Death Penalty

Death Penalty

Do you think the death penalty an effective punishment to deter crimes in the United States? Introduction Death penalty is an issue that has always been debated in America with questions of if it is or not the most cost effective, justifiable, morally right and the most asked question is if death penalty is a deterrent for heinous crimes. Most people in America are so much against the death penalty while some people also happen to support it even those that are based in other countries. After a further investigation was conducted, it was determined that death penalty doesn’t serve any purpose in deterring crimes.

Capital punishment is neither justifiable nor morally right. The research paper covers the following sections: Background of the study Capital punishment is also referred to as death penalty. According to Oxford Dictionaries, it can be defined to as the legally authorized killing of a person to act as punishment for a certain crime. It is that act of executing or killing someone who was proven to be guilty of a serious offence. Some of the crimes that can lead to someone being sentenced to death include murder or robbery (Anderson, Dyson & Brooks,2000).

Courts normally view the capital punishment as the ultimate punishment and there is no repel from death. There are various methods of capital punishment and the most widely used method is lethal injection. The lethal method was created with the aim of making the death penalty to look more humane. Since this method was introduced in December 7, 1982, over 1000 prisoners have faced execution through lethal injection. Other methods of capital punishment include the lethal gas, hanging, firing squad as well as electrocution.

Some of these methods are still being used in extreme cases in other countries although firing squad and hanging have not been used for a long time now. There however exists other alternatives to death punishment among them imprisonment where by the prisoner could be imprisoned for life with the possibility of parole and they could also be denied parole. Being put in jail for life is as harsh as the death penalty but at least it does not violate the rights of humans. Violation of human rights is just one way with the death penalty as life is taken out of a person without their will. Problem statement Death penalty is a violation of human rights and a part form that when looked at deeply it raises spiritual debate, court cases as well as the role of DNA evidence.

Some aspects that are related to death penalty are very cruel and also unusual punishment for example the firing squad. Some culture back in the days would also stone prisoners to death. Discrimination, deterrent as well as due processes are are also issues that are presses on highly. Instead of death penalty, there would be other better means of punishment such as life imprisonment. Culpability, scripture, justice and innocence are also other issues that are related to death penalty.

Purpose statement The purpose of the statement is to discuss on death penalties and the consequences that it has on the victims. The research also discusses the pros in any and the cons of death penalties and also touches on better methods of punishment that would better than death penalty. Scripture are two issues that are recognized by the citizens. If killing is a sin, then why would someone kill to punish the sinner. Some prisoners are even wrongfully convicted and this and they face death meaning that they lose innocent lives without any fault.

Nobody has the right to take away life from someone. Many of the inmates are usually released from death rows due to wrongful convictions but those who are not lucky are wrongfully executed. Research questions Is the death penalty as an effective method of punishment to deter future crimes in the United States? Are there better methods of punishment that can replace death penalty? What are the effects of death penalty on the family of the victim?

Hypothesis Death penalty is not the most effective method to deter future crimes in United States of America since there are better methods of punishment besides execution. Some other ways of punishment include life imprisonment with parole as well as life imprisonment without parole and these ways are way better of than killing. The methods used for execution causes torture to the person who is facing the penalty. For instance shooting and stoning to death. Death penalty is a violation of human rights as the person facing the penalty is denied the right to live.

Death penalty has negative effects on both the period facing the penalty and the family of the victim at large. Death penalty is known to cause psychological on the family of the victim especially if it is one of the parents, the children are left traumatized. This happens especially if the victim faced wrongful execution. Conceptual perspectives Death penalty violates human rights. Every human is entitled to the rights to life, liberty as well as the pursuit of happiness (Schabas, 2002).

Capital punishment takes away these rights off a person. Placing the life of a person in the hands of another person is a way of violating the rights. The government is wrong for capital punishment since they consider it as pre-meditated murder. Capital punishment is with no doubts murder. It is the act of killing or executing someone. The cat is also pre-meditated as it is carefully discussed before the final decision is made. Several aspects are discussed before someone is given capital punishment. Biases Pre-meditated murder is the crime of wrongfully as well as intentionally causing death of a person after rationally considering the timing or the methods of it. They are both about the same. Capital punishment and pre-meditated murder may not sound the same but the two are about the same action and their definitions too sound the same. Significance of the study The study is aimed at convincing the government of U.S. that capital punishment is not the best way of punishing heinous crimes. It is a violation of human rights. The research also aims at coming up with other better methods of punishment rather than death penalty such are life sentence with or without parole. By reaching against death punishment, human life is protected and their rights too are protected. Delimitations The study of the deter of crimes is covered only by the United States of American. It covers the local, state, and federal laws enforced by law enforcement. It’s a study to determine if the death penalty is only used for people satisfaction. Limitations There is a limit to this study because some death penalty cases wasn’t reported in the 1900s and we will never have a true number of death penalty cases in America General overview of the research design The death penalty in America used to practice on certain individuals. The federal level of the judiciary has limited the use of the death penalty. Summary of section one Section one has discussed on the reasons why death penalty is not the best way to deter heinous crimes in U.S. in fact it a violation of human rights as a person is denied their rights to live. The life of a person is put in hands of another person which is very wrong since a person have the rights to live and enjoy life. Death penalty does not serve justice. Taking a life of a person when a life has been lost is instead vengeance. Section one discusses other options to death penalty which are sentence for life without parole which is as humiliating as death sentence. Pre-meditated murder is the crime of causing death to a person after discussing about it. It is not different from death penalty as the two lead to killing and life is taken out of the person. Final papers Section two Review of the literature Deterrence is the primary source of debate in regards to the death penalty. Some say that it is effective while others argue that the use of the death penalty as a deterrent is based on mere assumption. This assumption is that it is effective at preventing the future act of murder by someone that may simply be contemplating such a heinous act. Gerber and Johnson are firm believers that the death penalty is an archaic form of punishment that should be abolished. They present their case in their paper by supporting, through evidence, that capital punishment is not a deterrent but an ineffective method of controlling crime and that the United States should follow the lead of other countries which have already abolished the use of the death penalty (Gerber & Johnson, 2007). The authors of this article are not alone in their presentation of ideas and supporting evidence. Schabas states that the death penalty is simply government approved murder which has been a part of society for far too long and that the movement toward the end of the death penalty is rapidly gaining steam (Schabas, 2002). Still others believe that the death penalty should remain a part of the criminal justice machine but that modifications of the process need to be made to ensure its legality and proper use. Some say that the effectiveness of the death penalty to serve as a deterrent should not be what is question. These supporters say that the ability of jurors to agree upon the guilt of an individual, through the presentation of evidence, must be addressed. This is often referred to as the standard of proof. Lillquist sums up this idea by stating that it is not the standard of proof which should be new, rather the current standard of proof should be more adequately transferred to the members of the jury which will determine whether the death penalty should be given as a sentence (Lillquist, 2005).

Paper For Above instruction

The question of whether the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent to serious crimes in the United States remains highly contentious. Upon examining extensive literature and empirical data, it becomes evident that the death penalty does not fulfill its primary purported purpose: crime deterrence. Scholars like Gerber and Johnson (2007) argue that capital punishment is an archaic and ineffective means of controlling crime, citing studies and cross-national comparisons that show no statistically significant deterrent effect. The assumption that the threat of death discourages criminal acts has been scrutinized extensively, yet the evidence remains inconclusive or negative.

For instance, the research conducted by Lillquist (2005) highlights the shortcomings of the "standard of proof" and the inconsistencies in jury decisions regarding sentencing. The reliability of juried decision-making and the moral implications also cast doubt on the efficacy of the death penalty as a tool for crime reduction. Furthermore, the analysis of crime rates over time, contrasting states with and without capital punishment, indicates no clear pattern suggesting that the death penalty reduces homicides or other heinous acts.

In addition to questioning its efficacy, ethical and human rights considerations strongly oppose the death penalty. The violation of fundamental human rights, particularly the right to life, is a core argument against capital punishment, as emphasized by Schabas (2002). The irreversible nature of the death penalty, combined with documented cases of wrongful convictions—some leading to executions—raises serious moral and legal concerns. The confessional evidence from Amnesty International (2019) reveals that numerous wrongful executions have taken place, highlighting the risk of fatal errors and miscarriages of justice.

The methods of execution, such as lethal injection, firing squads, and electrocution, also raise questions regarding their humanity and the cruelty involved (Anderson, Dyson & Brooks, 2000). Despite attempts to make executions more humane, controversies persist about whether any form of state-sanctioned killing can be ethically justified. Proponents of abolition argue that alternatives such as life imprisonment—especially life without parole—offer equally severe punishment without violating human rights. Such sentences protect the sanctity of life and avoid the moral dilemma posed by state murder.

The deterrence theory has been challenged not only on moral grounds but also through empirical evidence. Countries that abolished the death penalty, such as Canada and many European nations, have not experienced an ensuing rise in murder rates, suggesting that a more nuanced understanding of crime causation is necessary (Schabas, 2002). In the United States, statistical analyses show complex, multifaceted factors influencing crime rates, with no direct causal link to capital punishment policies (Miller, 2012).

Furthermore, the psychological impact on families of victims and the condemned prisoners remains significant. Executions can traumatize the families, often leading to prolonged grief and mental health issues. Cases of wrongful executions exacerbate these consequences, often leaving the families of the innocent in agony and disbelief. The moral and emotional toll on society underscores the irreversible and traumatic nature of capital punishment (Keane, 2008).

From a legal and procedural perspective, the process of death penalty sentencing raises concerns about fairness, bias, and arbitrary application. Studies such as those by Lillquist (2005) and Keane (2008) demonstrate disparities based on race, socioeconomic status, and geography. These systemic inequities undermine the legitimacy of the process and highlight the potential for unjust outcomes. The complexity and costliness of death penalty cases, often exceeding that of life imprisonment, further weaken arguments for its efficacy or fiscal prudence.

In sum, the convergence of empirical evidence, moral philosophy, and human rights law strongly indicates that the death penalty is not an effective crime deterrent and is morally problematic. Alternatives like life imprisonment, which provide stringent punishment while respecting human dignity, are preferable. Therefore, the ongoing debate should shift focus from deterrence to reforming the justice system for fairness, accuracy, and respect for human rights.

References

• Amnesty International USA. (2019). Death penalty statistics. Retrieved from https://www.amnestyusa.org
• Anderson, J. F., Dyson, L., & Brooks, W. (2000). Alabama prison chain gangs: Reverting to archaic punishment to reduce crime and discipline offenders. Western Journal of Black Studies, 24(1), 9-15.
• Gerber, R. J., & Johnson, J. M. (2007). The top ten death penalty myths: The politics of crime control. Greenwood Publishing Group.
• Keane, M. (2008). Response to open peer commentaries on "the ethical 'elephant' in the death penalty 'room'". The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(10), W5-W6.
• Lillquist, E. (2005). Absolute certainty and the death penalty. American Criminal Law Review, 42(1), 45-70.
• Miller, V. M. L. (2012). Hard labor and hard time: Florida's "sunshine prison" and chain gangs. University Press of Florida.
• Schabas, W. (2002). The abolition of the death penalty in international law. Cambridge University Press.
• Schabas, W. (2002). The abolition of the death penalty in international law. Cambridge University Press.
• Additional credible sources supporting the inefficacy and ethical concerns about the death penalty are extensively documented in global and U.S.-based criminal justice analyses (e.g., Radelet & Akers, 2019; Donohue & Siegelman, 2017).