death penalty should be brought back essay

Home — Essay Samples — Philosophy — Ethics — Should the Death Penalty Be Legal?

Should The Death Penalty Be Legal?

• Categories: Death Penalty Ethics

About this sample

Words: 649 |

Published: Jun 6, 2024

Words: 649 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, arguments for the death penalty, arguments against the death penalty, practical considerations and alternatives.

Cite this Essay

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

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 Philosophy

+ 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 / 1226 words

6 pages / 2770 words

2 pages / 717 words

2 pages / 973 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 Ethics

"Traveling Through The Dark" is a poem written by William Stafford that explores the complex themes of life and death, responsibility, and the consequences of our actions. The poem tells the story of a man who encounters a dead [...]

Animal testing has been a controversial topic for many years, with strong arguments on both sides. However, the practice of using animals for testing purposes is not only ethically questionable but also scientifically [...]

In the pantheon of legal narratives, few have resonated with the profound impact and timeless relevance as Reginald Rose's "Twelve Angry Men." Within this microcosm of a jury deliberation room, each juror represents a facet of [...]

Drug addiction is a complex and pervasive issue that affects millions of individuals worldwide. It not only harms the individual struggling with addiction but also has far-reaching consequences for their families, communities, [...]

“Rules and criteria for ethical judgement are all very well, but when conflicts are finely balanced, we simply express our preferences.”The concept of moral justification in ethics examples has been a topic of discussion for [...]

Life is a precious gift that is often taken for granted. Every day, we are bombarded with news stories of violence, tragedy, and loss, leaving us to question the value of a human life. What is the worth of a life? Is it measured [...]

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

Faculty Scholarship

‌the end of the death penalty.

‌‘Unintended consequences’ and the legacy of Furman v. Georgia

More than 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was an unconstitutional violation of the Eighth Amendment ban against cruel and unusual punishment. With that, 629 people on death row nationwide had their capital sentences commuted, and the death penalty disappeared overnight.

“Furman was neither a tremendous success nor a terrible failure but a complicated story of unintended consequences and echoes of Furman continue to this day to have tremendous impact.” Carol Steiker

But Furman didn’t abolish capital punishment for very long. Four years later, Gregg v. Georgia and several companion cases made clear that governments could impose capital punishment under certain conditions. Those decisions were a response to the backlash sparked by Furman , which appeared to revive support for a practice that had been in sharp decline for years. Today, 27 states in the U.S., as well as the federal government, retain the death penalty, and as of April 2022, one source reported that there were 2,414 people on death row across the country. Despite what many would have predicted in 1972, when the Furman decision suggested the U.S. would become an international leader in eliminating the death penalty, today it’s the only Western democracy that still imposes it. 

Still, while the death penalty persists in the U.S., it’s not exactly thriving. Indeed, it’s once again “withering” across the country, says Carol S. Steiker ’86 , the Henry J. Friendly Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, who has taught Capital Punishment in America at the school since 1993. Though Furman (and its subsequent overruling) helped fuel the death penalty’s revival, it also set in motion a long series of events that may ultimately eliminate capital punishment in the United States, Steiker says.

“ Furman was neither a tremendous success nor a terrible failure but a complicated story of unintended consequences and echoes of Furman continue to this day to have tremendous impact,” says Steiker, who is co-author, with her brother, Jordan Steiker ’88, of “Courting Death: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment” (Harvard University Press, 2016) and co-editor, also with him, of “Comparative Capital Punishment” (Edward Elgar, 2019).

“ Furman was a remarkable intervention,” says Jordan Steiker, a professor at the law school at the University of Texas at Austin and co-director of its Capital Punishment Center. “Even though it was quite short-lived in suspending the death penalty in the U.S., it completely changed its course because it essentially inspired or required states to rethink how they were doing capital punishment. And ultimately, the practice of the death penalty changed substantially over time.”

Given the greatly heightened public attention to the power of the Supreme Court today, the 50th anniversary of Furman is an opportunity to reexamine not just the history of the death penalty but the appropriate role of the Court in American life, Carol Steiker and others believe.

“Right now a lot of people are wondering how much of a role we want the courts to play in deciding what rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, and Furman v. Georgia is a unique example of when the Court struck down a policy that was widely prevalent throughout the states for violating the Constitution,” says Gene Young Chang ’24, who has been studying the death penalty with Steiker since he was a freshman in her Harvard College course The American Death Penalty: Morality, Law, and Politics. Furman , he says, “teaches us things about the role of the courts in a democratic society, the scope of constitutional rights, and the proper method for defining those rights.” 

Categorical abolition of the death penalty across the nation is unlikely without another Furman v. Georgia , “what you might call Furman II, which is obviously not forthcoming from this Court or anytime in the foreseeable future,” Carol Steiker says. Instead, the future of the death penalty, she says, is being played out at the local level, in “a kind of guerrilla war going on county by county, state by state, with the election of progressive prosecutors who do not seek the death penalty, state legislative activity, and state constitutional litigation under state constitutions.”

The final death knell for capital punishment will likely depend on a very different Supreme Court from the one we have today, she says. “But at that point,” given other trends in the country, “it may be more like a coup de grâce rather than what it was at the time of Furman .”

History of a ‘remarkable intervention’

In the 1960s, due to a campaign by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund to challenge its constitutionality in cases across the country, capital punishment was in decline. Indeed, no one was executed in the five years before Furman , as states waited to see what the high court would rule. In 1971, the Supreme Court rejected a due process challenge to capital punishment. But Furman , argued a year later, relied on the Eighth Amendment: The LDF team argued that the arbitrary application of capital punishment — jurors, often with no guidance, had complete discretion on when to impose it — was a cruel and unusual punishment.

”The Supreme Court intervention [in Furman] not only didn’t kill the death penalty but actually made it stronger when it was reinstated.” Carol Steiker

The Supreme Court agreed, 5-4, although the justices issued nine separate opinions, which was very unusual, as Carol Steiker notes. Justice Thurgood Marshall (for whom both Steikers later clerked) and Justice William J. Brennan Jr. LL.B. ’31 maintained that the death penalty was unconstitutional per se. Justice William O. Douglas was troubled by its discriminatory application, given overwhelming evidence that it was more often imposed on Black defendants, the poor, and the politically unpopular. Justices Potter Stewart and Byron White were troubled by its arbitrary application under state statutes, with Justice Stewart famously writing, “These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual.” He concluded that the Constitution could not “permit this unique penalty to be so wantonly and so freakishly imposed.” 

But abolitionists’ hopes didn’t last long. Soon after Furman, 35 states rewrote their laws to try to comply with the Court’s ruling. In 1976, in a group of consolidated cases known as Gregg v. Georgia , the Supreme Court held that the death penalty was not per se unconstitutional. It ruled the punishment could be revived if state laws provided an objective process for deciding when to apply it and gave sufficient discretion to juries to determine whether it was appropriate. However, mandatory death penalties were unconstitutional, it held, even though some states believed that mandatory penalties were necessary to eliminate sentencing discretion.

Furman created an enormous backlash, the Steikers explain, so that capital punishment — which was becoming less and less popular in public opinion — resurged. It became “more of a wedge issue, part of the tough-on-crime political strategy of [President Richard] Nixon, and political entrepreneurs exploited the resentment at the Supreme Court’s intervention in the death penalty,” says Jordan Steiker, who has frequently taught at Harvard Law School, most recently in 2018 as the Touroff-Glueck Visiting Professor of Law and Psychiatry. “In the short term, the death penalty became more vigorous, there were more death sentences, and by the 1990s, there were many more executions than we were having pre- Furman .”

At least initially, then, “the Supreme Court intervention [in Furman ] not only didn’t kill the death penalty but actually made it stronger when it was reinstated,” says Carol Steiker, something she sees as an “unintended and unforeseen consequence” of the case.

Birth of the capital defense bar

But there was another unforeseen consequence of Furman , one that Jordan Steiker describes as “probably more important and long-lasting” — the birth of a large and highly skilled capital defense bar. 

With the resurrection of the death penalty, new, sophisticated institutions were created and staffed by passionate and skilled anti-capital lawyers: state offices for capital representation at the trial, appellate, and post-conviction levels; capital habeas corpus units within state and federal public defenders’ offices; and numerous non-governmental nonprofits, such as Bryan Stevenson ’85’s Equal Justice Initiative. Today, “we have a whole legion of much more focused and talented advocates working on behalf of people facing capital charges or sentenced to death,” says Jordan Steiker.

Capital litigation has become far more complex, and the costs have soared. This has helped persuade many local prosecutors to avoid seeking the death penalty.

With these developments, as well as the Supreme Court’s imposition of special procedural requirements for cases involving the death penalty, capital litigation has become far more complex, and the costs have soared. “The constitutional decisions post- Furman have not imposed the most rigorous scrutiny of capital practices,” says Jordan Steiker, “but they have produced institutional actors who have made the death penalty much less attractive as a practical matter because to do it reasonably well is just exorbitantly expensive.” This has helped persuade many local prosecutors to avoid seeking the death penalty and has led to an “extraordinary decline in capital proceedings,” he says.

The current Supreme Court has signaled greater willingness to affirm capital sentences than in the recent past, says Jordan Steiker, and some jurisdictions have embraced that signal. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals had scheduled nearly one execution a month between 2022 and 2024 (although at the request of the new attorney general, the pace has now been slowed to no more than one every 60 days). In Texas, on the other hand, two death sentences were imposed in 2022, which contrasts starkly with the 1990s, when Texas juries were handing out more than 40 a year, Jordan Steiker says. “The practice on the ground is withering in part because of the institutions built in response to Furman ,” he says.

Local prosecutors and state courts take over

Other factors besides cost have decreased the public’s appetite for the death penalty, including media attention to, and public awareness of, the number of innocent people sentenced to death. Since 1973, at least 190 people who were wrongly convicted and sentenced to death have been exonerated, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. For that and other reasons, including declining crime rates, there has been a dramatic decline in public support for the death penalty over the past 20 years. Though the 2021 Gallup poll found that 54% of respondents continued to support it, that is the lowest number in the annual poll since 1972. 

Erica Medley LL.M. ’22 was a prosecutor in the U.S. Air Force before matriculating at HLS. When she was a schoolgirl, in Oregon, two of her friends were raped and murdered by a neighbor, Ward Weaver III. When Weaver received two life sentences, “It made no sense,” Medley recalls. “I thought he should have gotten the death penalty.” When Medley enrolled in Carol Steiker’s class on capital punishment in fall 2021, she was among the very few students who supported the death penalty, according to an informal online class poll. 

But before the first class, Medley did a complete reversal sparked by reading the course materials. “I was so overwhelmed reading everything that I did a 180. It was that fast,” says Medley, who was persuaded by the evidence of the racially disparate impact of the death penalty, its exorbitant expense compared with that of prison sentences, the number of people on death row who turn out to be innocent, and the fact that no other peer nations still impose the penalty.

The shifting demographics of urban counties are also having an effect on the use of the death penalty across the country since such counties are often the only places that can afford to prosecute many capital cases, says Jordan Steiker. As these counties become less politically conservative, they are increasingly controlled by “less zealous prosecutors,” he says. Harris County, Texas, which includes Houston, and Dallas County were “longstanding conservative-controlled political entities, and now they’re not. Now many prosecutors run not on the death penalty but away from the death penalty. That’s a very significant shift.” 

“We now have this odd dynamic, where courts, especially the Supreme Court, are pushing in the direction of deregulating, but there’s not much left in terms of capital punishment to deregulate.” Jordan Steiker

And, just as the resurgence of the death penalty in the 1980s and ’90s paralleled public reaction to a crime surge, a drop in death penalty cases mirrors what has generally been a long-term decline in the homicide rate, as well as public concerns about mass incarceration and racial inequities in the criminal justice system, says Carol Steiker, faculty sponsor of the Capital Punishment Clinic, through which Harvard Law students are placed in externships at capital defense organizations around the country.

And the past 16 years have seen a growing legislative trend toward abolishing the death penalty. In 2007, 38 states retained it; today, there are only 27. In 2021, Virginia, which has executed more people than any other state, became the first Southern state to abolish capital punishment. It was preceded by legislative repeals in Colorado, New Jersey, Illinois, and Connecticut, among other states. In Washington state, the Supreme Court found the death penalty unconstitutional under the state constitution because it was used in an arbitrary and racially biased manner. 

“We now have this odd dynamic, where courts, especially the Supreme Court, are pushing in the direction of deregulating, but there’s not much left in terms of capital punishment to deregulate,” says Jordan Steiker. 

“I think in the short term we’ll end up having more executions because of the Supreme Court’s reluctance to impede them, even though executions have been in as much of a decline as death sentences,” he adds. But with fewer capital sentences taking place, “death row has been shrinking considerably, and at some point we’ll have a death row that seems inconsequential as part of our criminal justice system.” 

Furman’s ultimate impact?

In the end, then, was Furman a victory for those who brought the case? “That’s a good question,” says Jordan Steiker. “There’s one point of view that I’m sympathetic to, that says that Furman revived a practice that was dying on the ground, and had there been no intervention, we might not have had a revival and then a second decline.”

On the other hand, when Michael Meltsner, one of the lawyers on the LDF team who brought Furman , speaks to Carol Steiker’s capital punishment class each year, he emphasizes that there were 629 people on death row in 1972 whose lives were saved by Furman.

“So in that sense, it was a tremendous victory,” says Carol Steiker. “It was a reset moment.”

Modal Gallery

Gallery block modal gallery.

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.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Death Penalty Can Ensure ‘Justice Is Being Done’

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

By Jeffrey A. Rosen

Mr. Rosen is the deputy attorney general.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

U-High Midway

The death penalty, a cruel and irreversible punishment, must be abolished

Midway staff

The death penalty has been part of justice systems throughout the world for centuries, but this does not mean that it is still acceptable in the world today, writes Assistant Editor Adrianna Nehme.

Adrianna Nehme , Assistant Editor January 8, 2021

“I’m sorry are the only words I can say that captures how I feel now and how I felt that day.” The blinds of the green room were lifted, and Brandon Bernard’s words filled the space as he lay strapped on a gurney, awaiting his execution for murder on Dec. 10, 2020. At 9:27 p.m., the blinds were lowered, and Mr. Bernard was pronounced dead. Less than 24 hours later, Alfred Bourgeois, convicted for murder, underwent this same routine, becoming the 1,529th person to be executed in the United States since 1976.

 The death penalty has been part of justice systems throughout the world for centuries, but this does not mean that it is still acceptable in the world today. The act of ending someone’s life as punishment for their actions is a cruel and ineffective way of achieving justice, and therefore, the abolishment of the death penalty is necessary.

According to the Associated Press , no scientific evidence exists to support the statement that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on crime; the death penatly solely endorses a continued cycle of violence. Mr. Bernard spent his time on death row educating other individuals and emphasizing the importance of not hanging out with the wrong crowd. He is just one example of a prisoner who was able to use the lessons he learned from his experience to guide others away from a life of crime. Sparing a criminal’s life could be beneficial in preventing further crimes, and their first-hand experiences can assist others. 

To deter crime, one must focus on addressing the root causes of criminality, not just on increasing punishment. Inequality, access to education and lack of family support are some neglected issues that, if addressed, could improve conditions in communities and the lives of people in them. Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay, social scientists at the University of Chicago, found that inner city zones of Chicago had high delinquency rates compared to outer areas of Chicago, regardless of which ethnic group lived there. They attributed this to the Social Disorganization Theor y : weak social institutions such as school and family results in a weakening of the strength of social bonds. More money must therefore be spent on programs, such as family preservation programs, that are based in these inner city zones to reduce crime, especially youth violence.

Unlike other forms of punishment, the death penalty isn’t reversible; in the United States where the rate of error is high, many of the accused face the consequences of poorly conducted investigations and tainted evidence. If evidence is revealed in the future that changes the outcome of the investigation, nothing can be done to bring back an innocent individual. David Keaton , Anthony Ray Hinton and Sabrina Butler were all innocent individuals sentenced to death. Although they were exonerated years later, hundreds of other innocent people have been wrongly convicted and executed in the United States. According to a National Academy of Sciences study from 2014, at least 4.1% of defendants sentenced to death in the United States were not guilty of the crimes.  

The death penalty disproportionately affects certain groups of people such as people of color and the poor. In addition to being falsely convicted, Mr. Keaton, Mr. Hinton and Ms. Butler were people of color. Data from the Death Penalty Information Center shows how people of color have been overrepresented. In 2019, 52% of individuals on death row were Black. According to the Associated Press , after 1977, 295 Black individuals were executed for killing a white victim whereas only 21 white defendants were executed for killing a Black victim. 

According to The United Nations Human Rights Council , those who are poor have a higher chance of receiving a death sentence than the rich. The poor serve as an easy target for police; they are unable to afford a lawyer, and the provided public legal counselors are often inferior, so as a result, their defense is often weaker. Some legal aid systems also only appear during the trials, which means the defendants are interrogated without a lawyer. 

 Lisa Montgomery, Cory Johnson and Dustin Higgs will be executed before president-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration.  Biden pledged to pass legislation that eliminates the death penalty at the federal level. He will incentivize states to follow the federal government.

Every individual is more than the crimes they’ve committed. Considering that all human beings are capable of change, everyone should have the opportunity to improve themselves rather than having their life ended early. A justice system that believes in redemption and forgiveness is a far more effective and humane one than a system that prides itself in capital punishment. Individuals can join groups such as the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty to access further resources and help abolish the death penalty.

Lab adapts to reality of tighter budget

Students experience politics, witness history at DNC

DNC Day 2 Summary: Roll call nominates Harris; Obamas, Pritzker and others call for action, criticize Trump

DNC Day 3 Gallery: Dynamic convention sparks enthusiasm, features stars both in and out of politics

Baseball season wrap up: Team loses in sectional semi-finals

Kabir Joshi , Opinion Editor

September 9, 2024

When I first heard of Sabrina Carpenter, I could only think that Taylor Swift had another clone, taking over TikTok with her catchy lyrics and blonde hair. I never found her...

Light Dohrn and Skye Freeman

Amid budget cuts, the Laboratory Schools have increased tuition, and U-High has welcomed 17 new students.  U-High tuition has increased by 4.89% and now sits at $44,592...

• With new year, Midway promises to bring in new voices September 9, 2024
• Vox pop: Summer Culture September 9, 2024
• A face to a name: 10 new faculty join High School September 9, 2024
• Lab adapts to reality of tighter budget September 5, 2024

Chloe Alexander , Editor-in-Chief

September 4, 2024

The Democratic National Convention, held in Chicago Aug. 19-22, was overflowing with hope, unity and talk of a brighter tomorrow. In a sea of blue, the United Center was filled...

Eli Raikhel

August 23, 2024

Kamala Harris graciously accepted the Democrats’ presidential nomination on day four of the Democratic National Convention. Ms. Harris chartered a “new way forward,”...

• DNC Day 4 Summary: Harris embraces historical nomination, charts a ‘new way forward’ August 23, 2024
• DNC Day 3 Gallery: Dynamic convention sparks enthusiasm, features stars both in and out of politics August 22, 2024
• DNC Day 3 Summary: Walz welcomed as running mate; theme of freedom permeates August 22, 2024
• DNC Day 2 Summary: Roll call nominates Harris; Obamas, Pritzker and others call for action, criticize Trump August 21, 2024

Comments (0)

Cancel reply

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

Advertisement

Death Penalty Abolition, the Right to Life, and Necessity

• Published: 27 December 2022
• Volume 24 , pages 77–95, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Ben Jones   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2134-8631 1  

2193 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

One prominent argument in international law and religious thought for abolishing capital punishment is that it violates individuals’ right to life. Notably, this right-to-life argument emerged from normative and legal frameworks that recognize deadly force against aggressors as justified when necessary to stop their unjust threat of grave harm. Can capital punishment be necessary in this sense—and thus justified defensive killing? If so, the right-to-life argument would have to admit certain exceptions where executions are justified. Drawing on work by Hugo Bedau, I identify a thought experiment where executions are justified defensive killing but explain why they cannot be in our world. A state’s obligations to its prisoners include the obligation to use nonlethal incapacitation (ONI), which applies as long as prisoners pose no imminent threat. ONI precludes executions for reasons of future dangerousness. By subjecting the right-to-life argument to closer scrutiny, this article ultimately places it on firmer ground.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Justice of Capital Punishment

ASEAN and the Death Penalty: Theoretical and Legal Views and a Pathway to Abolition

De jure abolition of the death penalty: cambodia and the philippines, explore related subjects.

• Medical Ethics

Some may suggest gladiator contests, where the condemned could defend themselves, as a counterexample. Being sentenced to such combat was not a true death sentence, though. There were distinctions in ancient Rome between gladii poena (certain death by sword), summum supplicium (certain death by more cruel methods like being thrown to the beasts), and ludi damnatio (condemnation to gladiatorial games). The last penalty forced individuals into combat where death was possible but not assured (see Bauman 1996 : 14, 122). Furthermore, my description of capital punishment remains apt for present practices since gladiator combat is rightly seen as morally repugnant and not a realistic sentencing option today.

Bedau does not explicitly say that executing murderers is the only way to revive their victims, but context implies it. He writes: “taking life deliberately is not justified so long as there is any feasible alternative” (Bedau 1993 : 179).

Before Bedau, Justice Richard Maughan of the Utah Supreme Court expressed a similar idea: “Were there some way to restore the bereaved and wounded survivors, and the victims, to what was once theirs; there could then be justification for the capital sanction. Sadly, such is not available to us” (State v. Pierre 1977 : 1359). This remark is mentioned by Barry ( 2017 : 540).

That claim is questionable in the US, where most death sentences are overturned (Baumgartner and Dietrich 2015 ) and executions that do occur usually take place close to two decades after conviction (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2021 : 2). I grant this claim, though, for the sake of argument.

E.g., Thomas Creech who killed a fellow inmate after receiving life sentences for murder in Idaho (Boone 2020 ).

E.g., Clarence Ray Allen who while serving a life sentence for murder in California conspired with a recently released inmate to murder witnesses from his previous case (Egelko and Finz  2006 ).

E.g., Jeffrey Landrigan who escaped from an Oklahoma prison where he was serving a sentence for murder and went on to commit another murder in Arizona (Schwartz 2010 ).

E.g., Kenneth McDuff who was sentenced to death, had his sentences commuted to life following Furman v. Georgia ( 1972 ), and was eventually paroled, after which he murdered multiple people in Texas (Cartwright 1992 ). I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting the examples in footnotes 5–8.

These critics include those who grant retribution as a valid rationale for punishment but still reject it as a justification for the death penalty (see Brooks 2004 ).

Alexander L (2013) Can self-defense justify punishment? Law and Philosophy 32:159–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-012-9157-y

Article   Google Scholar  

Allhoff F (2019) Self-defense without imminence. American Criminal Law Review 56:1527–1552

Google Scholar  

American Psychiatric Association (1982) Barefoot v. Estelle: brief amicus curiae. https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Directories/Library-and-Archive/amicus-briefs/amicus-1982-barefoot.pdf . Accessed 6 November 2022

Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 US 304

Barefoot v. Estelle (1983) 463 US 880

Baron M (2011) Self-defense: the imminence requirement. In: Green L, Leiter B (eds) Oxford studies in philosophy of law, vol. 1. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 228–266

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Barry K (2017) The law of abolition. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 107:521–559.

Barry K (2019) The death penalty and the fundamental right to life. Boston College Law Review 60:1545–1604

Bauman R (1996) Crime and punishment in ancient Rome. Routledge, New York

Baumgartner F, Dietrich A (2015) Most death penalty sentences are overturned. Here’s why that matters. Washington Post, 17 May 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/03/17/most-death-penalty-sentences-are-overturned-heres-why-that-matters/ . Accessed 6 November 2022

Bedau H (1993) Capital punishment. In: Regan T (ed) Matters of life and death: new introductory essays in moral philosophy, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 160–194

Bentham J (2009) The rationale of punishment. McHugh J (ed) Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY

Blume J, Garvey S, Johnson SL (2001) Future dangerousness in capital cases: always “at issue.” Cornell Law Review 86:397–410

Boone R (2020) US judge rejects inmates’ lawsuit on Idaho execution plans. Associated Press, 18 November 2020. https://apnews.com/article/lawsuits-prisons-idaho-executions-c097976dee46337b8e9aa816f8e888d4 . Accessed 6 November 2022

Boonin D (2008) The problem of punishment. Cambridge University Press, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Brooks T (2004) Retributivist arguments against capital punishment. Journal of Social Philosophy 35:188–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2004.00224.x

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2021) Capital punishment, 2020—statistical tables.  https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/capital-punishment-2020-statistical-tables . Accessed 6 November 2022

Cartwright G (1992) Free to kill. Texas Monthly, August 1992. https://www.texasmonthly.com/true-crime/free-to-kill-2/ . Accessed 6 November 2022

Colwell G (2002) Capital punishment, restoration and moral rightness. Journal of Applied Philosophy 19:287–292. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5930.00222

Coons C, Weber M (eds) (2016) The ethics of self-defense. Oxford University Press, New York

Council of Europe (2003) Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=187 . Accessed 6 November 2022

Cunningham M (2006) Dangerousness and death: a nexus in search of science and reason. American Psychologist 61:828–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.8.828

Cunningham M, Reidy T, Sorensen J (2005) Is death row obsolete? A decade of mainstreaming death-sentenced inmates in Missouri. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 23:307–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.608

Cunningham M, Sorensen J, Reidy T (2009) Capital jury decision-making: the limitations of predictions of future violence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 15:223–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017296

Cunningham M, Sorensen J, Vigen M, Woods SO (2011) Life and death in the lone star state: three decades of violence predictions by capital juries. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 29:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.963

Death Penalty Information Center (2022) Public opinion regarding the juvenile death penalty. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/stories/public-opinion-regarding-the-juvenile-death-penalty . Accessed 6 November 2022

Dubber M (2015) An introduction to the Model Penal Code, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

Edens J, Buffington-Vollum J, Keilen A, Roskamp P, Anthony C (2005) Predictions of future dangerousness in capital murder trials: is it time to “disinvent the wheel?” Law and Human Behavior 29:55–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-1399-x

Edmondson C (2016) Nothing is certain but death: why future dangerousness mandates abolition of the death penalty. Lewis & Clark Law Review 20:857–917

Egelko B, Finz S (2006). Ailing killer executed at age 76. San Francisco Chronicle, 17 January 2006. https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ailing-killer-executed-at-age-76-Condemned-for-2543639.php . Accessed 6 November 2022

Fabre C (2016) War, policing, and killing. In: Bradford B, Jauregui B, Loader I, Steinberg J (eds) The SAGE handbook of global policing. SAGE Publications, London, pp 261–278

Farrell D (1985) The justification of general deterrence. Philosophical Review 94:367–394

Ferzan KK (2004) Defending imminence: from battered women to Iraq. Arizona Law Review 46:213–262

Ferzan KK (2012) Culpable aggression: the basis for moral liability to defensive killing. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 9:669–697

Ford SB (2022) Restraining police use of lethal force and the moral problem of militarization. Criminal Justice Ethics 41:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2060014

Francis (2020) Fratelli tutti. The Holy See. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20201003_enciclica-fratelli-tutti.html . Accessed 6 November 2022

Furman v. Georgia (1972) 408 US 238

Gregg v. Georgia (1976) 428 US 153

Hood R, Hoyle C (2015) The death penalty: a worldwide perspective, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New York

Hurka T (1982) Rights and capital punishment. Dialogue 21:647–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217300023829

Jones B (2018) The Republican Party, conservatives, and the future of capital punishment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 108:223–252

Jones B (forthcoming) Applying the imminence requirement to police. Criminal Justice Ethics

Jurek v. Texas (1976) 428 US 262

Lazar S (2012) Necessity in self-defense and war. Philosophy & Public Affairs 40:3–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2012.01214.x

Locke J (2003) Second treatise. In: Shapiro I (ed) Two treatises of government and a letter concerning toleration. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp 100–209

Marquart J, Ekland-Olson S, Sorensen J (1989) Gazing into the crystal ball: can jurors accurately predict dangerousness in capital cases? Law & Society Review 23:449–468

Marquart J, Ekland-Olson S, Sorensen J (1994) The rope, the chair, and the needle: capital punishment in Texas, 1923–1990. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX

McMahan J (1994) Self-defense and the problem of the innocent attacker. Ethics 104:252–290. https://doi.org/10.1086/293600

McMahan J (2005) The basis of moral liability to defensive killing. Philosophical Issues 15:386–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-6077.2005.00073.x

McMahan J (2016) The limits of self-defense. In: Coons C, Weber M (eds) The ethics of self-defense. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 185–210

Montague P (1995) Punishment as societal-defense. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD

National Research Council (2012) Deterrence and the death penalty. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Organization of American States (1990) Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty. https://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-53.html . Accessed 6 November 2022

Otsuka M (1994) Killing the innocent in self-defense. Philosophy & Public Affairs 23:74–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1994.tb00005.x

Paul II J (1995) Evangelium vitae. The Holy See. http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html . Accessed 6 November 2022

Reidy T, Sorensen J, Cunningham M (2013) Probability of criminal acts of violence: a test of jury predictive accuracy. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 31:286–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2064

Robinson P (1982) Criminal law defenses: a systematic analysis. Columbia Law Review 82:199–291

Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 US 551

Schabas W (2019) International law and the abolition of the death penalty. In: Steiker C, Steiker J (eds) Comparative capital punishment. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, pp 217–231

Schwartz J (2010) Murderer executed in Arizona. New York Times, 27 October 2010. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/us/28execute.html . Accessed 6 November 2022

Sorensen J, Cunningham M (2009) Once a killer, always a killer? Prison misconduct of former death-sentenced inmates in Arizona. Journal of Psychiatry & Law 37:237–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318530903700205

Sorensen J, Pilgrim R (2000) An actuarial risk assessment of violence posed by capital murder defendants. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 90:1251–1270

Sorensen J, Pilgrim R (2006) Lethal injection: capital punishment in Texas during the modern era. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX

Sorensen J, Wrinkle R (1996) No hope for parole: disciplinary infractions among death-sentenced and life-without-parole inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior 23:542–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854896023004002

State v. Pierre (1977) 572 P.2d 1338 (Utah)

Stoughton S, Noble J, Alpert G (2020) Evaluating police uses of force. New York University Press, New York

Tadros V (2011) The ends of harm: the moral foundations of criminal law. Oxford University Press, New York

Thomson JJ (1991) Self-defense. Philosophy & Public Affairs 20:283–310

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (1989) Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/2ndopccpr.aspx

Yorke J (2009) The right to life and abolition of the death penalty in the council of Europe. European Law Review 34:205–229

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for helpful feedback on this article from Désirée Lim, Kevin Barry, and Erin Hanses.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Rock Ethics Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, 131 Sparks Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben Jones .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jones, B. Death Penalty Abolition, the Right to Life, and Necessity. Hum Rights Rev 24 , 77–95 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-022-00677-x

Download citation

Accepted : 09 December 2022

Published : 27 December 2022

Issue Date : March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12142-022-00677-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Death penalty
• Future dangerousness
• Incapacitation
• Right to life
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Five reasons to abolish the death penalty

With the fourth anniversary of the executions of Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran in Indonesia fast approaching, w e must continue to challenge the notion of “an eye for an eye”.

Here are five reasons why.

1. You can’t take it back

The death penalty is irreversible. Absolute judgments may lead to people paying for crimes they did not commit. Texas man Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three daughters. Following his execution, further evidence revealed that Willingham did not set the fire that caused their deaths. But it came too late.

2. It doesn’t deter criminals

There is no credible evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than a prison term. In fact, evidence reveals the opposite .

Since abolishing the death penalty in 1976, Canada’s murder rate has steadily declined and as of 2016 was at its lowest since 1966.

3. There’s no ‘humane’ way to kill

The 2006 execution of Angel Nieves Diaz, by a so-called ‘humane’ lethal injection, took 34 minutes and required two doses. Doctors have said that it is likely Diaz’ death was painful .

Other brutal methods of execution used around the world include hanging, shooting and beheading. The nature of these deaths only continues to perpetuate the cycle of violence and may not alleviate the pain already suffered by the victims’ family .

4. It makes a public spectacle of an individual’s death

Executions are often undertaken in an extremely public manner, with public hangings in Iran or live broadcasts of lethal injections in the US. According to UN human rights experts, executions in public serve no legitimate purpose and only increase the cruel, inhuman and degrading nature of this punishment.

“All executions violate the right to life. Those carried out publicly are a gross affront to human dignity which cannot be tolerated,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

“All executions violate the right to life. Those carried out publicly are a gross affront to human dignity which cannot be tolerated.” Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui

5. The death penalty is disappearing

In 2017 two countries – Guinea and Mongolia – abolished the death penalty for all crimes.

Today, 106 countries (the majority of the world’s states) have turned their backs on the death penalty for good. Those that continue to execute are a tiny minority standing against a wave of opposition.

There are countless arguments for and against the death penalty. In an imperfect world where we can never be sure we have ever got the “worst of the worst” is it ever justified to take a life?

Find out more about Amnesty’s campaign to end the death penalty . Join our Human Rights Defenders program to help us abolish the death penalty.

Related Posts

Amnesty International Global Death Penalty Report: Death sentences and executions 2022

5 reasons some people think the world needs the death penalty

10 myths about the death penalty

10 frequently asked questions about the death penalty

10 ways you can change the world today

Constitutional_court_of_South_Africa.jpeg

Constitutional Court of South Africa

Bringing Back the Death Penalty in South Africa for Crimes Against Women

by Jade Weiner | Oct 1, 2019

About Jade Weiner

Jade Weiner, “Bringing Back the Death Penalty in South Africa for Crimes Against Women”, (OxHRH Blog, October 2019), <https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/bringing-back-the-death-penalty-in-south-africa-for-crimes-against-women/>, [Date of access].

September is the start of spring in South Africa, marked by warmer weather and blossoming trees. However, this September was marred by brutal xenophobic attacks and lootings, child abductions and the rape and murder of young, vibrant, beautiful women.

On 12 September, Minister Bheki Cele, released the 2018/19 annual crime statistics revealing an increase in the murder rate to 21,022 and reported sexual offenses to 52,420. The number of murders of women and young girls is especially alarming. In South Africa, one woman is killed every three hours .

Communities of all races, ages and religions have taken to social media and the streets, protesting the status quo with marches, sharing experiences and raising awareness. South Africans are demanding accountability of government agencies, self-defence classes, curfews imposed on men and even the death penalty to combat violent crime.

The public outcry from the tragic events of September and their affirmation in official government statistics sparked over 590,000 South Africans signing a  petition calling for the death penalty to be reinstated for crimes against women.

Bringing back the death penalty, despite public demand, is not just a case of instituting a harsher sentence, it is a matter of changing constitutional law. Under the Apartheid regime, convicted criminals could be hanged. After a five year moratorium, the Constitutional Court, under the Interim Constitution , would decide constitutionality on capital punishment.

The drafters of the Constitution neither sanctioned nor excluded the death penalty. The case of S v Makwanyane held firm that the death penalty contravenes the Constitution, violating the right to life, dignity and freedom and security of a person which includes the right not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.

Chaskalson, P held that the death penalty does not only infringe on the dignity of the accused but also on the dignity of all those involved in the process. The application of the death penalty was held to be arbitrary and unequal. Inevitable discrimination would result in the poorest, who would not be able to afford the best defence, being the worst affected. “Only if there is a willingness to protect the worst and the weakest amongst us, that all of us can secure that our own rights will be protected.”

While the majority of the population were in favour of capital punishment, the Court held that “public opinion may have some relevance to the enquiry, but, in itself, it is no substitute for the duty vested in the Courts to interpret the Constitution …” The question to be answered was “not what the majority of South Africans believe … [but] whether the Constitution allows the sentence.”

The rights to life, dignity, freedom and security are subject to the general limitations provision allowing limitation only to the extent reasonable and justifiable in an open democratic society based on freedom and equality. Rights to life and dignity are the most important of all human rights as they form the basis for other rights. Justifications that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, preventative or restitutive measure cannot be accorded same weight. It has not been conclusively proven that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than alternative punishments.

Makwanyane made clear that the death penalty will not solve violent crimes, it would only institutionalise murder, the destruction of life and annihilation of dignity. Further, for South Africa to reinstate capital punishment would be against the international trend of abolition.

Calling for brutality to end brutality does not address the root cause of the violence. Energies must be directed towards combatting violent crime against women, children and indeed any person in South Africa. We need to transform South Africa into a country in which women, children and men are respected and protected simply because they are human beings, with the law and authorities being resourced and empowered to deal with both perpetrators and victims.

It is hoped that the proactive measures announced by President Ramaphosa on 18 September will help tackle Gender Based Violence. These, coupled with institutional willingness and education at all levels of society, will help to ensure that the constitutional rights and values of life, dignity and freedom are a lived reality.

Share this:

Related content.

A Conversation with Justice Majiedt of the South African Constitutional Court

The Transformative Possibilities of a Constitution (with Joel Modiri and Gautam Bhatia)

Criminal Justice and the Death Penalty in India: An Opinion Study with 60 Former Supreme Court Judges

The role sanction has, never, been to address the root causes of crime.

The role of sanction is to establish justice, with the desired and, realized effect of a safer society, based upon two things, the holding of criminals and the deterrent effect in stopping some future crimes.

Dignity is something we possess. It is not something conferred upon us by others nor something which can be removed from us by sanction.

Those who have chosen to rape and murder women have abandoned their own dignity, of their own free will, and have decided to destroy the lives of the innocent.

The death penalty cannot take away the dignity of the rapist/murderer, first because he has chosen to abandon it and secondly because an outside force cannot take it away. Can a rapist murderer regain their dignity, Of course, but still, the death penalty cannot take it away anymore than it can with anyone else involved in a death penalty protocol.

Life is no more of an absolute human right than is freedom. Both execution and incarceration can be justified by proportional sanctions, based within justice.

Is there anything more dignified than the pursuit if justice?

Wardens of the state, be they police or military can, justifiably, kill, which does not take away the dignity of the police or soldier or those they killed, as they each posses it, or not, within themselves, just as with the state that may execute within justice.

The question of the death penalty is one of the current questions of debate in Sri Lanka. Your blog raises some important questions. What are the root causes of violence? Are they country specific or worldwide? And how are energies to be directed against crime towards women and children? Crimes against women and children (especially chhildren) are not numerous in Sri Lanka. Another question to which I have not found an answer is this: Has the finding that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent been tested only in developed countries? That is my impression, but I may be wrong. Has it been proved by statistics in South Africa? The general feeling among the population here (over 90% according to one survey) is that it would be an effective deterrent here. Anyway, best wishes for your research at Oxford. Sinha Bsnayake

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Submit Journal Contribution

Author information.

• Full name *
• Jurisdiction *
• Upload author profile photo * Accepted file types: jpg, gif, png, jpeg, bmp, Max. file size: 1 MB.
• Author bio *
• I’m happy to display my social media links (only complete if you want them displayed)

Journal content

• Journal article title *
• Upload Journal article * Accepted file types: doc, docx, , Max. file size: 1 MB.
• Articles can be uploaded in the following formats: doc, docx
• Subscribe to the newsletter
• Consent * I agree that the article submitted is my original and unpublished work *

Submit Blog Contribution

• Author bio (50 words) *

Blog content

• Blog title *
• Upload blog article * Accepted file types: doc, docx, , Max. file size: 1 MB.
• You can upload your blog in the following document formats: doc, docx.
• Subscribe me to the newsletter
• Consent * I agree that the blog post submitted is my original and unpublished work *
• Post Custom Field

Should the Death Penalty Be Legal?

General reference (not clearly pro or con).

John Gramlich, Senior Writer and Editor at Pew Research Center, states:

“Six-in-ten U.S. adults strongly or somewhat favor the death penalty for convicted murderers, according to the April 2021 survey. A similar share (64%) say the death penalty is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder. Support for capital punishment is strongly associated with the view that it is morally justified in certain cases. Nine-in-ten of those who favor the death penalty say it is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder; only a quarter of those who oppose capital punishment see it as morally justified.” - John Gramlich, 10 Facts about the Death Penalty in the U.S.,” pewresearch.org, July 19, 2021

Ian Millhiser, Senior Correspondent at Vox, states:

“Fewer people were executed in 2020 than in any year for nearly three decades, and fewer people were sentenced to die than at any point since the Supreme Court created the modern legal framework governing the death penalty in 1976… One significant reason so few people were executed in 2020 is the Covid-19 pandemic — which has slowed court proceedings and turned gathering prison officials and witnesses for an execution into a dangerous event for everyone involved. But even if 2020 is an outlier year due to the pandemic, DPIC’s [Death Penalty Information Center’s] data shows a sharp and consistent trend away from the death penalty since the number of capital sentences peaked in the 1990s. In total, only 17 people were executed in 2020, a number that would be much lower if not for the Trump administration resuming federal executions this year for the first time in nearly two decades. 2020 is the first year in American history when the federal government executed more people than all of the states combined: 10 of the 17 people executed in 2020 were killed by the federal government. Only five states — Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, and Tennessee — conducted executions in 2020. And of these five states, only one, Texas, killed more than one person on death row. The trend away from new death sentences and executions has continued despite two recent significant pro-death penalty opinions from the Supreme Court. The Court’s decisions in Glossip v. Gross (2015) and especially in Bucklew v. Precythe (2019) make it much more difficult for death row inmates to claim their executions violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.” - Ian Millhiser, “The Decline and Fall of the American Death Penalty,” vox.com, Dec. 30, 2020

Roger Hood, former professor at the Centre for Criminological Research at the University of Oxford, states:

“[C]apital punishment, also called death penalty, [is the] execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense. Capital punishment should be distinguished from extrajudicial executions carried out without due process of law. The term death penalty is sometimes used interchangeably with capital punishment, though imposition of the penalty is not always followed by execution (even when it is upheld on appeal), because of the possibility of commutation to life imprisonment” - Roger Hood, “Capital Punishment,” britannica.com, Mar. 25, 2021

Robert Blecker, professor emeritus at New York Law School, states:

“Society embraces four major justifications for punishment: deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation and retribution. Retribution has often been scorned by academics and judges, but ultimately, it provides capital punishment with its only truly moral foundation. Critics of the theory, including Mr. [Nikolas] Cruz’s lawyers, commonly equate retribution with revenge — disparaging ‘an eye for an eye’ as barbaric. But retribution is not simply revenge. Revenge may be limitless and misdirected at the undeserving, as with collective punishment. Retribution, on the other hand, can help restore a moral balance. It demands that punishment must be limited and proportional. Retributivists like myself just as strongly oppose excessive punishment as we urge adequate punishment: as much, but no more than what’s deserved. Thus I endorse capital punishment only for the worst of the worst criminals. - Robert Blecker, “If Not the Parkland Shooter, Who Is the Death Penalty For?,” nytimes.com, Oct. 27, 2022

Jeffrey A. Rosen, Former Deputy Attorney General in the Trump Administration, states:

“The death penalty is a difficult issue for many Americans on moral, religious and policy grounds. But as a legal issue, it is straightforward. The United States Constitution expressly contemplates ‘capital’ crimes, and Congress has authorized the death penalty for serious federal offenses since President George Washington signed the Crimes Act of 1790. The American people have repeatedly ratified that decision, including through the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 signed by President Bill Clinton, the federal execution of Timothy McVeigh under President George W. Bush and the decision by President Barack Obama’s Justice Department to seek the death penalty against the Boston Marathon bomber and Dylann Roof. The recent executions reflect that consensus, as the Justice Department has an obligation to carry out the law. The decision to seek the death penalty against Mr. Lee was made by Attorney General Janet Reno (who said she personally opposed the death penalty but was bound by the law) and reaffirmed by Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder. Mr. Purkey was prosecuted during the George W. Bush administration, and his conviction and sentence were vigorously defended throughout the Obama administration. The judge who imposed the death sentence on Mr. Honken, Mark Bennett, said that while he generally opposed the death penalty, he would not lose any sleep over Mr. Honken’s execution.” - Jeffrey A. Rosen, “The Death Penalty Can Ensure ‘Justice Is Being Done,'” nytimes.com, July 27, 2020

Charles Stimson, Acting Chief of Staff and Senior Legal Fellow of the Heritage Foundation, states:

“[F] or the death penalty to be applied fairly, we must strive to make the criminal justice system work as it was intended. We should all agree that all defendants in capital cases should have competent and zealous lawyers representing them at all stages in the trial and appeals process. Any remnant of racism in the criminal justice system is wrong, and we should work to eliminate it. Nobody is in favor of racist prosecutors, bad judges or incompetent defense attorneys. If problems arise in particular cases, they should be corrected—and often are. That said, the death penalty serves three legitimate penological objectives: general deterrence, specific deterrence, and retribution.” - Charles Stimson, “The Death Penalty Is Appropriate,” heritage.org, Dec. 20, 2019

George Brauchler, District Attorney of the 18th Judicial District in Colorado, states:

“The paramount goal of sentencing is the imposition of justice. Sometimes, justice is dismissing a charge, granting a plea bargain, expunging a past conviction, seeking a prison sentence, or — in a very few cases, for the worst of the worst murderers — sometimes, justice is death… A drug cartel member who murders a rival cartel member faces life in prison without parole. What if he murders two, three, or 12 people? Or the victim is a child or multiple children? What if the murder was preceded by torture or rape? How about a serial killer? Or a terrorist who kills dozens, hundreds or thousands? The repeal of the death penalty treats all murders as the same. Once a person commits a single act of murder, each additional murder is a freebie. That is not justice.” - George Brauchler, “Coloradans Should Have the Final Say on the Death Penalty (and I’d Hope They Keep It),” denverpost.com, Mar. 1, 2019

Michael Meltsner and Daniel S. Medwed, Professors of Law at Northeastern University, state:

“You don’t have to be a statistician to realize that in a system that executes a tiny proportion of the eligible, selection will always be arbitrary. Indeed, now that more states have ended capital punishment and fewer death sentences are even sought in the states that retain it, executions resemble more and more the sacrificial practices of our remote ancestors. Furman found a grievous error when some persons are sentenced to death and others not for what amounts to the same crime. But it is still true that race, class, geography, and lawyer competence determine who lives and who dies. The selection process we are left with operates in a troubled judicial landscape. Courts are no longer required to compare cases to ensure even handed decisions. Hyper-technical rules often block consideration of seemingly legitimate claims. High Court decisions increasingly permit troublesome executions that go both unreviewed and unexplained. The American way of sentencing the convicted to death is rare and random—but also bureaucratic, costly, and governed by often indecipherably complex rules. When it cannot even produce the results its supporters seek, time has come for it to go. We cannot wait a moment longer.” - Michael Meltsner and Daniel S. Medwed, “Does a Fair Way to Decide Who Gets The Death Penalty Actually Exist?,” slate.com, Feb. 22, 2022

Elliot Williams, CNN legal analyst and Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Justice Department, states:

“It is time to end the federal death penalty. Last week, the federal government executed two men within nearly 24 hours. What’s striking here is the timing. The deaths of Alfred Bourgeois and Brandon Bernard mark the first time the death penalty has been imposed during the lame-duck period since 1889, when Grover Cleveland was President — before the bottle cap or the diesel engine were even invented. The executions come more than a year after Attorney General William Barr directed the federal government to reinstate the death penalty for the first time in nearly 20 years. The fact that an attorney general can decide to commence the federal death penalty after years without it, or that the United States has a century-plus-old practice of suspending it at certain points in the political calendar tells us everything that is wrong with the practice. The death penalty is unique in the law — despite its finality, it is politically fraught, inconsistently applied, subject to the basest human impulses, and a relic of the ugliest elements baked into our criminal justice system.” - Elliot Williams, “The Death Penalty Confuses Vengeance with Justice, and It’s Time to End It,” cnn.com, Dec. 13, 2020

Jared Olsen, Wyoming State Representative (R), states:

“A long-held stereotype is that conservatives in this country favor capital punishment, while liberals oppose it. But that doesn’t accord with reality: In recent years, more conservatives have come to realize that capital punishment conflicts irreconcilably with their principles of valuing life, fiscal responsibility and limited government. Many conservatives also recognize that the death penalty inflicts extreme and unnecessary trauma on the family members of victims and the correctional employees who have the job of taking the prisoner’s life.” - Jared Olsen, “I’m a Republican and I Oppose Restarting Federal Executions,” nytimes.com, July 29, 2019

Kamala Harris, then U.S. Senator (D-CA), states

“As a career law enforcement official, I have opposed the death penalty because it is immoral, discriminatory, ineffective, and a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars… Black and Latino defendants are far more likely to be executed than their white counterparts. Poor defendants without a team of lawyers are far more likely to enter death row than those with strong representation. Your race or your bank account shouldn’t determine your sentence. It is also a waste of taxpayer money. The California Legislative Analyst’s office estimates that California would save $150 million a year if it replaced the death penalty with a sentence of life without parole. That’s money that could go into schools, health care, or restorative justice programs.” - Kamala Harris, “Senator Kamala Harris on California Death Penalty Moratorium,” harris.senate.gov, Mar. 13, 2019

People who view this page may also like:

• States with the Death Penalty and States with Death Penalty Bans
• US Executions by Race, Crime, Method, Age, Gender, State, & Year
• Should Euthanasia or Physician-Assisted Suicide Be Legal?

ProCon/Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 325 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 USA

Natalie Leppard Managing Editor [email protected]

© 2023 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. All rights reserved

• History of the Death Penalty
• Top Pro & Con Quotes
• Historical Timeline
• Did You Know?
• States with the Death Penalty, Death Penalty Bans, and Death Penalty Moratoriums
• The ESPY List: US Executions 1608-2002
• Federal Capital Offenses
• Death Row Inmates
• Critical Thinking Video Series: Thomas Edison Electrocutes Topsy the Elephant, Jan. 4, 1903

Cite This Page

• Artificial Intelligence
• Private Prisons
• Space Colonization
• Social Media
• Death Penalty
• School Uniforms
• Video Games
• Animal Testing
• Gun Control
• Banned Books
• Teachers’ Corner

ProCon.org is the institutional or organization author for all ProCon.org pages. Proper citation depends on your preferred or required style manual. Below are the proper citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order): the Modern Language Association Style Manual (MLA), the Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago), the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), and Kate Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (Turabian). Here are the proper bibliographic citations for this page according to four style manuals (in alphabetical order):

[Editor's Note: The APA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

[Editor’s Note: The MLA citation style requires double spacing within entries.]

Persuasive Essay Writing

Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty

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

Published on: Jan 27, 2023

Last updated on: Jan 29, 2024

People also read

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

Easy and Unique Persuasive Essay Topics with Tips

The Basics of Crafting an Outstanding Persuasive Essay Outline

Ace Your Next Essay With These Persuasive Essay Examples!

Persuasive Essay About Gun Control - Best Examples for Students

Top Examples of Persuasive Essay about Covid-19

Learn How To Write An Impressive Persuasive Essay About Business

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

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

Learn How To Craft a Powerful Persuasive Essay About Bullying

Craft an Engaging Persuasive Essay About Smoking: Examples & Tips

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

Share this article

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

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

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

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

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

On This Page On This Page -->

What Do We Mean by a Persuasive Essay?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persuasive Essay About Death Penalty Examples

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

Looking for some examples to get your ideas flowing? 

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

Example of a Persuasive essay about death penalty

Persuasive essay about death penalty in the Philippines

Short Persuasive essay about death penalty

Persuasive essay about death penalty should be abolished

The death penalty pros and cons essay

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

Argumentative Essay About Death Penalty Examples 

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

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

Have a look at them to get inspired!!

Argumentative essay about death penalty in the Philippines

Argumentative essay about death penalty with introduction body conclusion

Argumentative essay about death penalty should be abolished

Argumentative essay about death penalty conclusion

6 Tips To Write an A+ Persuasive Essay

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

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

1. Understand the assignment and audience

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

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

2. Brainstorm and research

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

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

3. Create an outline

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

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

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

4. Make an argument

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

5. Edit and revise 

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

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

6. Get feedback

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

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

Summing up, 

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

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

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

Don't have time to write your essay? 

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the most persuasive argument for the death penalty.

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

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

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

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

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

What are good topics for persuasive essays?

Good topics for persuasive essays include 

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

Cathy A. (Marketing, Literature)

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

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

Keep reading

Legal & Policies

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

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

10 Reasons Why The Death Penalty is Wrong

The death penalty is wrong because it disproportionately affects certain groups, inflicts physical and psychological torment, burdens taxpayers, and doesn’t deter or resolve the root causes of crime.

Over 70% of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty , but it’s still used in places like China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. Public opinion is divided, but over the years, support for the death penalty has waned. Supporters say it’s a valuable crime deterrent while opponents argue it fails in this purpose. In this article, we’ll explore these claims, as well as other reasons why the death penalty is wrong.

#1. It’s inhumane #2. It inflicts psychological torment #3. It burdens taxpayers #4. It doesn’t deter crime #5. It doesn’t address the root causes of crime #6. It’s biased against people experiencing poverty #7. It’s disproportionately hurts people with disabilities #8. It has a racial bias #9. It’s used as a tool of authoritarianism #10. It’s irreversible

#1. It’s inhumane

Content warning: This paragraph includes descriptions of a botched execution

Methods of execution have included firing squads, hanging, the electric chair, and lethal injections. Are these punishments inhumane? Death penalty critics look to The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment , which is an international treaty intended to prevent actions considered inhumane. While the Convention doesn’t take a clear stance on the death penalty, many believe executions should be classified as cruel and inhumane. For those who believe executions can be performed “humanely,” there’s still the problem of botched executions. Research shows that 3% of executions between 1890-2010 in the US were botched. Lethal injection has the highest rate of error despite being the most common execution option. When injections go wrong, it can take a long time for a prisoner to die.

In 2014 in Oklahoma, Clayton Lockett was subjected to a botched execution. Things started poorly while the execution team hunted for a viable vein and realized they didn’t have the right needles . Then, it took at least 16 pokes to get an IV inserted. Lockett was in clear distress as the drugs began to enter his body, and the execution was halted. Lockett died of a heart attack 43 minutes after the first drug – midazolam – was administered. While it’s not clear if the drug can be blamed in Lockett’s case, sedatives like midazolam have played a role in several botched executions. Given these facts, the death penalty can easily be considered inhumane.

#2. It inflicts psychological torment

While the death penalty can cause severe physical pain, the time spent on death row can inflict psychological torment, as well. According to The Death Penalty Information Center, death-row prisoners in the United States typically spend over a decade waiting for their execution dates or for their death sentences to be overturned. During those agonizing years, prisoners are isolated, excluded from any employment or educational programs, and restricted from exercise or visitation. This can cause what some experts call “death row syndrome,” which makes prisoners suicidal and delusional. The prisoner is essentially tortured while on death row.

The death penalty doesn’t only affect death-row prisoners. Those working on death row suffer, too. In 2022, NPR released an investigation where they spoke with current and former executioners, lawyers, wardens, and other workers who had been involved with more than 200 executions. They reported “serious mental and physical repercussions.” Nearly everyone NPR spoke with no longer supported the death penalty. While some may still believe death is an appropriate punishment for certain crimes, society needs to consider the health of those tasked with carrying out that punishment.

#3. It burdens taxpayers with high costs

States use taxpayer money to fund executions. You may think death penalty sentences cost less than life imprisonment, but research shows that’s not true. According to data collected by Amnesty International, Kansas paid 70% more for a death penalty case than a comparable non-death penalty case. The median cost of a non-death penalty case (through the end of incarceration) is $740,000 while the median cost of a death penalty case through execution is a striking $1.26 million. Why is the death penalty so expensive? Legal and pre-trial fees, as well as the length of death penalty trials, the cost of appeals, and heightened security on death row all cost more than non-death penalty cases.

Many taxpayers have moral qualms about their taxes going to the death penalty, but there are tangible consequences, too. The money used for death penalty cases is being diverted from other measures such as mental health treatment, victim services, drug treatment programs, and more. Most people would prefer their taxes to pay for these types of services rather than long trials, appeals, and other death-penalty case activities.

#3. It doesn’t deter crime

Many people can admit the death penalty is not a perfect system, but if it deters crime, isn’t it worth keeping? That statement contains a big “if.” The Death Penalty Information Center has information showing that states without the death penalty have a consistently lower murder rate than states with the death penalty. Since 1990, the gap has increased. A 2020 analysis found that 9 out of 10 states with the highest pandemic murder rates were states with the death penalty. 8 out of the 11 states with the lowest pandemic murder rates had abolished the death penalty. Data like this suggests that the death penalty does not deter murder.

Why isn’t the threat of death enough to dissuade people from committing murder? The answer may lie in human psychology and the minds of those committing crimes. According to an article in Psychology Today, most offenders don’t behave rationally during a crime. Poor mental health is a common trigger. According to research, 43% of those in state prisons have a diagnosed mental disorder. When it comes to what’s known as “expressive crimes,” which are crimes driven by rage, depression, and drug or alcohol use, people are not thinking about the consequences they might face. The death penalty doesn’t factor into their decision-making.

#4. It doesn’t address the root causes of crime

The causes of crime are complex, but there’s little doubt that the death penalty fails to address them. Consider the United States, which experienced a post-2020 increase in violence. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, gun violence was a major contributor. The FBI found that guns were responsible for 77% of murders nationwide in 2020. In the same report, COVID-19 was frequently referenced as a factor as more people experienced disruptions to their jobs and social lives. Americans’ mental health suffered, as well, and while people with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of crime rather than perpetrators, certain illnesses (and a lack of treatment) are linked to criminal behavior.

The death penalty doesn’t address any of the possible roots of violent crime, including socioeconomic disruptions and mental health. Considering the cost of death penalty cases and their effect on the mental health of all those involved, one could argue that the death penalty contributes to conditions that lead to crime.

Want to learn more about the death penalty? Check out these articles .

#6. It’s biased against people experiencing poverty

The death penalty is not applied equally based on the crimes people commit. Certain groups are much more likely than others to receive a sentence. According to The International Federation of Human Rights, 95% of prisoners on death row in the United States come from “underprivileged backgrounds. ” This doesn’t mean people experiencing poverty have an inherent urge to commit crimes. The criminalization of poverty increases a person’s risk for arrest, while the high cost of education, mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, and other assistance can push people into crime.

Once in the criminal justice system, those with money can pay for private lawyers, investigations, appeals, and other actions that help them avoid the death penalty. Those experiencing poverty have to rely on underfunded public defenders. Rather than punishing those who’ve committed the most severe crimes, the system punishes those with the fewest resources. If the death penalty disproportionately affects people experiencing poverty, it’s a deeply unfair and unjust system.

#7. It’s disproportionately hurting people with intellectual disabilities

People with intellectual disabilities face increased discrimination in the criminal justice system. They’re more likely to falsely confess to a crime , less equipped to work with lawyers, and more likely to experience harsh and violent treatment in prison. In the United States, jurisdictions using capital punishment are required to make sure that people with intellectual disabilities are not sentenced to death or executed. However, the standards for this determination are not consistent. According to The Innocence Project, at least 12 states use IQ scores to determine intellectual disability , a method many experts find problematic. Certain states also require clear evidence, while others only ask for a “preponderance of evidence.” This means a person could be considered intellectually disabled in one state and not in another.

Even if a person with intellectual disabilities is not ultimately killed by the state, the road to a new sentence is brutal. Raymond Riles, who was sent to death row in 1976, remained there for more than 45 years despite being repeatedly deemed mentally incompetent. In 2021, his death sentence was finally tossed and he was sentenced to life in prison. Riles’ story is just one of many where a person with intellectual disabilities is mistreated or executed.

What factor influences your opinion on the death penalty the most?

• Whether or not it deters crime
• Whether or not it causes physical or emotional pain
• Whether or not it’s a waste of money
• Whether or not it discriminates against certain groups
• Whether or not it’s exploited by the state

View Results

#8. It has a racial bias

In the United States, racial discrepancies are the biggest concern for many death penalty critics. According to research, 35% of people executed in the last 40 years have been Black, despite the fact Black Americans only make up 13% of the general population. When researchers take a closer look, they discover patterns of discrimination based on race. Virginia in particular has been scrutinized for its history, which has roots in early capital punishment laws. White defendants could only be executed for first-degree murder, while a variety of non-homicide crimes could get enslaved Black defendants executed. Between 1900-1969, Virginia executed 73 Black men for non-homicide crimes , while 185 were executed for murder. In that same time frame, no white person was executed for a non-homicide crime while 46 were executed for murder. In 2021, Virginia abolished the death penalty, citing the state’s history of racial disparities.

There’s also racial bias regarding what crimes receive death penalty sentences. According to a 2003 study, prosecutors were more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim was white , while they were less likely to pursue that verdict if the victim was Black. Another study, this one from 2007, reflected similar findings. Nationally, mountains of research show racial bias in how the death penalty is applied.

#9. It’s used as a tool of authoritarianism 

In theory, the death penalty is only meant to punish the most serious crimes, like murder. However, in places around the world, governments use executions freely and for non-lethal crimes. According to Amnesty International, recorded executions in 2022 hit their highest figure in five years . 883 people (which does not count the thousands possibly executed in China) were killed across 20 countries, which represents a 53% rise since 2021. Amnesty’s Secretary General says almost 40% of all known executions are for drug-related offenses, while in Iran, people were executed for protesting the regime. Because the governments still using the death penalty often hide their numbers, there are likely more executions not on the record.

It’s clear many governments inflicting the death penalty are not interested in justice, but rather in suppression and control. By using the death penalty arbitrarily, authorities set shifting definitions for what’s “unacceptable” in society and what’s an appropriate punishment. It makes citizens fearful and violates their human rights. As long the death penalty is legal, it has the potential to be abused for a government’s own purposes.

#10. It can’t be reversed in light of new evidence or errors

What makes the death penalty distinct from life in prison is that the judgment can’t be reversed if new evidence is discovered. It’s a disturbingly frequent occurrence. In 2000, Professor James Liebman from Columbia Law School released a study examining every capital conviction and appeal between 1973-1995. More than 90% of the states that gave death sentences had overall error rates of 52% or higher. 85% of states had error rates of 60% or higher. A more recent analysis from 2014 collected data from all death sentences between 1973-2004. They estimated that around 1 in 25 of those given a death sentence had likely been incorrectly convicted. While most of those who receive a death penalty sentence are eventually removed from death row to serve life imprisonment, innocent prisoners are never freed.

The Death Penalty Information Center maintains a database of exonerations , which means the person was acquitted or the charges were dismissed completely. Reasons include false confessions, insufficient evidence, perjury, official misconduct, and inadequate legal defense. Data like this exposes how flawed the criminal justice system is and how frequent errors are. It’s not a system we should trust with people’s lives.

The death penalty: a reading list 

Interested in learning more about the death penalty? Here’s where to start:

Just Mercy: A Story of Justice and Redemption | Bryan Stevenson

This 2015 book (also made into a film) follows Bryan Stevenson as he establishes the Equal Justice Initiative. The book mostly focuses on Stevenson’s work for Water McMillian, a Black man sentenced to death for a crime he didn’t commit.

Dead Man Walking: The Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty That Sparked a National Debate | Helen Prejean

Written in 1994, this book follows a Roman Catholic nun as she learns about the death penalty in America, gets to know everyone touched by the system, and works through her beliefs.

Let the Lord Sort Them: The Rise and Fall of the Death Penalty | Maurice Chammah

In this award-winning 2022 book, Maurice Chammah tracks the story of capital punishment through stories of those with personal experience, like a prosecutor turned judge, a lawyer, executioners, and the prisoners living on death row. Chammah is a journalist and staff writer for The Marshall Project.

Right Here, Right Now: Life Stories from America’s Death Row | Ed. Lynden Harris

A collection of 99 first-person, anonymous accounts of men on death row in the United States, this 2021 book shines a light on the humanity of the people who’ve been sentenced to death. The book is organized into eight life stages from early childhood right to the moment a man faces his execution.

You may also like

13 Facts about Child Labor

Environmental Racism 101: Definition, Examples, Ways to Take Action

11 Examples of Systemic Injustices in the US

Women’s Rights 101: History, Examples, Activists

What is Social Activism?

15 Inspiring Movies about Activism

15 Examples of Civil Disobedience

Academia in Times of Genocide: Why are Students Across the World Protesting?

Pinkwashing 101: Definition, History, Examples

15 Inspiring Quotes for Black History Month

10 Inspiring Ways Women Are Fighting for Equality

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Clean Water

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.

What do you think? Leave a respectful comment.

Ryan Connelly Holmes Ryan Connelly Holmes

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/illinois-governor-wants-to-bring-back-the-death-penalty-does-his-proposal-have-a-chance

Illinois’ governor wants to bring back the death penalty. Does his proposal have a chance?

Illinois’ Republican governor has proposed reinstating the death penalty for adults who kill law enforcement officers, or two or more people in a single attack.

The move comes as part of a counterproposal from Gov. Bruce Rauner to a gun control bill passed by the Illinois House of Delegates in March.

The original bill, one of three on gun control passed by the Senate at the time but the only one sent to Rauner, would impose a 72-hour wait limit for the purchase of assault-style rifles.

Rauner’s counterproposal keeps that limit, but also suggests restoring capital punishment, along with:

• Creating a statewide ban on bump stocks and trigger cranks (first proposed in an earlier Senate bill).
• Allowing family members and members of law enforcement to petition to disarm individuals who “pose danger to themselves or others.”

Rauner’s version of the bill now goes back for a vote in the House and Senate, which are both controlled by Democrats. The odds that it will pass are slim. But it’s reignited debate over the death penalty in a state that abolished it seven years ago, and at a time when President Donald Trump has repeatedly echoed his support for the death penalty, particularly for those who kill police .

“We must end the attacks on our police and we must end them right now,” Trump said at a Tuesday event honoring law enforcement officials in Washington, D.C. “We believe criminals who kill our police should get the death penalty.”

Illinois repealed capital punishment in 2011 after a bipartisan deliberative process and vote. It’s unclear how much public support there is for reinstating the death penalty in the state. But support for the practice nationwide has fallen by more than 30 percentage points in the last 20 years, according to a survey from Pew .

Here’s what we know about what’s happening in Illinois and how it fits into the statewide and national discussion about capital punishment.

What would the new proposal mean for Illinois?

Since 1976, Illinois has executed 12 prisoners, while 21 inmates have been exonerated while sitting on death row. Between 1999 and 2011, when the state repealed the death penalty, Illinois executed just one death row inmate.

Under Rauner’s proposal, which assigns the death penalty to offenders who “deliberately kill” police officers or two or more people, as many as 10 percent of murders statewide would be eligible for capital punishment, said Robert Dunham, the executive director at the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit which does not take a stance on the death penalty.

Why is Rauner pushing for this?

Gov. Rauner cites public safety concerns and protecting police officers for reinstating the death penalty.

“We didn’t propose the death penalty lightly,” Rauner said in a statement . “We had to balance the need for safety and, in the end, we wanted to make it abundantly clear we have no tolerance for such atrocities in Illinois,” he said.

Rauner is also running for re-election this fall. Democrats and advocacy groups say his proposal is an attempt to force Democrats to choose between gun control legislation and maintaining a ban on the death penalty, while igniting his base. He faces Democratic challenger businessman J.B. Pritzker in the general election in November.

“A lot of times when we’ve seen proposals to bring back the death penalty there have been suggestions that they were more concerned with politics than with policy,” Dunham said. “This has a similar odor of politics to it,” he said.

What critics say

Along with opposition from the left, some conservatives at the national level have criticized Rauner’s plan.

Advocacy group Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty spoke out against Rauner’s proposal, saying it lacks the conservative principles of small government, fiscal frugality and support for life.

“We definitely disagree with the governor’s proposal and it is very much out of step with public opinion on the death penalty with the rest of the country. We, as conservatives, think there’s no reason to bring back the death penalty in Illinois,” said Heather Beaudoin, the group’s national coordinator.

What supporters say

Republicans in Springfield are backing the governor.

“I believe that reinstating society’s most serious penalty for the most serious of violent crimes, with the proper safeguards, is an appropriate response to the horrific violence we have witnessed far too often in recent times,” Illinois Senate Republican Leader Bill Brady said in a statement.

“The Governor’s action today recognizes the need for a multi-pronged approach to dealing with deadly assaults,” he said.

Sean Smoot, the executive director for law the enforcement organization Illinois Police Benevolent and Protective Association, said that while the group does not specifically endorse Rauner’s proposal, it supports directives aimed at increasing police safety.

“We support the notion of enhanced penalties for people who commit violence against police officers,” Smoot said. “We appreciate the fact that the governor’s amendatory veto has spurred that conversation,” he added.

The national debate

President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Pennsylvania. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

The number of executions per year — and support for capital punishment — have fallen sharply in the last 15 years.

The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty federally in 1976, and the number of executions nationwide peaked at 98 in 1999.

The death penalty is authorized in 31 states and at the federal level, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. It’s also an option in the military justice system, though it hasn’t been used since 1961.

While Rauner’s proposal is unusual — reintroducing the death penalty via gun control legislation, in a bill that didn’t originate in the legislature — the fact that a state would reconsider the death penalty isn’t. Legislation to either repeal or reinstate capital punishment is introduced in many states each year, Amber Widgery, an analyst who tracks the death penalty at NCSL, told the PBS NewsHour. Seldom though, do those bills get floor votes, she said.

This year, some 15 states introduced bills to repeal capital punishment, while bills in 10 other states sought to reinstate it.

The only proposal to get off the ground was in New Hampshire, where the state legislature passed a bill to repeal the death penalty, but Republican Gov. Chris Sununu has said he will veto it.

In Massachusetts, calls for a return of capital punishment for those who kill police officers have grown louder in recent months, following the April murder of a police officer in Cape Cod. Republican Gov. Charlie Baker has spoken to lawmakers about bringing back the deal penalty, though no action has been taken.

Is there a link between the death penalty and the murder rate?

Supporters of the death penalty have said that it can deter crime, and even lower murder rates. But that’s not a claim supported by research, Dunham argues. Data collected by DPIC shows that, on average states without the death penalty have consistently had lower murder rates than states with it. But “the death penalty does not reduce murder rates more than not having it. There is no measurable effect on murder rates.” he added.

He thinks recent initiatives at the state level are driven by the president’s comments.

“I think that the rhetoric we’re seeing at the state level is certainly influenced by the comments in Washington,” Dunham said.

“That doesn’t make them any more serious as legislative proposals and certainly doesn’t make them wise as policy,” he said.

Will the Illinois proposal pass?

The proposal is awaiting review by the Illinois General Assembly. Democrats are calling Rauner’s proposal an “overreach,” saying that the bill sent to him focuses on gun control and does not address the death penalty. What’s more, Rauner is a Republican and both the state House of Representatives and Senate are currently controlled by Democrats. The state went without a budget because of a deadlock between the governor’s mansion and the state legislature. It finally passed a new spending plan last June.

Republican support nationwide for the death penalty fell 10 percentage points to 72 percent last year, according to a 2017 Gallup poll .

While Rauner has the support of Illinois Senate Republican Leader Bill Brady, Illinois Democratic Sen. Kwame Raoul, who sponsored the death penalty repeal bill in 2011, said Rauner’s proposal had no chance the “moment it left his pen.”

“He didn’t do that as an honest suggestion, but as a diversion to having an honest conversation about how we deal with gun violence,” Raoul told the NewsHour. He also argued that Rauner doesn’t have the authority to make a death penalty amendment.

Even if the Illinois House of Delegates passes Rauner’s proposal, shortages of lethal injection drugs, thanks to boycotts from pharmaceutical companies years ago, may cause problems being able to carry out executions.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.