arguments for death penalty essay

Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments

Life without Parole

Retribution

Victims’ Families

Methods of Execution

Medical Professionals’ Participation

Federal Death Penalty

1. Legality

The United States is one of 55 countries globally with a legal death penalty, according to Amnesty International. As of Mar. 24, 2021, within the US, 27 states had a legal death penalty (though 3 of those states had a moratorium on the punishment’s use).

Proponents of the death penalty being legal argue that such a harsh penalty is needed for criminals who have committed the worst crimes, that the punishment deters crime, and that the US Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty as constitutional.

Opponents of the death penalty being legal argue that the punishment is cruel and unusual, and, thus, unconstitutional, that innocent people are put to death for crimes they did not commit, and that the penalty is disproportionately applied to people of color.

Read More about This Debate:

Should the Death Penalty Be Legal?

ProCon.org, “International Death Penalty Status,” deathpenalty.procon.org, May 19, 2021 ProCon.org, “Should the Death Penalty Be Legal?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021 ProCon.org, “States with the Death Penalty, Death Penalty Bans, and Death Penalty Moratoriums,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Mar. 24, 2021

2. Life without Parole

Life without Parole (also called LWOP) is suggested by some as an alternative punishment for the death penalty.

Proponents of replacing the death penalty with life without parole argue that imprisoning someone for the duration of their life is more humane than the death penalty, that LWOP is a more fitting penalty that allows the criminal to think about what they’ve done, and that LWOP reduces the chances of executing an innocent person.

Opponents of replacing the death penalty with life without parole argue that LWOP is just an alternate death penalty and parole should always be a consideration even if the prisoner never earns the privilege. While other opponents argue that life without parole is not a harsh enough punishment for murderers and terrorists.

Should Life without Parole Replace the Death Penalty?

ProCon.org, “Should Life without Parole Replace the Death Penalty?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

3. Deterrence

One of the main justifications for maintaining a death penalty is that the punishment may prevent people from committing crimes so as to not risk being sentenced to death.

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to capital crimes state that such a harsh penalty is needed to discourage people from murder and terrorism.

Opponents who argue that the death penalty is not a deterrent to capital crimes state that there is no evidence to support the claim that the penalty is a deterrent.

Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime?

ProCon.org, “Does the Death Penalty Deter Crime?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

4. Retribution

Retribution in this debate is the idea that the death penalty is needed to bring about justice for the victims, the victims’ families, and/or society at large.

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed as retribution argue that “an eye for an eye” is appropriate, that the punishment should match the crime, and that the penalty is needed as a moral balance to the wrong done by the criminal.

Opponents who argue that the death penalty is not needed as retribution argue that reformative justice is more productive, that innocent people are often killed in the search for retribution, and that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

Should the Death Penalty Be Used for Retribution for Victims and/or Society?

ProCon.org, “Should the Death Penalty Be Used for Retribution for Victims and/or Society?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

5. Victims’ Families

Whether the death penalty can bring about some sort of closure or solace to the victims’ families after a horrible, life-changing experience has long been debated and used by both proponents and opponents of the death penalty.

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed to bring about closure and solace to victims’ families argue that the finality of the death penalty is needed for families to move on and not live in fear of the criminal getting out of prison.

Opponents who argue that the death penalty is needed to bring about closure and solace to victims’ families argue that retributive “justice” does not bring closure for anyone and that the death penalty can take years of media-friendly appeals to enact.

Does the Death Penalty Offer Closure or Solace to Victims’ Families?

ProCon.org, “Does the Death Penalty Offer Closure or Solace to Victims’ Families?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

6. Methods of Execution

Because the drugs used for lethal injection have become difficult to obtain, some states are turning to other methods of execution. For example, South Carolina recently enacted legislation to allow for the firing squad and electric chair if lethal injection is not available at the time of the execution.

Proponents of alternate methods of execution argue that the state and federal government have an obligation to carry out the sentence handed down, and that, given the recent botched lethal injection executions, other methods may be more humane.

Opponents of alternate methods of execution argue that we should not be reverting to less humane methods of execution, and that the drug companies’ objection to use of lethal injection drugs should signal a need to abolish the penalty altogether.

Should States Authorize Other Methods of Execution Such as Hanging or the Firing Squad?

ProCon.org, “Should States Authorize Other Methods of Execution Such as Hanging or the Firing Squad?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

7. Innocence

Reports indicate over 150 innocent people have been found not-guilty and exonerated since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973.

Proponents of abolishing the death penalty because innocent people may be executed argue that humans are fallible and the justice system is flawed, putting more Black and brown people on death row than are guilty of capital crimes, and that we cannot risk executing one innocent person just to carry about retributive “justice.”

Opponents of abolishing the death penalty because innocent people may be executed argue that the fact that death row inmates have been exonerated proves that the checks and balances to prevent innocent people from being executed are in place and working well, almost eliminating the chance that an innocent person will be executed.

Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished Because Innocent People May Be Executed?

ProCon.org, “Should the Death Penalty Be Abolished Because Innocent People May Be Executed?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

8. Morality

Both religious and secular debates have continued about whether it is moral for humans to kill one another, even in the name of justice, and whether executing people makes for a moral and just government.

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a moral punishment state that “an eye for an eye” is justified to promote a good and just society than shuns evil.

Opponents who argue that the death penalty is an immoral punishment state that humans should not kill other humans, no matter the reasons, because killing is killing.

Is the Death Penalty Immoral?

ProCon.org, “Is the Death Penalty Immoral?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

9. Medical Professionals’ Participation

With the introduction of lethal injection as execution method, states began asking that medical professionals participate in executions to ensure the injections were administered properly and to provide medical care if the execution were botched.

Proponents who argue that medical professionals can participate in executions ethically state that doctors and others ensure that the execution is not “cruel or unusual,” and ensure that the person being executed receives medical care during the execution.

Opponents who argue that medical professionals cannot participate in executions ethically state that doctors and others should keep people alive instead of participate in killing, and that the medicalization of execution leads to a false acceptance of the practice.

Is Participation in Executions Ethical for Medical Professionals?

ProCon.org, “Is Participation in Executions Ethical for Medical Professionals?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

10. Federal Death Penalty

The federal death penalty has only been carried out 16 times since its reinstatement after Furman v. Georgia in 1988: twice in 2001, once in 2003, ten times in 2020, and three times in 2021. Several moratoriums have been put in place by presidents in the interims. Under President Joe Biden, the US Justice Department has enacted a moratorium on the death penalty, reversing President Donald Trump’s policy of carrying out federal executions.

Proponents of keeping the federal death penalty argue that justice must be carried out to deter crime and offer closure to families, and that the federal government has an obligation to enact the sentences handed down by the courts.

Proponents of banning the federal death penalty argue that the United States federal government should set an example for the states with a ban, and that only a ban will prevent the next president from executing the prisoners on death row.

Should the US President Reinstate the Federal Death Penalty?

ProCon.org, “Most Recent Executions in Each US State,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Aug. 26, 2021 ProCon.org, “Should the US President Reinstate the Federal Death Penalty?,” deathpenalty.procon.org, Sep. 20, 2021

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.]

• Games & Quizzes
• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction
• Historical considerations

Moral arguments

Utilitarian arguments, practical arguments, the abolition movement.

• Capital punishment in the early 21st century

Arguments for and against capital punishment

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Capital Punishment
• Santa Clara University - Capital Punishment: Our Duty or Our Doom?
• Cornell Law School - Legal Information Institute - Death penalty
• capital punishment - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• capital punishment - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

Capital punishment has long engendered considerable debate about both its morality and its effect on criminal behaviour. Contemporary arguments for and against capital punishment fall under three general headings: moral , utilitarian, and practical.

Recent News

Supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit murder , because they have taken the life of another, have forfeited their own right to life. Furthermore, they believe, capital punishment is a just form of retribution , expressing and reinforcing the moral indignation not only of the victim’s relatives but of law-abiding citizens in general. By contrast, opponents of capital punishment, following the writings of Cesare Beccaria (in particular On Crimes and Punishments [1764]), argue that, by legitimizing the very behaviour that the law seeks to repress—killing—capital punishment is counterproductive in the moral message it conveys. Moreover, they urge, when it is used for lesser crimes, capital punishment is immoral because it is wholly disproportionate to the harm done. Abolitionists also claim that capital punishment violates the condemned person’s right to life and is fundamentally inhuman and degrading.

Although death was prescribed for crimes in many sacred religious documents and historically was practiced widely with the support of religious hierarchies , today there is no agreement among religious faiths, or among denominations or sects within them, on the morality of capital punishment. Beginning in the last half of the 20th century, increasing numbers of religious leaders—particularly within Judaism and Roman Catholicism—campaigned against it. Capital punishment was abolished by the state of Israel for all offenses except treason and crimes against humanity, and Pope John Paul II condemned it as “cruel and unnecessary.”

Supporters of capital punishment also claim that it has a uniquely potent deterrent effect on potentially violent offenders for whom the threat of imprisonment is not a sufficient restraint. Opponents, however, point to research that generally has demonstrated that the death penalty is not a more effective deterrent than the alternative sanction of life or long-term imprisonment.

There also are disputes about whether capital punishment can be administered in a manner consistent with justice . Those who support capital punishment believe that it is possible to fashion laws and procedures that ensure that only those who are really deserving of death are executed. By contrast, opponents maintain that the historical application of capital punishment shows that any attempt to single out certain kinds of crime as deserving of death will inevitably be arbitrary and discriminatory. They also point to other factors that they think preclude the possibility that capital punishment can be fairly applied, arguing that the poor and ethnic and religious minorities often do not have access to good legal assistance, that racial prejudice motivates predominantly white juries in capital cases to convict black and other nonwhite defendants in disproportionate numbers, and that, because errors are inevitable even in a well-run criminal justice system, some people will be executed for crimes they did not commit. Finally, they argue that, because the appeals process for death sentences is protracted, those condemned to death are often cruelly forced to endure long periods of uncertainty about their fate.

Under the influence of the European Enlightenment , in the latter part of the 18th century there began a movement to limit the scope of capital punishment. Until that time a very wide range of offenses, including even common theft, were punishable by death—though the punishment was not always enforced , in part because juries tended to acquit defendants against the evidence in minor cases. In 1794 the U.S. state of Pennsylvania became the first jurisdiction to restrict the death penalty to first-degree murder, and in 1846 the state of Michigan abolished capital punishment for all murders and other common crimes. In 1863 Venezuela became the first country to abolish capital punishment for all crimes, including serious offenses against the state (e.g., treason and military offenses in time of war). San Marino was the first European country to abolish the death penalty, doing so in 1865; by the early 20th century several other countries, including the Netherlands, Norway , Sweden , Denmark , and Italy , had followed suit (though it was reintroduced in Italy under the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini ). By the mid-1960s some 25 countries had abolished the death penalty for murder, though only about half of them also had abolished it for offenses against the state or the military code. For example, Britain abolished capital punishment for murder in 1965, but treason, piracy, and military crimes remained capital offenses until 1998.

During the last third of the 20th century, the number of abolitionist countries increased more than threefold. These countries, together with those that are “de facto” abolitionist—i.e., those in which capital punishment is legal but not exercised—now represent more than half the countries of the world. One reason for the significant increase in the number of abolitionist states was that the abolition movement was successful in making capital punishment an international human rights issue, whereas formerly it had been regarded as solely an internal matter for the countries concerned.

In 1971 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that, “in order fully to guarantee the right to life, provided for in…the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” called for restricting the number of offenses for which the death penalty could be imposed, with a view toward abolishing it altogether. This resolution was reaffirmed by the General Assembly in 1977. Optional protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights (1983) and to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1989) have been established, under which countries party to the convention and the covenant undertake not to carry out executions. The Council of Europe (1994) and the EU (1998) established as a condition of membership in their organizations the requirement that prospective member countries suspend executions and commit themselves to abolition. This decision had a remarkable impact on the countries of central and eastern Europe , prompting several of them—e.g., the Czech Republic , Hungary , Romania , Slovakia , and Slovenia—to abolish capital punishment.

In the 1990s many African countries—including Angola, Djibouti, Mozambique, and Namibia—abolished capital punishment, though most African countries retained it. In South Africa , which formerly had one of the world’s highest execution rates, capital punishment was outlawed in 1995 by the Constitutional Court, which declared that it was incompatible with the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment and with “a human rights culture.”

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.

Retribution

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

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

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

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

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Death Penalty — The Death Penalty: Arguments and Alternative Solutions

The Death Penalty: Arguments and Alternative Solutions

• Categories: Death Death Penalty

About this sample

Words: 977 |

Published: Feb 7, 2024

Words: 977 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, background information on the death penalty, arguments in favor of the death penalty, arguments against the death penalty, counterarguments and rebuttals, alternative solutions.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

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

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

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

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1370 words

5 pages / 1731 words

2 pages / 760 words

4 pages / 1796 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

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

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

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

Related Essays on Death Penalty

Marzilli Eric, J. (2019). The death penalty deters crime and saves lives. Boston Herald. Retrieved from

Richard Hickock, a convicted murderer, left a lasting impression on society with his infamous last words. As he faced the ultimate consequence for his heinous crimes, his final utterances became a subject of intrigue and [...]

On November 28, 1942, history was made in Louisiana as Toni Jo Henry became the first woman to be executed in the state. This landmark event not only sparked public outrage and debate, but it also shed light on the complex [...]

Imagine a society without laws, where chaos and anarchy reign supreme. Criminals would roam freely, causing harm and instilling fear in the hearts of innocent individuals. It is in this context that criminal law plays a crucial [...]

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

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

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

• 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 .

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Social Issues Death Penalty

Examining the Death Penalty: An Argumentative Perspective

Table of contents, death penalty arguments: deterrence and prevention, ethical considerations: the value of human life, implementation complexities: ensuring fairness, conclusion: weighing the arguments.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

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

• Overpopulation
• Social Protection Programs
• Teen Driving
• Violence Against Women
• Martin Luther King

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

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

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

5 Death Penalty Essays Everyone Should Know

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

“When We Kill”

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

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

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

“An Inhumane Way of Death”

By: Willie Jasper Darden, Jr.

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

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

“We Need To Talk About An Injustice”

By: Bryan Stevenson | From: TED 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Paul Brown | From: The Marshall Project 2019

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

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

You may also like

15 Inspiring Quotes for Black History Month

10 Inspiring Ways Women Are Fighting for Equality

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Clean Water

15 Trusted Charities Supporting Trans People

15 Political Issues We Must Address

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for LGBTQ+ Rights

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger 

15 Facts About Malala Yousafzai

12 Ways Poverty Affects Society

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.

Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

A case for the death penalty, works cited.

The survival of any civilization hinges on the establishment of laws and codes of conduct and the subsequent obeying of the same by the society’s members. Due to the fact that not all members of the society are going to follow the law on their own accord, forms of punishment for wrongs done may be used both for retribution and deterrence purposes. In the United States, capital punishment has been used as the most harsh form of retribution for the society’s most vicious offences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The U.S. Federal Parole System
• Aspects of the Writing an Argumentative Essay
• Death Penalty: James a Inciardi Perspective
• Democratic and Undemocratic Elements of the Constitution
• State and local public policies
• How Did It Feel Being a Governor?
• The Conflict Between Armenia and Azerbaijan
• The Articles of Confederation. Nullification and Secession
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, May 9). Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argumentative-paper-on-the-pros-of-the-death-penalty/

"Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty." IvyPanda , 9 May 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/argumentative-paper-on-the-pros-of-the-death-penalty/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty'. 9 May.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty." May 9, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argumentative-paper-on-the-pros-of-the-death-penalty/.

1. IvyPanda . "Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty." May 9, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argumentative-paper-on-the-pros-of-the-death-penalty/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Argumentative Paper on the Pros of the Death Penalty." May 9, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/argumentative-paper-on-the-pros-of-the-death-penalty/.

Finding Sources for Death Penalty Research

Barry Winiker/photolibrary/Getty Images

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

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

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

Amnesty International Site

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

Mental Illness on Death Row

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

Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty

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

Pro-Death Penalty Links

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

• 50 Argumentative Essay Topics
• 100 Persuasive Essay Topics
• 100 Persuasive Speech Topics for Students
• 61 General Expository Essay Topic to Practice Academic Writing
• America's Most Famous Murder Cases
• Capital Punishment: Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty
• Pros & Cons of the Death Penalty
• 5 Arguments in Favor of the Death Penalty
• Ethos, Logos, Pathos for Persuasion
• History of Capital Punishment in Canada
• Preparing an Argument Essay: Exploring Both Sides of an Issue
• Recent Legal History of the Death Penalty in America
• Tips on How to Write an Argumentative Essay
• The Death Penalty in the United States
• New Challenges to the Death Penalty
• Furman v. Georgia: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact

Arguments against the Death Penalty

This essay about the arguments against the death penalty explores its ethical, practical, and moral shortcomings. It presents a vivid narrative that critiques the justice system’s fallibility, highlights discrimination based on race and class, and questions the human rights implications of state-sanctioned executions. It challenges the purported deterrence value of the death penalty and underscores its financial burdens, ultimately advocating for life imprisonment as a more humane and equitable alternative. The text calls for a reevaluation of values and a shift towards abolition.

How it works

In the tapestry of discourse surrounding the death penalty, myriad strands weave together to form a complex narrative. At the heart of this narrative lies a persistent dialogue, wherein advocates and opponents engage in a tug-of-war of ideals, ethics, and practicalities. Amidst this dialectic, the arguments against the death penalty emerge as a chorus of dissent, challenging the status quo and advocating for a more enlightened approach to justice.

The first brushstroke on this canvas of opposition is the recognition of the fallibility inherent within the justice system.

Like a tapestry fraying at the edges, the system reveals its imperfections through cases of wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice. The specter of executing an innocent person looms large, casting doubt upon the irreversible nature of the death penalty. With each exoneration, the fabric of certainty unravels, underscoring the grave risks posed by a system that errs in judgment.

Echoing through the corridors of debate is the refrain of arbitrariness and inequality in the application of capital punishment. Like threads pulled askew, disparities based on race, class, and legal representation mar the integrity of the justice system. Statistical analyses paint a troubling portrait of bias, revealing patterns of discrimination that belie the notion of equal justice under the law. In this landscape of inequity, the death penalty stands as a stark reminder of systemic injustices that persist within society.

Amidst the cacophony of dissent, a chorus rises in condemnation of the death penalty as a violation of fundamental human rights. Like a symphony of protest, voices unite in defense of the right to life and dignity. The specter of state-sanctioned killing is castigated as a relic of a bygone era, incompatible with the values of a civilized society. International human rights organizations add their voices to the chorus, denouncing the death penalty as a barbaric practice that has no place in the modern world.

Against the backdrop of moral outrage, proponents of abolition point to the lack of empirical evidence supporting the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Like a spotlight shining on an empty stage, studies fail to establish a causal link between capital punishment and reduced crime rates. The assertion that executions serve as a deterrent is debunked, leaving proponents of the death penalty standing in the shadows of conjecture and speculation.

In the theater of justice, the cost of the death penalty looms large, casting a long shadow over fiscal responsibility and resource allocation. Like a ledger filled with red ink, the financial burden of capital punishment strains budgets and diverts resources from more pressing priorities. The exorbitant costs of legal proceedings and incarceration weigh heavily on taxpayers, prompting questions about the wisdom of maintaining a system that exacts such a high price.

Amidst the tumult of debate, a consensus emerges in favor of alternative sentencing options. Like seeds planted in fertile soil, proposals for life imprisonment without parole take root, offering a more humane and pragmatic approach to justice. Life sentences provide opportunities for rehabilitation and redemption, fostering a sense of hope amidst the despair of incarceration. In this paradigm shift, the death penalty withers like a fading flower, overshadowed by the promise of a more compassionate and equitable future.

As the curtain falls on the debate, the arguments against the death penalty echo in the chambers of conscience, challenging society to confront its values and principles. Like a clarion call for justice, voices unite in opposition to a practice that stains the fabric of humanity with bloodshed and injustice. In this symphony of dissent, the death penalty stands as a relic of a bygone era, awaiting the final act of abolition in the theater of history.

Cite this page

Arguments Against The Death Penalty. (2024, Apr 29). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/

"Arguments Against The Death Penalty." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Arguments Against The Death Penalty . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/ [Accessed: 6 Jul. 2024]

"Arguments Against The Death Penalty." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2024. Accessed July 6, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/

"Arguments Against The Death Penalty," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/. [Accessed: 6-Jul-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Arguments Against The Death Penalty . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/ [Accessed: 6-Jul-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

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

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

Please check your inbox.

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

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

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

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Argumentative essay on The death penalty

2016, Argumentative essay on The death penalty

Related Papers

Gerardette Philips

Brendan Beech

Mary Blakelock

charity mae dacut

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

Meray Maddah

" No crime goes unpunished " ; we are probably familiar with this quote where anyone who is guilty of any committed crime they should be prosecuted for it before the law and be held responsible for the actions that generated such crime. What people are also familiar with is the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights and the number of articles that it calls for, but distinctively the right to liberty, freedom and personal security. This right something that states and their sovereigns, at least most of them, aspire to accomplish in respect to their nationals' own security, well-being and livelihood; because after all what good is a state if it is not able to make its citizens enjoy the type of life that every human being is entitled on the expense of a certain political agenda from the state's part. In this sense, the state in such scenario will be the responsible party for not only distributing these rights but also following up with the citizens' utilization of these rights and making that each one does have the bare minimum of each right; meaning the entire right itself and not to settle with anything less. That said, what if the state in this case was the party that not only did it not allow the enjoyment of the before mentioned right; but also was the reason why that person is no longer alive? Capital punishment or the application of the different methods of death penalty are still part of many states' judiciary systems and are still until the present day categorically practiced based upon the crime committed by the defendant. No matter how heinous a crime maybe or the fact that numerous of these crimes claim other people's lives, but in the process what good and what type of benefit can we justify ourselves with when we are producing the same end result, that is death, through different procedures that fall under the label of " law application " ? Most importantly, how can we distinguish ourselves from these same criminals and why is acceptable to kill in the name of a perceived justice if such death penalty is agreed upon by a judiciary commission, than to reject

Joseph U C H E Anyebe

The issues as touching death penalty is as topical as they come. This Work seeks to address some of those issues and proffer solutions to some of those identified therein

Charadine Pich

Indian Journal of Legal Philosophy, ISSN:2347-4963,

Ashay Anand

Since the ancient ages ‘Death Penalty’ has been used as a means of deterring crime and eliminating criminals, but it has always been fraught with issues that have been hotly debated between its supporters and antagonists. In the contemporary era ‘Death Penalty’ faces severe challenges mainly regarding the shadow of arbitrariness looming over its applicability, its ability to be an effective deterrent and the serious issue of innocent people continuously in a danger of being sentenced to capital punishment under questionable circumstances which are still an integral part of this process. Moreover it also faces a continual threat of acting as a tool of retribution under pressure of public opinion and mass media. As such should death penalty be scrapped or should it be allowed to function as a necessary evil or an invisible scepter that keeps the perverse from doing heinous acts is an issue worth consideration.

Ines Manoylova

David Von Drehle

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Isaac Ehrlich

Jowell H H Beh

Spectrum, Annual Magazine

Aabid Firdausi

Editorial Department , Hantao Hu

Boaz Amoro Nyakeri

laura walls

Bruce Ledewitz

Iqrak Sulhin

The Asian Conference on Ethics, Religion & Philosophy (ACERP2019)

Reynaldo A . Reyes

Susan Bandes

American Journal of Criminal Justice

Tara Richards

The Economists' Voice

John Donohue

SSRN Electronic Journal

Moeen Ahmed

The Future of Capital Punishment in the United States

Deborah W Denno

San Diego Law Review

Nkem Adeleye

Joanna Shepherd

Pauline Tracy Batiles

International Symposium on Violence Reduction in Theory & Practice, presented by the Colloquium on Violence & Religion at Emory University, June 3-5, 1999

Mark J Mahoney

Yoeri Maertens

Cass Sunstein

Tanner Matthews

George Mason University School of Law Working …

Charles Keckler

Nishad Patnaik

Cheska Gail Besa

Research on Humanities and Social Sciences

Tanisha Pruitt

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

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

Essay: Arguments against the Death Penalty

• Essay: Arguments against the Death…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Posts

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

10 Comments

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

Who is the Author?

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

I disagree entirely

I agree with you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

Post comment

Terry Spencer, Associated Press Terry Spencer, Associated Press

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/jury-recommends-death-penalty-for-gunman-who-murdered-5-women-inside-florida-bank

Jury recommends death penalty for gunman who murdered 5 women inside Florida bank

A jury recommended Wednesday that a former prison guard trainee be sentenced to death for his execution-style murders of five women inside a Florida bank five years ago.

READ MORE: Police describe execution-style killings inside Florida bank

The Highlands County jury voted 9-3 to recommend that Zephen Xaver receive the death penalty for the Jan. 23, 2019, massacre at the SunTrust Bank in Sebring, a community about 85 miles (135 kilometers) southeast of Tampa.

The jury deliberated less than three hours before reaching its verdict.

The final sentencing decision rests with Circuit Judge Angela Cowden, who could reject the jury’s recommendation and sentence Xaver, 27, to life in prison without parole. The judge is expected to set a sentencing date later.

Under a 2023 Florida law, the jury only had to vote 8-4 in favor of the death penalty for Cowden to impose that sentence. State law had required a unanimous jury recommendation for a judge to impose death, but Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Legislature changed it after a 9-3 jury vote spared the shooter who murdered 17 people at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018.

READ MORE: Parkland school building, site of mass shooting that killed 17, is being demolished

A prosecutor argued at the killer’s penalty trial earlier Wednesday that Xaver deserved the death penalty for the massacre, calling it “shockingly evil” and long-planned.

Assistant State Attorney Bonde Johnson also told jurors during closing arguments that the defendant carried out the mass shooting at Sebring’s SunTrust bank to satisfy his yearslong desire to experience killing, forcing the women to lie down before executing them.

“He didn’t murder one person to truly know what it would be like to kill. He killed five. He watched them laying there on the floor. They were under his control, for his enjoyment, as he shot each one,” Johnson said.

But defense attorney Jane McNeill had urged the 12 jurors to spare Xaver, saying he is mentally ill and has been hearing voices since childhood urging him to kill himself and others. He sought help, she said, but never truly got it.

“We ask you to show Zephen what he may least deserve — compassion, grace and mercy,” McNeill said, her voice breaking before the jury began its deliberations. “Compassion is not a limited resource. Grace is not limited. Mercy is not limited. Sentencing Zephen to life is the right thing to do.”

The jury was sequestered while considering whether Xaver should be sentenced to death or life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Xaver pleaded guilty last year to five counts of first-degree murder for the Jan. 23, 2019, killings in Sebring. The trial was delayed for years by the COVID-19 pandemic, legal arguments and attorney illness.

Xaver’s victims included customer Cynthia Watson, 65, who had been married less than a month; bank teller coordinator Marisol Lopez, 55, who was a mother of two; banker trainee Ana Pinon-Williams, a 38-year-old mother of seven; bank teller Debra Cook, a 54-year-old mother of two and a grandmother; and banker Jessica Montague, 31, a mother of one and stepmother of four.

He ordered them to lie on the floor and then shot them as they cried out, “Why?”

During the two-week trial, prosecutors portrayed Xaver as a cold and calculated killer, who pretends to hear voices as a cover for his violent impulses. His attorneys countered he has long suffered psychotic episodes. A defense physician told jurors he has a small, benign brain tumor that could explain his behavior — a prosecution doctor testified he doesn’t.

In 2014, Xaver’s high school principal in Indiana contacted police after he told a counselor that he dreamed of killing classmates, among other alarming behavior. His mother, Misty Hendricks, promised to get him psychological help. She testified at trial that she stopped his medications at 17 because he seemed to be doing better.

He joined the Army, but was discharged during boot camp in 2016 because of homicidal thoughts. Those thoughts continued, the jury heard.

“It’s all I can think of, it’s all I hear every day and it’s all I see every day. It’s all I smell and taste every day: blood, death and murder. It’s all I have happening 24/7,” Xaver wrote a friend. He made similar posts online.

He moved to Sebring in 2018. The local prison soon hired him, but he quit after two months. That was the day after he bought his gun and two weeks before the massacre.

The morning of the killings, he had a long text-message conversation with a girlfriend, telling her it would be the “best day of his life” but refused to say why.

He finally told her just minutes before he entered the bank: he was about to die. He then added “the fun part.”

“I’m taking a few people with me because I’ve always wanted to kill,” he texted.

Following the killings, Xaver surrendered after speaking by phone with a sheriff’s crisis negotiator. He told a detective, “I deserve to die for this.”

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.

• Frank Cerabino
• Nation & World
• Fort Lauderdale

Jeffrey Epstein, the first failure: Why The Post sued to make grand jury transcripts public

The jeffrey epstein case started in palm beach county in 2006 when a grand jury indicted him on one charge of soliciting a prostitute, nothing about his underage victims. the post sued to find out why.

Some cut themselves. Several attempted suicide. Many worked in strip clubs, became sex workers, got addicted to drugs, went to prison. At least two overdosed and died, leaving behind young children.

Some are living full lives with no outward issues. But most of Jeffrey Epstein's victims , at least the ones who have gone public, say they struggle still with the damage that arguably the world's most prolific sexual predator wreaked on their lives when they were naive teenagers.

And the first time Epstein was charged with a crime in 2006 kicked off more than 15 years in which the survivors were denied justice at nearly every turn by the public servants paid to protect them.

Jeffrey Epstein victim goes public: ’I want to know why’

Read The Post's 2019 investigation: Jeffrey Epstein case, the first failure: To the first prosecutors, Epstein's victims were prostitutes

State Attorney Barry Krischer had first chance to exact justice

The first such denial happened under then-Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer's watch. When presented with a case from Palm Beach police involving multiple victims with similar stories, he declined to use his own power to charge Epstein, as is the more common path to court. Instead, Krischer handed the decision to a grand jury, where everything happens in secret.

Grand jurors came up with only one charge, and it labeled the victims prostitutes.

After finding that Krischer torpedoed his own case in its 2019 investigation, Epstein: the first failure , The Palm Beach Post sued to find out what happened in the grand jury room and how the case was derailed early on.

"From what limited information is now in the public domain, the State Attorney's referral to the grand jury — which would be out of the ordinary for this type of case — gives rise to a strong inference of favoritism and corresponding disregard for the rights of the minor victims of Epstein's sex trafficking," The Post's lawsuit reads.

Did the grand jurors hear about the police evidence in its entirety? Why did only one victim testify and how was she questioned by prosecutors who undermined her with her social media pages supplied to them by Epstein's attorneys? The charge that emerged was solicitation of prostitution — a charge that a john approaching an adult sex worker might face. It did not reflect the ages nor the multitude of the victims.

Where several victims went to school: ‘Open secret’ at Royal Palm High: At least 15 students were lured to Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach mansion

Palm Beach police's recommended charges carried up to 75 years in prison

Prosecutors typically give grand juries a menu of charges to choose from when considering criminal charges. What was on this menu or was the solicitation charge the only one prosecutors presented? Did the grand jurors know about the multiple and more serious charges recommended by police of four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor under 18 and one count of lewd and lascivious molestation?

Epstein would have faced what equated to a life sentence — up to 75 years — if he'd been convicted of all five and if the prison terms were served one after another.

The single charge from the indictment, a felony, carried up to 15 years in prison. Epstein was sentenced to 18 months for that and another prostitution-related felony and served only 13. His sentence was shaved because state law at the time allowed reduced sentences for good behavior.

Grand jury secrecy can be lifted 'in furtherance of justice' under Florida law

The Post has spent more than four years trying to shed light on those secret proceedings to get some answers for what one defense attorney said could be upward of 500 victims. In addition to informing the survivors, The Post argued that the public's trust in the justice system was also at stake. The newspaper based its arguments on a little known part of state law that says the grand jury secrecy veil could be pierced "in furtherance of justice."

Had Krischer, the first prosecutor ever to consider criminal charges against Epstein, charged Epstein himself and leveled more serious charges, Epstein might have been stopped in 2006.

Krischer's move to take his case to a grand jury was highly unusual. Most often, grand juries in state courts consider criminal charges in murders that carry the death penalty and in public corruption cases. Federal prosecutors later told Department of Justice investigators that they believed Krischer wanted political cover.

None of the nearly two dozen other victims and witnesses found by Palm Beach police testified. Krischer's prosecutors never spoke with any of them, never even prepped the one girl for her testimony, state attorney's documents showed. Her mother was trying to get in contact with Krischer's office days before a scheduled grand jury convened, yet officials there never returned her calls. That session was one of three that was cancelled as Epstein's lawyers pumped in opposition research to Krischer's office.

More: FDLE report on Jeffrey Epstein gives county officials a pass they don't deserve | Frank Cerabino

Once the secret grand jury proceedings took place, sources told The Post, the prosecutor who presented the case used the girl's MySpace pages depicting drinking and talk of sex to discredit her. Later Lanna Belohlavek, the assistant state attorney who presented the case, said she had wanted to see how the girl would hold up in a jury trial. She didn't address how undermining the girl's testimony might heighten the possibility that Epstein wouldn't be charged at all.

The denials of justice had begun.

Victims' families told Palm Beach police detective Joseph Recarey that private investigators were harassing them. The private eyes tried to question the victims where they worked, possibly revealing how they were involved with Epstein to co-workers. One's stepmother had been run off the road.

Recarey told prosecutors about the incidents. Witness tampering is a crime. Nothing happened.

Victims had no say about Epstein's plea deal nor could they talk about how they were affected by him in court

When Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to two prostitution-related felonies, victims were not notified, even though they had a legal right to be consulted about plea deals before they were signed. When the judge asked Belohlavek whether the victims knew about the deal, Belohlavek said she had spoken with several herself as well as their lawyers, and that they had all agreed with the plea. Nothing in state attorney's files indicate that attorneys at the office ever had any conversations with the victims.

Uninformed about the status of the case and the plea deal , the victims were denied the opportunity to go to court and tell the judge before sentencing how Epstein had harmed them. The judge also sealed the plea agreement so no one could see it. Like so many things in the Epstein case, it was highly unusual. The Post and the victims sued successfully the next year to unseal it.

On Epstein's childhood: POST EXCLUSIVE: Never-before-seen Jeffrey Epstein biography surfaces

Survivor Courtney Wild, who Epstein recruited while she attended Lake Worth Middle School, has been one of the most persistent in trying to get their rights recognized. She and another victim sued in 2008 to get a federal judge to throw out the plea deal because they weren't told about it.

Federal Judge Kenneth Marra ruled in 2019 that their rights had indeed been violated.

Months after that ruling, it looked as if, finally, Epstein might be stopped. He was arrested by New York federal law enforcement and charged with sex trafficking of minors over incidents in Florida and New York.

Within a month of his arrest, Epstein was found hanged in his cell. The medical examiner said it was a suicide. After Epstein's death, Marra said the case before him could go no further — the death made it moot.

Still, another avenue for some justice opened in July 2020, when Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend, was arrested. She was sentenced in 2022 to 20 years in prison for conspiring with him to sexually abuse minors.

The entire matter could have ended in Palm Beach County 13 years before Epstein died and prevented what likely was years more of sexual abuse of underage girls.

Though the trial court judge hailed The Post's arguments to reveal the grand jury materials, he ruled against the endeavor in December 2021. Circuit Judge Donald Hafele said that he didn't have the authority to make the transcripts public.

The 4th District Court of Appeal, however, decided in May 2023 that the trial judge did have the authority to release those transcripts and ordered Judge Luis Delgado (who replaced Hafele on the case) to review them and release the ones that would further justice.

Delgado examined the grand jury transcripts starting in July 2023. In the meantime, Florida Sen. Tina Polsky and Rep. Peggy Gossett-Seidman, a Democrat and a Republican, introduced legislation meant to pave the way for release of the transcripts in The Post's case. The Boca Raton legislators' bill passed unanimously.

Within minutes of Gov. Ron DeSantis signing the bill alongside three survivors, Delgado issued an order denying release of the documents under current state law. He invited The Post to bring it back to him when the new state law went into effect on July 1.

If you or someone you know has been a victim of sexual assault, the Palm Beach County Victim Services and Rape Crisis Center can help. Reach their helpline at 561-833-7273, or toll-free at 866-891-7273.

Holly Baltz is the investigations editor at The Palm Beach Post. You can reach her at [email protected] .