to "commit highly immoral actions”raping a […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

Does the Death Penalty Effectively Deter Crime?

The death penalty in America has been effective since 1608. Throughout the years following the first execution, criminal behaviors have begun to deteriorate. Capital punishment was first formed to deter crime and treason. As a result, it increased the rate of crime, according to researchers. Punishing criminals by death does not effectively deter crime because criminals are not concerned with consequences, apprehension, and judges are not willing to pay the expenses. During the stage of mens rea, thoughts of committing […]

The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?

The death penalty has been a controversial topic throughout the years and now more than ever, as we argue; Right or Wrong? Moral or Immoral? Constitutional or Unconstitutional? The death penalty also known as capital punishment is a legal process where the state justice sentences an individual to be executed as punishment for a crime committed. The death penalty sentence strongly depends on the severity of the crime, in the US there are 41 crimes that can lead to being […]

About Carlton Franklin

In most other situations, the long-unsolved Westfield Murder would have been a death penalty case. A 57-year-old legal secretary, Lena Triano, was found tied up, raped, beaten, and stabbed in her New Jersey home. A DNA sample from her undergarments connected Carlton Franklin to the scene of the crime. However, fortunately enough for Franklin, he was not convicted until almost four decades after the murder and, in an unusual turn of events, was tried in juvenile court. Franklin was fifteen […]

About the Death Penalty

The death penalty has been a method used as far back as the Eighteenth century B.C. The use of the death penalty was for punishing people for committing relentless crimes. The severity of the punishment were much more inferior in comparison to modern day. These inferior punishments included boiling live bodies, burning at the stake, hanging, and extensive use of the guillotine to decapitate criminals. In the ancient days no laws were established to dictate and regulate the type of […]

The Death Penalty should not be Legal

Imagine you hit your sibling and your mom hits you back to teach that you shouldn't be hitting anyone. Do you really learn not to be violent from that or instead do you learn how it is okay for moms or dads to hit their children in order to teach them something? This is exactly how the death penalty works. The death penalty has been a form of punishment for decades. There are several methods of execution and those are […]

Effectively Solving Society’s Criminality

Has one ever wondered if the person standing or sitting next to them has the potential to be a murderer or a rapist? What do those who are victimized personally or have suffered from a tragic event involving a loved-one or someone near and dear to their heart, expect from the government? Convicted felons of this nature and degree of unlawfulness should be sentenced to death. Psychotic killers and rapists need the ultimate consequences such as the death penalty for […]

Religious Values and Death Penalty

Religious and moral values tell us that killing is wrong. Thou shall not kill. To me, the death penalty is inhumane. Killing people makes us like the murderers that most of us despise. No imperfect system should have the right to decide who lives and who dies. The government is made up of imperfect humans, who make mistakes. The only person that should be able to take life, is god. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind". […]

Abolishment of the Death Penalty

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to relate many different criminological theories in regard to capital punishment. We relate many criminological theories such as; cognitive theory, deviant place theory, latent trait theory, differential association theory, behavioral theory, attachment theory, lifestyle theory, and biosocial theory. This paper empirically analyzes the idea that capital punishment is inhumane and should be abolished. We analyze this by taking into consideration false convictions, deterrence of crime, attitudes towards capital punishment, mental illness and juvenile […]

Punishment and the Nature of the Crime

When an individual commits a crime then he/she is given punishment depending on the nature of the crime committed. The US's way of giving punishment to an offender has been criticized for many years. There are 2 types of cases; civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, most of the verdict comprises of jail time or fine amount to be paid. These are not as severe except the one related to money laundering and forgery. On the other hand, criminal […]

The Death Penalty and Juveniles

Introduction: In today's society, many juveniles are being sent to trial without having the chance of getting a fair trial as anyone else would. Many citizens would see juveniles as dangerous individuals, but in my opinion how a teenager acts at home starts at home. Punishing a child for something that could have been solved at home is something that should not have to get worse by giving them the death penalty. The death penalty should not be imposed on […]

Is the Death Penalty “Humane”

What’s the first thing that pops up in your mind when you hear the words Capital Punishment? I’m assuming for most people the first thing that pops up is a criminal sitting on a chair, with all limbs tied down, and some type of mechanism connected to their head. Even though this really isn't the way that it is done, I do not blame people for imagining that type of image because that is how movies usually portray capital punishment. […]

Euthanasia and Death Penalty

Euthanasia and death penalty are two controversy topics, that get a lot of attention in today's life. The subject itself has the roots deep in the beginning of the humankind. It is interesting and maybe useful to learn the answer and if there is right or wrong in those actions. The decision if a person should live or die depends on the state laws. There are both opponents and supporters of the subject. However different the opinions are, the state […]

The Death Penalty is not Worth the Cost

The death penalty is a government practice, used as a punishment for capital crimes such as treason, murder, and genocide to name a few. It has been a controversial topic for many years some countries still use it while others don't. In the United States, each state gets to choose whether they consider it to be legal or not. Which is why in this country 30 states allow it while 20 states have gotten rid of it. It is controversial […]

Ineffectiveness of Death Penalty

Death penalty as a means of punishing crime and discouraging wrong behaviour has suffered opposition from various fronts. Religious leaders argue that it is morally wrong to take someone's life while liberal thinkers claim that there are better ways to punish wrong behaviour other than the death penalty. This debate rages on while statistically, Texas executes more individuals than any other state in the United States of America. America itself also has the highest number of death penalty related deaths […]

Is the Death Penalty Morally Right?

There have been several disputes on whether the death penalty is morally right. Considering the ethical issues with this punishment can help distinguish if it should be denied or accepted. For example, it can be argued that a criminal of extreme offenses should be granted the same level of penance as their crime. During the duration of their sentencing they could repent on their actions and desire another opportunity of freedom. The death penalty should be outlawed because of too […]

Why the Death Penalty is Unjust

Capital punishment being either a justifiable law, or a horrendous, unjust act can be determined based on the perspective of different worldviews. In a traditional Christian perspective, the word of God given to the world in The Holy Bible should only be abided by. The Holy Bible states that no man (or woman) should shed the blood of another man (or woman). Christians are taught to teach a greater amount of sacrifice for the sake of the Lord. Social justice […]

The Death Penalty and People’s Opinions

The death penalty is a highly debated topic that often divided opinion amongst people all around the world. Firstly, let's take a look at our capital punishments, with certain crimes, come different serving times. Most crimes include treason, espionage, murder, large-scale drug trafficking, and murder towards a juror, witness, or a court officer in some cases. These are a few examples compared to the forty-one federal capital offenses to date. When it comes to the death penalty, there are certain […]

The Debate of the Death Penalty

Capital punishment is a moral issue that is often scrutinized due to the taking of someone’s life. This is in large part because of the views many have toward the rule of law or an acceptance to the status quo. In order to get a true scope of the death penalty, it is best to address potential biases from a particular ethical viewpoint. By looking at it from several theories of punishment, selecting the most viable theory makes it a […]

The History of the Death Penalty

The History of the death penalty goes as far back as ancient China and Babylon. However, the first recorded death sentence took place in 16th Century BC Egypt, where executions were carried out with an ax. Since the very beginning, people were treated according to their social status; those wealthy were rarely facing brutal executions; on the contrary, most of the population was facing cruel executions. For instance, in the 5th Century BC, the Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets […]

Death Penalty is Immoral

Let's say your child grabs a plate purposely. You see them grab the plate, smash it on the ground and look you straight in the eyes. Are they deserving of a punishment? Now what if I say your child is three years old. A three year old typically doesn't know they have done something wrong. But since your child broke that one plate, your kid is being put on death row. You may be thinking, that is too harsh of […]

The Death Penalty in the United States

The United States is the "land of the free, home of the brave" and the death penalty (American National Anthem). Globally, America stands number five in carrying executions (Lockie). Since its resurrection in 1976, the year in which the Supreme Court reestablished the constitutionality of the death penalty, more than 1,264 people have been executed, predominantly by the medium of lethal injection (The Guardian). Almost all death penalty cases entangle the execution of assassins; although, they may also be applied […]

Cost of the Death Penalty

The death penalty costs more than life in prison. According to Fox News correspondent Dan Springer, the State of California spent 4 billion dollars to execute 13 individuals, in addition to the net spend of an estimated $64,000 per prisoner every year. Springer (2011) documents how the death penalty convictions declined due to economic reasons. The state spends up to 3 times more when seeking a death penalty than when pursuing a life in prison without the possibility of parole. […]

The Solution to the Death Penalty

There has never been a time when the United States of America was free from criminals indulging in killing, stealing, exploiting people, and even selling illegal items. Naturally, America refuses to tolerate the crimes committed by those who view themselves as above the law. Once these convicts are apprehended, they are brought to justice. In the past, these criminals often faced an ultimate punishment: the death penalty. Mercy was a foreign concept due to their underdeveloped understanding of the value […]

Costs: Death Penalty Versus Prison Costs

The Conservatives Concerned Organization challenges the notion that the death penalty is more cost effective compared to prison housing and feeding costs. The organization argues that the death penalty is an expensive lengthy and complicated process concluding that it is not only a bloated program that delays justice and bogs down the enforcement of the law, it is also an inefficient justice process that diverts financial resources from law enforcement programs that could protect individuals and save lives. According to […]

Death Penalty as a Source of Constant Controversy

The death penalty has been a source of almost constant controversy for hundreds of years, splitting the population down the middle with people supporting the death penalty and people that think it is unnecessary. The amount of people that are been against the death penalty has grown in recent years, causing the amount of executions to dwindle down to where there is less than one hundred every year. This number will continue to lessen as more and more people decide […]

Death Penalty is Politically Just?

Being wrongfully accused is unimaginable, but think if you were wrongfully accused and the ultimate punishment was death. Death penalty is one of the most controversial issues in today's society, but what is politically just? When a crime is committed most assume that the only acceptable consequence is to be put to death rather than thinking of another form of punishment. Religiously the death penalty is unfair because the, "USCCB concludes prisoners can change and find redemption through ministry outreach, […]

George Walker Bush and Death Penalty

George Walker Bush, a former U.S. president, and governor of Texas, once spoke, "I don't think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives." The death penalty, or capital punishment, refers to the execution of a criminal convicted of a capital offense. With many criminals awaiting execution on death row, the death penalty has been a debated topic […]

Additional Example Essays

• Death Penalty Should be Abolished
• Main Reasons of Seperation from Great Britain
• Leadership and the Army Profession
• Letter From Birmingham Jail Rhetorical Analysis
• Why Abortion Should be Illegal
• Logical Fallacies in Letter From Birmingham Jail
• How the Roles of Women and Men Were Portrayed in "A Doll's House"
• Ethical or Unethical Behavior in Business
• Does Arrest Reduce Domestic Violence
• Recycling Should be Mandatory
• Why I Want to Be an US Army Officer

How To Write an Essay About Death Penalty

Understanding the topic.

When writing an essay about the death penalty, the first step is to understand the depth and complexities of the topic. The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is a legal process where a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. This topic is highly controversial and evokes strong emotions on both sides of the debate. It's crucial to approach this subject with sensitivity and a balanced perspective, acknowledging the moral, legal, and ethical considerations involved. Research is key in this initial phase, as it's important to gather facts, statistics, and viewpoints from various sources to have a well-rounded understanding of the topic. This foundation will set the tone for your essay, guiding your argument and supporting your thesis.

Structuring the Argument

The next step is structuring your argument. In an essay about the death penalty, it's vital to present a clear thesis statement that outlines your stance on the issue. Are you for or against it? What are the reasons behind your position? The body of your essay should then systematically support your thesis through well-structured arguments. Each paragraph should focus on a specific aspect of the death penalty, such as its ethical implications, its effectiveness as a deterrent to crime, or the risk of wrongful convictions. Ensure that each point is backed up by evidence and examples, and remember to address counterarguments. This not only shows that you have considered multiple viewpoints but also strengthens your position by demonstrating why these opposing arguments may be less valid.

Exploring Ethical and Moral Dimensions

An essential aspect of writing an essay on the death penalty is exploring its ethical and moral dimensions. This involves delving into philosophical debates about the value of human life, justice, and retribution. It's important to discuss the moral justifications that are often used to defend the death penalty, such as the idea of 'an eye for an eye,' and to critically evaluate these arguments. Equally important is exploring the ethical arguments against the death penalty, including the potential for innocent people to be executed and the question of whether the state should have the power to take a life. This section of the essay should challenge readers to think deeply about their values and the principles of a just society.

Concluding Thoughts

In conclusion, revisit your thesis and summarize the key points made in your essay. This is your final opportunity to reinforce your argument and leave a lasting impression on your readers. Discuss the broader implications of the death penalty in society and consider potential future developments in this area. You might also want to offer recommendations or pose questions that encourage further reflection on the topic. Remember, a strong conclusion doesn't just restate what has been said; it provides closure and offers new insights, prompting readers to continue thinking about the subject long after they have finished reading your essay.

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

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

Death Penalty Argumentative Essay.edited

• Science & Math
• Sociology & Philosophy
• Law & Politics

Essay: Arguments against the Death Penalty

• Essay: Arguments against the Death…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Posts

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

Author:  William Anderson (Schoolworkhelper Editorial Team)

Tutor and Freelance Writer. Science Teacher and Lover of Essays. Article last reviewed: 2022 | St. Rosemary Institution © 2010-2024 | Creative Commons 4.0

10 Comments

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

Who is the Author?

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

I disagree entirely

I agree with you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

Post comment

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

Against The Death Penalty: a Persuasive Argument for Abolition

• Categories: Capital Punishment Death Penalty

About this sample

Words: 919 |

Published: Mar 18, 2021

Words: 919 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Works Cited

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

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

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

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

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

3 pages / 1212 words

1 pages / 609 words

4 pages / 1959 words

6 pages / 2615 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

The debate over whether executions should be televised has been a topic of discussion for many years. The idea of broadcasting such a graphic and controversial event raises ethical, moral, and legal questions. However, there are [...]

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 [...]

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

The death of a moth may seem like a trivial event, but Virginia Woolf's essay "The Death of the Moth" suggests otherwise. Through her vivid and poetic language, Woolf portrays the inevitability of death and the fragility of [...]

How many times have you been somewhere and heard a teen arguing with their parent saying, “Why are you treating me like such a kid?” We all know teens want to be treated like adults when it comes to responsibilities and [...]

Definition of lethal injection Overview of its use in the death penalty Controversy surrounding lethal injection How capital punishment is initiated Waiting period on death row The execution process, [...]

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

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples
• Human Rights

Arguments for and against the Death Penalty

Updated 24 November 2023

Subject Human Rights

Downloads 39

Category Crime ,  Law ,  Social Issues

Topic Death Penalty

Head, Tom. “5 Arguments for the Death Penalty.” ThoughtCo, 19 Feb. 2017, https://www.thoughtco.com/arguments-for-the-death-penalty-721136. Accessed 30 Jul. 2018.

In this paper, Tom Head puts forward his arguments in support of the death penalty. He observes the waning support of the capital punishment in the United States by referring to a recent Gallup Poll. The author, therefore, cites the death penalty as a possible deterrence to the crime by arguing that the people are mostly more afraid of dying than any other thing. Head also suggests that the capital punishment is one of the ways through which the state can save the costs that it would otherwise incur during the potentially life-time incarceration. The writer also relies on the moralist and religious views arguing that the criminals need to die because of the heinous acts that they have formerly commited. As such, Head’s article is a valuable work for my research paper because it offers an alternate perspective for the position that I have taken. The article is a reliable source of information owing to the exemplary track record of ThoughtCo

as a reputable means of the scientific research on all of the possible niches.

Longley, Robert. “Recent Legal History of the Death Penalty in America.” ThoughtCo, 26 Feb. 2016, https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-death-penalty-in-america-3896747. Accessed 30 Jul. 2018.

The article by Robert Longley traces the history of the capital punishment in the United States. Longley, therefore, informs the audience that the execution is an integral component of the American judicial system where in the past, people would be executed for even the minor offenses such as stealing the grapes. The author further looks at the changing perceptions on the subject matter by providing the examples of the distinct periods in the States. In the voluntary moratorium period that had lasted from 1967 up to 1972, the United States’ Supreme Court had to be struggling with the issue over the growing negative publicity towards the death penalty sentence. As such, in 1972, in the Furman vs. Georgia

case, one can learn that the higher judicial body had eventually overturned the capital punishment as it had considered the respective verdict as barbaric and cruel. Later, it is observed how the Supreme Court upheld the new death penalty laws. Longley informs the readers on the resumption of the execution in 1977 in the United States along with providing the current public opinion on the issue under consideration. The article by Longley is vital for my paper as it traces the history of the subject over the years in the US. The piece is also a valid source of information due to the ThoughtCo platform’s well-known reliability.

Radelet, Michael L., and Marian J. Borg. “The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 26, 2000, pp. 43-61.

The paper on The Changing Nature of Death Penalty Debates examines the vacillating nature of the capital punishment argument in the United States over the years. The article attempts to fulfill this objective by looking at six distinct areas, which are caprice and bias, deterrence, retribution, innocence, cost, and incapacitation. The authors review the prevailing public opinions on the subject matter and posit that the changes in the argument are due to social science scholarship (Radelet and Borg 43). Therefore, by delving into the pertinent literature, Radelet and Borg (60) are drawing the conclusion that over the years, there has been a slow and gradual shift towards the abolition of the death penalty all over the world and the United States in particular. The given article is essential to my research because it is a source of pertinent information on the subject matter of the capital punishment, and it thoroughly captures the varying opinions over the years on the issue. The paper is also a reliable source of information considering that the piece of literature is peer-reviewed and was published in the scholarly journal.

White, Deborah. “Pros " Cons of the Death Penalty.” ThoughtCo, 13 May 2017, https://www.thoughtco.com/pros-and-cons-death-penalty-3325230. Accessed 30 Jul. 2018.

Deborah White examines the arguments that have been previously put forth regarding the concept of the capital punishment. She notes that the proponents of the penalty argue that the members of the society who commit atrocities, which endanger the lives of others, earn and deserve capital punishment (White). However, the opponents aver that the death penalty is the ultimate denial of an individual’s right to life. The author further goes on to examine the rest of the potential arguments on the matter such as, for instance, incarceration costs. Additionally, White looks at the issue from the United States’ point of view and the global context and compares the various pertinent statistics on the execution. From the author’s comparison, one is able to note that China was the leading nation for execution just 10 years ago back in 2008. White also demonstrates to the audience that Texas was the state, which had the highest number of the death penalties brought to life in 2008, thus accounting for 38% of the total execution cases. As such, White’s article is fundamental to my research paper since it contains both global and local statistical figures on the issue capital punishment, which would be of great assistance to me in shaping my arguments. The work is also reliable source of crucial details on the matter since the article had been published on the ThoughtCo which is widely known as a reputable source of information.

Death Penalty, Does It Deliver?

Throughout history, various rulers have devised a myriad of the gruesome ways of for dealing with the prisoners and offenders. There have also been cases when the states have opted to boiling the convicts in oil, throwing them in the snake pits, or even giving them lethargic injections. Although some people argue that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime, other quarters posit that it is an extreme demonstration of denying one’s human rights (Radelet and Borg 43). The researchers further assert that the states which often kill for fun lack the moral capacity to execute the offenders (Radelet and Borg 43). Among the industrialized western nations, the United States is the only country that still exercises the death sentence. Since the 1990s, over 30 states have resorted to abolishing the capital punishment (White). Additionally, out of the 74 countries that still have death penalties; the executions occur only in a small proportion of the nations: Vietnam, the US, and China (White). The American government has executed over 1,000 people since the reinstatement of the death penalty, and over 3,000 individuals are currently living on death rows (White). Although judicial murder enjoyed significant support from the society in the 1990’s because of the high prevalence of crime, currently, its support has waned significantly. In 2016, a Gallup poll showed that 55 % of the Americans were against capital punishment, which was a five percent decrease from the previous year (Head). This essay, therefore, examines the efficacy of the death penalty in deterring crimes and saving costs compared to the life incarceration among others.

A scientific study conducted in Oklahoma showed that there exists no proof that judicial executions have a deterrent effect on the criminals (Radelet and Borg 47). In fact, most of the countries, which abolished death sentences in the 1990’s, have had characteristically lower homicide rates compared to America. In the US, the states that abolished legal killings have lower crime incidence occurrences. The Canadian situation exemplifies the limitations of death sentences as a crime deterrent, whereby since the scrapping off of judicial executions, a 24% decrease in reported misdemeanors has been recorded (Longley). In England, in the 18th century, all felonies were punished by execution, even pickpocketing. Ironically, the public executions availed an opportunity for the picketers’ to steal from other people (Radelet and Borg 47). It is apparent that it is a demonstration of the inefficiency of death penalties as a disincentive to transgressions. A detailed study of criminal behavior shows that the fear of conviction the only surreal mechanism of preventing violations (Radelet and Borg 48).

Usually, the trial and the sentencing process should follow proper channels and adhere to the constitutional tenets. The procedure should be fair and devoid of any form of discrimination. Since the reinstatement of capital punishment in the mid 70’s, statistics show that the execution has disproportionately targeted only some members of the population (Radelet and Borg 46). Between 1930 and 1996, the US government executed over 4,000 people. Approximately half of them were blacks who were a smaller proportion of the entire population (Radelet and Borg 46). In fact, in the Furman case, the Supreme Court cited racial discrimination as one of its reasons against capital punishment (Longley). A more recent study of the death sentence in Texas showed that the penalty is significantly an extension of the southerners’ racist “legacy of slavery” (Radelet and Borg 45). A more detailed comparison of black and white malefactors in the last century further reveals that African Americans were convicted and subsequently executed for crimes considered as less than capital offenses for the Whites (Radelet and Borg 42). Additionally, a significant proportion of the executed blacks were juveniles, and the probability of an individual executed without the conviction being reviewed was higher for the populace of color. Proponents of the death penalty may argue that racial bias is outdated; however, at any time, more than half of the individuals on death rows have always been blacks (Radelet and Borg 49).

A familiar narrative often peddled by proponents of capital punishment is that the sentence of such kind is a more economical alternative when compared to life imprisonment (Head). However, a detailed analysis of all the relevant costs incurred reveals that it is not the case. More often, in murder trials where the death penalty is at stake, such scenarios tend to take more extended periods. Therefore, as a result, additional litigation costs and briefing expenses are incurred which burden the taxpayer (White). Besides, taking into account the extra security charges suffered when taking the offenders to courts and separate death row housing units, it is evident that the capital punishment exerts additional expenses on the taxpayer. A study conducted in New York in 1982 showed that if the death penalty were to be reintroduced, the state would incur twice the costs for life imprisonment (Radelet and Borg 50). In fact, it was one of the reasons why the legalized killing was not reintroduced again in New York. A comparative study in Maryland of capital trials showed that capital punishment cases cost 42% more than non-death sentence cases (Radelet and Borg 50). In Florida, where vast numbers of judicial killings have been reported, it is estimated that legal execution costs approximately three million dollars, which is six times the cost of life imprisonment (Radelet and Borg 51). Herein it is observed that the death penalty is not a cheaper alternative, as it is often mistakenly perceived.

As shown through the various statistics and studies, the death penalty does not deliver. It is more expensive when compared to life imprisonment. The lengthy charges, extra security, and high briefing cost all subject additional burden to the taxpayer. Again, capital punishment is devoid of fairness and justice. It seems to target some factions of the population selectively, like the African-Americans in the US. Moreover, repeated studies such as the police study in Oklahoma have demonstrated that it is not an effective deterrent to crime. Hence, in this regard, it is inferred that the death penalty does not deliver.

Works Cited

Head, T. (2017). 5 arguments for the death penalty. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/arguments-for-the-death-penalty-721136

Longley, R. (2016). Recent legal history of the death penalty in America. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-death-penalty-in-america-3896747

Radelet, M. L., " Borg, M J. (2000). The changing nature of death penalty debates. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 43-61.

White, D. (2017). Pros " cons of the death penalty. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/pros-and-cons-death-penalty-3325230

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

Related topics.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Type your email

By clicking “Submit”, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy policy. Sometimes you will receive account related emails.

Supreme Court hears Arizona death row case arguments. A ruling could redefine future appeals

T he United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an Arizona death penalty case on Wednesday that could redefine the precedent for establishing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Danny Lee Jones was convicted and sentenced to death in Mohave County for the 1992 murders of Robert Weaver and his daughter, Tisha. Jones sought relief in the Arizona District Court, claiming his defense attorney was so deficient it violated his constitutional rights. The District Court denied Jones’ claim, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, siding with Jones. Arizona appealed the 9th Circuit decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and was granted a review.

At issue is what’s known as the Strickland standard, which came from the 1984 Supreme Court case Strickland v. Washington. The Strickland decision established that a defendant must show their attorney’s performance was deficient, resulting in an unfair trial, to claim their constitutional rights were violated.

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

Defense attorney: Initial lawyer had little experience, was deficient

At the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Jones’ attorney Jean-Claude Andre argued that Jones’ initial trial attorney, a public defender with no capital case experience, was constitutionally deficient based on the Supreme Court's Strickland standard.

In Jones’ case, Andre alleged the judge and jury did not get to hear all of the mitigating evidence that was available.

“Despite numerous red flags about Jones's mental health and emotional disorders, counsel did not start his mitigation investigation until after Jones's conviction,” Andre said.

He said the sentencing judge did hear about some of Jones’ mitigating factors, but not the more substantial evidence that was later presented in a federal evidentiary hearing.

“The new mitigating evidence showed that Jones was chronically abused throughout his entire formative years in childhood, by not just one but by multiple male family members,” Andre said. “Most critically, the new mitigation evidence actually included diagnoses — evidence about the effects that all the abuse and head injuries had on Jones.”

Andre said four experts diagnosed Jones with brain damage, PTSD, bipolar depressive disorder, and a learning disability, among other things. 

“This new evidence would have dramatically changed the sentencing calculus both in the trial court and before the Arizona Supreme Court on its independent review,” Andre said. 

Instead of looking at all of the evidence, Andre said the District Court “serially nitpicked” from the mitigation, which he called an error. Andre asked the high court to affirm the 9th Circuit’s ruling overturning the District Court.

'No reasonable probability' sentence would have been different, Arizona prosecutor says

But Jason Lewis, deputy solicitor general arguing on behalf of Arizona, said Jones’ crimes were so serious, and the brutality he inflicted upon his victims was so severe, that new evidence would not have changed the minds of the judge or the jury. 

“When you look at those aggravating circumstances, and you understand how Arizona courts treat those aggravating circumstances, this is ... almost a foregone conclusion that there is no reasonable probability that the sentence would have been different,” Lewis said.  

Lewis said the 9th Circuit failed to meaningfully consider those aggravating circumstances or their weight.

“Strickland does not allow for a sentence to be undone whenever there is some new mitigation that addresses moral culpability,” he said. “Instead, it requires a reasonable probability that the new mitigation would have changed the sentence in light of the balance between the total mitigation and the aggravating evidence.”

He also contended that Jones had a “pretty good” mitigation case before the trial court, and he argued that it was not constitutionally deficient.

Lewis asked the justices to reverse the 9th Circuit’s judgment.

High court appears split on ideological grounds

Justice Clarence Thomas seemed to agree with Lewis’ belief that the 9th Circuit should have deferred to the District Court ruling. He asked Lewis if the case could be resolved by saying a de novo review — deciding a case without deferring to a previous court's ruling — was improper.

“I think so, your honor,” Lewis replied.

There was disagreement among the parties about the actions taken by the District Court in Jones’ case. Andre criticized the District Court for acting as a fact finder, making its own determination about expert witnesses and evidence, when it should have accepted the facts as presented and made a decision about whether the defendant had been prejudiced against.

Lewis said the District Court not only had the right to make factual determinations, but the 9th Circuit failed by not deferring to them.

Justice Neil Gorsuch indicated his agreement with Lewis’ position, saying the District Court had to determine what the facts were before it could make a determination of whether there was a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had the judge and jury heard those facts.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed to side with Andre’s position on where the District Court erred. Taking mitigation evidence off the table, instead of accepting all of it and weighing all of it for its value, could lead to a different outcome, she said.

Justice Elena Kagan indicated she would be in favor of returning the case to a lower court.

"We're losing, I think, a view of what this case is about," Kagan said. "Nobody disputes that the trial counsel was deficient. In no capital case should any lawyer wait till someone has been found guilty to start mitigation because it doesn't give you enough time to do a thorough investigation."

Kagan said there was a "mountain of additional evidence" that was found, but no one was disputing Jones' conviction.

"We're only here to decide who should decide whether to resentence him," she said of Jones.

Dale Baich, adjunct professor at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, said it appeared from the questions during the argument that the case will be remanded to a lower court for further review.

"The Supreme Court will give direction as to the scope of the reexamination that is necessary to comply with the Constitution," Baich said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has considered several Arizona death penalty cases in recent years.

Back-to-back rulings in 2023 could result in as many as 30 of the more than 100 people on Arizona's death row having their death sentences reconsidered.

A decision on Jones' case is expected by the end of June.

Facing capital punishment: Man sentenced to death in murder of 72-year-old Phoenix church janitor

Have a news tip? Reach the reporter at [email protected] or 812-243-5582. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @JimmyJenkins .

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Supreme Court hears Arizona death row case arguments. A ruling could redefine future appeals

Jury says Marcelle Waldon should die for 2020 Lake Morton double murder

A jury on Tuesday said Marcelle Jerrill Waldon should die for the murders of former City Commissioner Edie Yates Henderson and her husband, David Henderson, in their Lake Morton home in November 2020.

The jury vote was 11-1. Under a new state law, a death sentence only requires an 8-4 jury vote.

Circuit Judge J. Kevin Abdoney will have the final say on Waldon's sentence. He can go against the jury's death recommendation and impose life in prison, but could not have gone against a jury's recommendation for life.

There will be hearings about the case in the coming months and eventually Abdoney will make his decision. Waldon was to remain held on no bond.

Abdoney and the attorneys set a status hearings for Feb. 16 to determine if the defense wanted him to consider additional evidence during a "Spencer" hearing.

Outside the courtroom and after the jury's penalty-phase verdict, defense attorney Daniel Hernandez said there will be appeals.

'There's a lot to appeal'

"There is a lot to appeal," he said. "Obviously, the number one issue is the fact that the orginal, when this case started, the requirement for the death penalty was it had to be unanimous," Hernandez said. "And with the 11-1 decision, it definitely becomes an issue. That's probably the most, biggest issue, but there are others."

He called it "frustrating when you have evidence that you cannot present," which in this case happened when the defense could not present mitigation evidence as to the defendant's state of mind during the crimes after Abdoney accepted Waldon's waiver of the mitigation.

Hernandez said that during an upcoming hearing, and only if Waldon changes his mind about waiving the presentation of mitigating factors, the defense would ask the judge if they can present him with some of their findings, which the jury never heard.

Before Abdoney imposes a sentence in the case, a "Spencer" hearing (named after the Spencer vs. State of Florida case) allows the defense to provide the judge with additional evidence prior to entering a sentence.

"It's one last shot before the judge orders life or death," Hernandez said. He estimated the Spencer hearing can be expected within the next six months.

The jury began deliberations at 10:35 a.m. Tuesday after the judge instructed them on the law they were to follow in determining either sentence. They took more than five hours to deliberate. They filed into the jury box at 4:04 p.m.

On Monday, the first day of the sentencing phase of Waldon's trial, the prosecution presented evidence for several aggravating factors to justify death. The jury reached a unanimous decision on the six factors sought by the prosecution.

It was also during Monday's proceedings that Waldon declined to mount a penalty-phase defense, when he waived his right to let his attorneys present mitigating evidence, against their advice. Abdoney asked him whether he was sure twice during different parts of the proceedings, and both times Waldon said he wanted to waive mitigation.

Murders and eight other charges

On Jan. 31, the  same jury convicted Waldon , 39, of the horrific murders of the Hendersons. The prominent Lakeland couple had been stabbed 23 times with a large kitchen knife missing from a butcher block in their home, the prosecution said at trial.

Waldon also was convicted of burglary of a dwelling with assault, assault and battery while armed with a firearm, two counts of kidnapping, robbery with a firearm, attempted arson, arson, grand theft of a motor vehicle and tampering with physical evidence. Another charge of forgery was thrown out.

During the trial phase, the prosecution said that  Waldon stole valuable items  from Hendersons, tied them up and then stabbed them to death to cover up the crimes. He was also convicted of attempting to burn down the home and torching the husband’s car. Other  items missing from the home  included jewelry, credit cards, bank checks and the husband’s white Audi A6.   

Later, he and acquaintance Javis Collins, who was initially considered a suspect by Lakeland Police Department, pawned the expensive jewelry in Lakeland. Waldon attempted to cash a $5,000 check at a local Amscot belonging to the Hendersons, but a teller refused the check when she couldn't reach either of the Hendersons by phone.

On Monday, the victims' family members also presented victim-impact statements to the jury. They spoke of the Hendersons as community leaders, parents and grandparents.

The jury of nine women and four men had first to consider on Tuesday whether the prosecution’s aggregating factors were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Then they would consider the same for the defense’s mitigating factors, which can include a convicted murderer’s mental state at the time of the murders. But Waldon had declined to present any.  

The closing arguments

With sparse mitigation evidence to use in his closing argument, defense attorney Daniel Hernandez pointed out to the jury that Waldon did not go to the Hendersons intending to kill them. The prosecution had conceded there was no evidence of that.  

Regarding the prosecution's showing of graphic crime scene and autopsy photos, Hernandez told the jury that all murders by their nature are violent. And “this case is one of them.”

He also said life in prison without the possibility of parole does not come with a “light at the end of a tunnel” because Florida law does not permit prisoners serving such a sentence to be released.

“My client will leave prison in a coffin,” he said, asking the jury to recommend a life sentence. 

Further, time in prison is not safe, “conditions are poor” and it is a “dangerous” place compared with death row, he said.  

He asked the jurors not to make their decision out of emotion nor anger toward anyone in the courtroom.

In addressing Waldon’s decision to waive mitigation, Hernandez said, “There is a lot more to this story.”  

For the prosecution, Assistant State Attorney Michael Nutter closed by saying they had presented evidence showing all six aggravating factors were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. During multiple statements to the jury, he pointed his finger at Waldon several times for emphasis, and saying "that man."

He said that at least some of the aggravating circumstances were “inherent” in the jury’s guilty verdicts on all 10 charges, including the separate counts of murder for the homicides of Edie and David Henderson.   

“This was a crime of witness elimination.” Nutter said.  

He said the kidnapping factor was committed prior to their deaths and several of the crimes show Waldon was trying to avoid apprehension, including the killings, trying to “blow up their house,” burning their car and deleting crime scene photos from his cell phone.

To illustrate the murderer’s planning, Nutter said, “he chose a knife because a knife is quiet and a revolver is loud.” 

Further, despite the Hendersons being tied up and Waldon being able to rummage through their possessions, he killed them so he could not be identified later as the one who burglarized and robbed the Hendersons.  

“The only person he cared about that day was himself,” Nutter said. “He wanted to steal and take from them what it had taken a lifetime for them to earn.” 

In addressing additional aggravating factors, he said the murders were heinous, atrocious and cruel as he displayed crime scene photos for the jury to see again.  

“I would stipulate it was shocking what that man (Waldon) did to another human being,” Nutter said. He then pointed out the tissue, muscle and bone damage explained by the forensic pathologist as Edie Henderson was stabbed 11 times and David Henderson 12 times. 

Nutter said it was not just how they died but what their final moments were like. The couple would have seen Waldon with a weapon and been tied up for at least 12 minutes. They would have been aware that they were dying once they had been stabbed. 

For Edie Henderson, who had just stepped out of the shower before Waldon entered her bedroom, it was “every woman’s worst nightmare,” he said. 

“He turned her dream into a nightmare,” Nutter said.  

The prosecution also said there were no overriding reasons to excuse the murders. “In this case, there is no justification for moral or legal defense.” 

While the death penalty can only be recommended if eight jurors of the 12-member panel, they had to reach unanimous agreement that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there was at least one aggravating factor.

• International

Trump hush money trial

Middle East conflict

Supreme Court hears arguments over obstruction law used against January 6 rioters

By John Fritze, Paul LeBlanc , Isabelle D'Antonio and Kaanita Iyer, CNN

Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s arguments over using the obstruction charge against Capitol rioters 

From CNN's John Fritze, Marshall Cohen, Tierney Sneed and Hannah Rabinowitz 

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority indicated Tuesday that it may toss out a charge prosecutors have lodged against hundreds of people who took part in the January 6, 2021, riot on the US Capitol, a decision that could force the Justice Department to reopen some of those cases. 

During over 90 minutes of arguments, most justices signaled concern with how the Justice Department is using the law, which was enacted by Congress more than two decades ago. Critics claimed the felony charge, which carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years, was intended to prevent evidence tampering – not an insurrection. 

The high court’s ruling, expected by July, could affect the federal election subversion case against former President Donald Trump, who was also charged with the obstruction crime.  

Here’s what to know about Tuesday’s oral arguments: 

Traumatic day boils down to technical argument   

Mostly absent from oral arguments Tuesday was recognition of the traumatic and deadly events that took place just across the street from the Supreme Court three years ago. Instead, the discussion turned largely on a technical debate about the meaning of the words in the law – in particular, the word “otherwise.”   

That 2002 law makes it a felony to “corruptly” alter, destroy or mutilate a record with the intent of making it unavailable for use in an “official proceeding,” or to “otherwise” obstruct, influence or impede such a proceeding. Capitol riot defendant Jospeh Fischer, who brought the case to the high court, argued that, taken together, the law was geared toward prohibiting records destruction. But the Justice Department said it encompassed a wider range of actions – including physical intrusion – that would obstruct a proceeding. 

Conservatives bring up left-wing protests   

There was a heavy dose of “whataboutism” from the conservative justices, who repeatedly brought up left-wing protests while pressing both sides about which conduct they believed would be covered by the felony obstruction law.  

Justice Samuel Alito mentioned the disruptions at the Golden Gate Bridge on Monday, when protesters, angry about Israel’s war against Hamas, blocked rush-hour traffic.

Liberals appear united against January 6 rioter on textualist grounds  

The Supreme Court's three liberals appeared to be lined up in favor of the Justice Department’s position that the federal obstruction law is broad enough to include the rioters’ conduct on January 6.  

Trump looms in background

Though Trump is not a party in the case, the appeal indirectly thrust him onto the Supreme Court’s docket for the third time this election year.

Special counsel Jack Smith has charged Trump with the same obstruction crime at issue in this case. The presumptive GOP presidential nominee would almost certainly use a win for Fischer to try to further undermine the Justice Department’s prosecution of the January 6 defendants.  

Read more about the takeaways from the arguments here .

Supreme Court conservatives appear skeptical of January 6 obstruction charge

From CNN's John Fritze

The Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared skeptical of a charge federal prosecutors have lodged against hundreds of people who attacked the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

While the court’s three-justice liberal wing signaled support for the charge, the conservative majority raised a series of skeptical questions about its potential scope and whether it would criminalize other conduct, such as protests .

A decision against the government could reopen some 350 cases in which defendants have been charged with “obstructing” an official proceeding by pushing their way into the Capitol in 2021. The charge can tack up to 20 years onto a prison sentence.

Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer and January 6 defendant who brought the case to the Supreme Court, argued that the law at issue, created in response to the Enron scandal in 2001, was intended to stop witness tampering, not riots.

During more than an hour and a half of arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito were among those who appeared to take issue with the government’s reading of the law.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asks several skeptical questions

From CNN's Tierney Sneed

Justice Amy Coney Barrett had a series of skeptical questions for the government, setting up the possibility of a 6-3 ruling against the Justice Department’s use of the obstruction statute in January 6, 2021, cases.

“Tell me why I shouldn't be concerned about the breadth of the government's reading, just relying on corrupt intent and the Nexus requirements?” Barrett said, referring to two elements of the crime that Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar has said would limit prosecutors’ use of the charge to very particular circumstances.

While Barrett did not speak for most of the arguments, she had an extended exchange with Prelogar that shed light on how she was thinking about the case. She offered an alternative January 6 scenario wherein the rioters never actually breached the Capitol but the Electoral College certification vote was still stopped.

Joseph Fischer’s attorneys have noted that their client "was not part of the mob that forced the electoral certification to stop; he arrived at the Capitol grounds well after Congress recessed.” 

Barrett also picked up on other conservatives’ inquiries over hypothetical scenarios of political demonstrations that interrupt official proceedings in which prosecutors, under the Justice Department’s reading, could bring the challenge.

“Do you think it's plausible that Congress would have written the statute that broadly?” the justice asked.

Kavanaugh: Why aren't the other charges enough?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, often a key vote in high-profile cases, threw cold water on the government's position by noting the defendant was charged with six other crimes related to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

Those crimes include disorderly conduct and assaulting or interfering with a police officer.

It was a key question signaling that Kavanaugh has concerns with the Justice Department's position.

Several members of conservative bloc seem dubious of DOJ’s broad reading of obstruction law

At least four conservative justices have had questions for Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar that suggest they remain unpersuaded by her arguments that the obstruction statute should be read broadly to use against the US Capitol rioters.

Several of the conservatives have offered examples of political demonstrations that interrupt official proceedings to suggest that — under the DOJ’s interpretation — those protesters would be subject to a 20-year prison sentence.

Justice Neil Gorsuch kicked off one such line of inquiry . It was picked up by Justice Samuel Alito, who grilled Prelogar on a scenario in which lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court were flustered by demonstrators who interrupted the proceeding to protest the treatment of January 6 defendants.

Justice Clarence Thomas told Prelogar that she seemed to “eschew” the approach a so-called textualist would take to this case and made other skeptical remarks when she was arguing.

And Chief Justice John Roberts appears focused on whether the provision in question should be connected to the types of crimes that tamper with evidence.

Prosecutors' use of obstruction law is limited to when defendants had knowledge of Electoral College counting, Prelogar says

From CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz

Responding to a question from Justice Elena Kagan, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said the Justice Department has used the obstruction law only in cases in which defendants knew Electoral College votes were being counted on January 6 and specifically tried to interfere with Congress.

At trial, Prelogar said, prosecutors are required “show that the defendants had knowledge that Congress was meeting in the joint session on that day” and “specifically intended to disrupt the joint proceeding.”

That proof of intent is why the Justice Department has used the obstruction charge on only around 350 of the more than 1,350 Capitol riot defendants, she said.

Prelogar added that some defendants have also been acquitted of the charge because of evidence that “the defendant thought the proceedings were over and wasn’t intending to obstruct,” or that a defendant “thought that law enforcement was waving him into the building.”

Also central to the obstruction charge arguments: "The fish case"

From CNN's Katelyn Polantz

One past Supreme Court case that the Justice Department must contend with, as it tries to sway the justices to sign off on the use of the obstruction charge for January 6 rioters, is a precedent sometimes referred to as "the fish case."

In the 2015 case, a commercial fisherman was catching undersized red grouper off the coast of Florida, then had them tossed back into the Gulf of Mexico, attempting to prevent federal authorities from catching his illicit fishing practices.

Whether he could face the obstruction charge came down to court's determination that fish were a "tangible object."

The court's decision: No, the fish weren't. The fisherman hadn't obstructed.

A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court that included Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal wing at the time, and Justice Samuel Alito, a stalwart conservative, said a “tangible object” included items “used to record or preserve information,” such as a document – not a fish.

The case involved a separate obstruction criminal code section than the Justice Department has used in January 6 cases. So the DOJ is trying to thread the needle, writing to the court in the Fischer case: "The statute at issue here is worded and structured quite differently" from the fish case.

Gorsuch: Would heckling, a sit-in, or pulling a fire alarm be a 20-year felony?

Justice Neil Gorsuch threw out several hypotheticals — a sit-in that disrupted a trial, heckling that interrupted the State of the Union, or pulling a fire alarm that delayed a congressional vote — that suggested he was skeptical of the government’s broad reading of the statute, which carries a maximum imprisonment of 20 years.

Gorsuch asked Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar whether those actions would qualify for 20 years in prison. Prelogar tried to lay out the other elements of the crime — such as the corrupt intent and whether it was a meaningful disruption of an official proceeding — that the government would have to prove to charge and convict under the law in such examples.

Gorsuch, however, pushed back at her attempts to distinguish those circumstances from how the Justice Department is advocating for the statute to be interpreted in this case.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggests he has concerns about DOJ's position

Chief Justice John Roberts, a key vote in this case, appeared skeptical of the Justice Department's position, suggesting that the January 6 defendant in the case might have the better reading of the law.

Prosecutors say the provision at issue bars people from "obstructing" an official proceeding, and that the prohibition is a "catchall" that can cover all sorts of conduct — such as storming the US Capitol.

But Roberts focused on another way of the reading the law, as influenced by the words before it. And in this case, those words deal with evidence tampering — not riots.

Roberts said the DOJ shouldn't read the two provisions as though they are standing alone.

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

Advertisement

Supported by

What to Know About the Trial Donald Trump Faces in Manhattan

Prosecutors accused Mr. Trump of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal. It is the first criminal trial of a former president.

• Share full article

By Ben Protess ,  Kate Christobek and Jonah E. Bromwich

Donald J. Trump is now on trial in Manhattan — the first former U.S. president to be criminally prosecuted.

The trial, which began Monday with jury selection and could move to opening arguments early next week, will oscillate between salacious testimony on sex scandals and granular detail about corporate documents.

Mr. Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, all tied to the former president’s role in a hush-money payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels.

But that payoff is not the only such deal that prosecutors plan to highlight. The prosecutors, from the Manhattan district attorney’s office, have accused Mr. Trump of orchestrating a broader scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election by directing his allies to purchase damaging stories about him to keep them under wraps.

After a slow start to jury selection, the process gained steam this week as lawyers on both sides settled on the first seven jurors. They now must select another five as well as several alternates.

The judge overseeing the case said that if jurors continued to be seated at this pace, opening arguments would most likely begin Monday.

It is the first of Mr. Trump’s four criminal cases to go to trial — and it could be the only one to do so before Election Day.

Mr. Trump, who is again the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has denied all wrongdoing. He also assailed the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, for bringing the charges, accusing him of carrying out a politically motivated witch hunt. And he has attacked the judge , Juan M. Merchan.

Here are answers to some key questions about the tr

Will the trial be televised?

No. There will be no audio or video broadcast of the trial available, though cameras will be stationed in the hallway outside the courtroom to capture Mr. Trump’s remarks going in and out of the trial.

Court will generally be in session every weekday except Wednesdays, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

What is Mr. Trump accused of?

The charges trace back to a $130,000 hush-money payment that Mr. Trump’s fixer, Michael D. Cohen, made to Ms. Daniels in the final days of the 2016 campaign. The payment, which Mr. Cohen said he had made at Mr. Trump’s direction, suppressed her story of a sexual liaison that she said she had with Mr. Trump.

Paying hush money is not always illegal.

But while serving as the commander in chief, Mr. Trump reimbursed Mr. Cohen, and the way he did so constituted fraud, prosecutors say.

In internal records, Mr. Trump’s company classified the repayment to Mr. Cohen as legal expenses, citing a retainer agreement. Yet there were no such expenses, the prosecutors say, and the retainer agreement was fictional too.

Those records underpin the 34 counts of falsifying business records: 11 counts involve the checks, 11 center on monthly invoices Mr. Cohen submitted to the company, and 12 involve entries in the general ledger for Mr. Trump’s trust.

Why did prosecutors cite other hush-money payments?

Mr. Bragg’s office linked Mr. Trump to three hush-money deals. While Mr. Trump is indicted only in connection with the business records related to Ms. Daniels, the prosecutors most likely mentioned the other deals to begin the work of proving that Mr. Trump intended to conceal a second crime.

In addition to the indictment, the prosecutors filed a so-called statement of facts that referenced the other payoffs.

That document, common in complex white-collar cases, provides something of a road map for what the prosecutors could reveal at trial. And based on evidence presented to the grand jury, the document details the two hush-money deals involving The National Enquirer, which has longstanding ties to Mr. Trump.

The first involved the tabloid’s payment of $30,000 to a former Trump Tower doorman who claimed to know that Mr. Trump had fathered a child out of wedlock. The publication later determined that the claim was untrue.

The National Enquirer also made a payment to Karen McDougal, Playboy’s Playmate of the Year in 1998, who wanted to sell her story of an affair with Mr. Trump during the 2016 campaign. She reached a $150,000 agreement with the tabloid, which bought the rights to her story to suppress it — a practice known as “catch and kill.”

The deals suggest that the payment to Ms. Daniels was not an isolated incident but rather part of a broader strategy to influence the 2016 election.

Why is it a felony to falsify records?

Falsifying business records in New York State can be a misdemeanor. But it can be elevated to a felony if prosecutors prove that the records were falsified to conceal another crime.

In this case, there are three potential additional crimes that Mr. Bragg has accused Mr. Trump of concealing: a federal campaign finance violation, a state election-law crime and tax fraud.

The campaign crimes, prosecutors say, involve the hush-money payoffs to Ms. Daniels and Ms. McDougal. The payments, they argue, were illegal donations to Mr. Trump’s campaign.

The potential tax fraud stems from the way in which Mr. Cohen was reimbursed for his payment to Ms. Daniels.

Do prosecutors need to convict Mr. Trump of the other crimes?

No. Prosecutors do not have to charge Mr. Trump with any secondary crime or prove that he committed it.

They still must show, however, that there was intent to “commit or conceal” a second crime.

Who will the witnesses be?

Mr. Cohen is expected to be a crucial witness for the prosecution. His testimony could take days.

Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors are also expected to call David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer, as well as Hope Hicks, a former campaign and White House aide to Mr. Trump, to shed light on the tumultuous period surrounding the hush-money payments.

Ms. Daniels and Ms. McDougal could be witnesses as well.

Who Are Key Players in the Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial?

The first criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump is underway. Take a closer look at central figures related to the case.

What will the defense do?

The defense will most likely try to paint Mr. Cohen as a Trump-hating liar, noting that he and the former president had a falling-out years ago. Mr. Trump’s lawyers are expected to emphasize that Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to a variety of federal crimes in 2018 — including for his role in the hush-money payment.

Much of Mr. Cohen’s testimony is expected to be corroborated by other witnesses, but he might be the only one who can directly tie Mr. Trump to the false business records, a potential weakness of the case that Mr. Trump’s lawyers could seek to exploit.

Whether Mr. Trump’s lawyers will call any witnesses is unclear, but Mr. Trump has said he plans to take the stand in his own defense.

Will Trump attend the trial?

Nothing is ever certain with Mr. Trump, but he is currently expected to attend much of the trial. To be absent, he would need to seek a waiver from the judge. Mr. Trump has already indicated a potential conflict — his youngest son’s high school graduation in May — though it is unclear whether the judge will pause the trial that day or excuse him from attending.

When Mr. Trump is there, it will create a host of security and logistical issues around the Lower Manhattan courthouse. In addition to the U.S. Secret Service protecting Mr. Trump, there will be a heavy police presence outside the building, as protesters and counterprotesters could fill the streets.

Who is the judge?

Justice Merchan is a veteran judge known as a no-nonsense, drama-averse jurist. This case is already testing his patience.

Since the Manhattan district attorney charged Mr. Trump last year, the former president has used campaign emails, social media and repetitive legal filings to attack the judge’s integrity and family. Recently, the former president demanded for a second time that Justice Merchan step aside , citing his daughter’s position at a Democratic consulting firm that worked for the 2020 Biden campaign.

The judge, who denied that request on Monday, has also issued a gag order to protect prosecutors, witnesses and his own family from Mr. Trump’s vitriol. And yet the former president has continued to post articles with pictures of the justice’s daughter.

During the trial, Justice Merchan will be in charge of keeping order in the courtroom and ruling on objections made by prosecutors and Mr. Trump’s lawyers. The jury will ultimately decide whether Mr. Trump is guilty.

What is the maximum sentence if Mr. Trump is convicted?

The charges against Mr. Trump are all Class E felonies, the lowest category of felonies in New York. Each count carries a maximum prison sentence of four years. Justice Merchan has made it clear that he takes white-collar crime seriously and could throw Mr. Trump behind bars. It’s likely, however, that Justice Merchan would impose a concurrent sentence — under which Mr. Trump would serve all prison time simultaneously — if the former president were convicted of more than one count.

And nothing in the law requires Justice Merchan to imprison Mr. Trump if he’s convicted by a jury. The judge could instead sentence him to probation.

Can Trump appeal?

Yes, if he is convicted, Mr. Trump will appeal, a process that could take months or longer.

Mr. Trump could first take the case to the Appellate Division in Manhattan, and, ultimately seek review from the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals in Albany. In other words, any appeal is unlikely to be resolved before Election Day. And he would most likely remain free at least until it is resolved.

Ben Protess is an investigative reporter at The Times, writing about public corruption. He has been covering the various criminal investigations into former President Trump and his allies. More about Ben Protess

Kate Christobek is a reporter covering the civil and criminal cases against former president Donald J. Trump for The Times. More about Kate Christobek

Jonah E. Bromwich covers criminal justice in New York, with a focus on the Manhattan district attorney’s office and state criminal courts in Manhattan. More about Jonah E. Bromwich

Our Coverage of the Trump Hush-Money Trial

News and Analysis

Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan took a startling turn when two jurors were abruptly excused , demonstrating the challenge of picking citizens to determine the fate of a former president.

Prosecutors argued in court that with a steady stream of social media posts, Trump had violated the gag order  imposed on him seven times, urging the judge overseeing the trial to hold him in contempt.

Our reporter joined “The Daily” to explain what happened during the opening days  of the trial against Donald Trump.

More on Trump’s Legal Troubles

Key Inquiries: Trump faces several investigations  at both the state and the federal levels, into matters related to his business and political careers.

Case Tracker:  Keep track of the developments in the criminal cases  involving the former president.

What if Trump Is Convicted?: Will any of the proceedings hinder Trump’s presidential campaign? Here is what we know, and what we don’t know .

Trump on Trial Newsletter: Sign up here  to get the latest news and analysis  on the cases in New York, Florida, Georgia and Washington, D.C.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

NPR defends its journalism after senior editor says it has lost the public's trust

David Folkenflik

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

NPR is defending its journalism and integrity after a senior editor wrote an essay accusing it of losing the public's trust.

NPR's top news executive defended its journalism and its commitment to reflecting a diverse array of views on Tuesday after a senior NPR editor wrote a broad critique of how the network has covered some of the most important stories of the age.

"An open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America," writes Uri Berliner.

A strategic emphasis on diversity and inclusion on the basis of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, promoted by NPR's former CEO, John Lansing, has fed "the absence of viewpoint diversity," Berliner writes.

NPR's chief news executive, Edith Chapin, wrote in a memo to staff Tuesday afternoon that she and the news leadership team strongly reject Berliner's assessment.

"We're proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories," she wrote. "We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world."

NPR names tech executive Katherine Maher to lead in turbulent era

She added, "None of our work is above scrutiny or critique. We must have vigorous discussions in the newsroom about how we serve the public as a whole."

A spokesperson for NPR said Chapin, who also serves as the network's chief content officer, would have no further comment.

Praised by NPR's critics

Berliner is a senior editor on NPR's Business Desk. (Disclosure: I, too, am part of the Business Desk, and Berliner has edited many of my past stories. He did not see any version of this article or participate in its preparation before it was posted publicly.)

Berliner's essay , titled "I've Been at NPR for 25 years. Here's How We Lost America's Trust," was published by The Free Press, a website that has welcomed journalists who have concluded that mainstream news outlets have become reflexively liberal.

Berliner writes that as a Subaru-driving, Sarah Lawrence College graduate who "was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother ," he fits the mold of a loyal NPR fan.

Yet Berliner says NPR's news coverage has fallen short on some of the most controversial stories of recent years, from the question of whether former President Donald Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election, to the origins of the virus that causes COVID-19, to the significance and provenance of emails leaked from a laptop owned by Hunter Biden weeks before the 2020 election. In addition, he blasted NPR's coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

On each of these stories, Berliner asserts, NPR has suffered from groupthink due to too little diversity of viewpoints in the newsroom.

The essay ricocheted Tuesday around conservative media , with some labeling Berliner a whistleblower . Others picked it up on social media, including Elon Musk, who has lambasted NPR for leaving his social media site, X. (Musk emailed another NPR reporter a link to Berliner's article with a gibe that the reporter was a "quisling" — a World War II reference to someone who collaborates with the enemy.)

When asked for further comment late Tuesday, Berliner declined, saying the essay spoke for itself.

The arguments he raises — and counters — have percolated across U.S. newsrooms in recent years. The #MeToo sexual harassment scandals of 2016 and 2017 forced newsrooms to listen to and heed more junior colleagues. The social justice movement prompted by the killing of George Floyd in 2020 inspired a reckoning in many places. Newsroom leaders often appeared to stand on shaky ground.

Leaders at many newsrooms, including top editors at The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times , lost their jobs. Legendary Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron wrote in his memoir that he feared his bonds with the staff were "frayed beyond repair," especially over the degree of self-expression his journalists expected to exert on social media, before he decided to step down in early 2021.

Since then, Baron and others — including leaders of some of these newsrooms — have suggested that the pendulum has swung too far.

Author Interviews

Legendary editor marty baron describes his 'collision of power' with trump and bezos.

New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger warned last year against journalists embracing a stance of what he calls "one-side-ism": "where journalists are demonstrating that they're on the side of the righteous."

"I really think that that can create blind spots and echo chambers," he said.

Internal arguments at The Times over the strength of its reporting on accusations that Hamas engaged in sexual assaults as part of a strategy for its Oct. 7 attack on Israel erupted publicly . The paper conducted an investigation to determine the source of a leak over a planned episode of the paper's podcast The Daily on the subject, which months later has not been released. The newsroom guild accused the paper of "targeted interrogation" of journalists of Middle Eastern descent.

Heated pushback in NPR's newsroom

Given Berliner's account of private conversations, several NPR journalists question whether they can now trust him with unguarded assessments about stories in real time. Others express frustration that he had not sought out comment in advance of publication. Berliner acknowledged to me that for this story, he did not seek NPR's approval to publish the piece, nor did he give the network advance notice.

Some of Berliner's NPR colleagues are responding heatedly. Fernando Alfonso, a senior supervising editor for digital news, wrote that he wholeheartedly rejected Berliner's critique of the coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict, for which NPR's journalists, like their peers, periodically put themselves at risk.

Alfonso also took issue with Berliner's concern over the focus on diversity at NPR.

"As a person of color who has often worked in newsrooms with little to no people who look like me, the efforts NPR has made to diversify its workforce and its sources are unique and appropriate given the news industry's long-standing lack of diversity," Alfonso says. "These efforts should be celebrated and not denigrated as Uri has done."

After this story was first published, Berliner contested Alfonso's characterization, saying his criticism of NPR is about the lack of diversity of viewpoints, not its diversity itself.

"I never criticized NPR's priority of achieving a more diverse workforce in terms of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. I have not 'denigrated' NPR's newsroom diversity goals," Berliner said. "That's wrong."

Questions of diversity

Under former CEO John Lansing, NPR made increasing diversity, both of its staff and its audience, its "North Star" mission. Berliner says in the essay that NPR failed to consider broader diversity of viewpoint, noting, "In D.C., where NPR is headquartered and many of us live, I found 87 registered Democrats working in editorial positions and zero Republicans."

Berliner cited audience estimates that suggested a concurrent falloff in listening by Republicans. (The number of people listening to NPR broadcasts and terrestrial radio broadly has declined since the start of the pandemic.)

Former NPR vice president for news and ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin tweeted , "I know Uri. He's not wrong."

Others questioned Berliner's logic. "This probably gets causality somewhat backward," tweeted Semafor Washington editor Jordan Weissmann . "I'd guess that a lot of NPR listeners who voted for [Mitt] Romney have changed how they identify politically."

Similarly, Nieman Lab founder Joshua Benton suggested the rise of Trump alienated many NPR-appreciating Republicans from the GOP.

In recent years, NPR has greatly enhanced the percentage of people of color in its workforce and its executive ranks. Four out of 10 staffers are people of color; nearly half of NPR's leadership team identifies as Black, Asian or Latino.

"The philosophy is: Do you want to serve all of America and make sure it sounds like all of America, or not?" Lansing, who stepped down last month, says in response to Berliner's piece. "I'd welcome the argument against that."

"On radio, we were really lagging in our representation of an audience that makes us look like what America looks like today," Lansing says. The U.S. looks and sounds a lot different than it did in 1971, when NPR's first show was broadcast, Lansing says.

A network spokesperson says new NPR CEO Katherine Maher supports Chapin and her response to Berliner's critique.

The spokesperson says that Maher "believes that it's a healthy thing for a public service newsroom to engage in rigorous consideration of the needs of our audiences, including where we serve our mission well and where we can serve it better."

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR's protocol for reporting on itself, no NPR corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.