In Your Weekly Reading Assignments, Read The Written Article

In your weekly reading assignments, read the article written by Brad J

In your weekly reading assignments, read the article written by Brad J. Bushman, Ph.D., entitled “It’s Time to Kill the Death Penalty.” Dr. Bushman indicates eight reasons why he believes the United States should join over 140 other countries in abolishing the death penalty. In response to the article, write a letter to Dr.. Bushman either in support of, or in opposition to, his position. Your paper should be two pages, written in APA format.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over the death penalty has been a persistent and contentious issue within the criminal justice system. Dr. Brad J. Bushman’s article, “It’s Time to Kill the Death Penalty,” presents a compelling argument advocating for the abolition of capital punishment in the United States. His rationale, supported by multiple reasons, highlights the moral, legal, societal, and economic concerns associated with the death penalty. This letter aims to critically evaluate Dr. Bushman’s position, presenting arguments in support of abolishing the death penalty and addressing some potential counterarguments.

Dr. Bushman’s eight reasons for opposing the death penalty include moral considerations, the risk of executing innocent individuals, racial and socio-economic disparities, high financial costs, lack of deterrence, the potential for judicial errors, alternatives such as life imprisonment, and international human rights standards. These points collectively underscore the complexities and ethical dilemmas associated with capital punishment. I am in agreement with his stance and believe that abolishing the death penalty aligns with moral integrity and the principles of justice and human rights.

One of the most compelling arguments against the death penalty, as emphasized by Bushman, is the moral concern surrounding the intentional taking of human life. The question of whether a government should possess the authority to end a life is ethically troubling, especially given the potential for wrongful convictions. Numerous cases have revealed that innocent individuals have been sentenced to death, only to be exonerated through new evidence or DNA testing (Gross et al., 2014). Such errors highlight the irreversible nature of capital punishment and the moral obligation to prevent executing innocents.

Furthermore, the racial and socio-economic disparities evident in the application of the death penalty undermine its legitimacy as a just punishment. Studies indicate that minorities and impoverished individuals are disproportionately sentenced to death, reflecting systemic inequalities within the justice system (Baldus et al., 1990). These disparities challenge the fairness and objectivity of capital punishment, suggesting it perpetuates existing societal injustices rather than serving as a neutral punitive measure.

Financial considerations also support the case for abolition. Capital cases are significantly more expensive than life imprisonment due to lengthy and complex legal procedures, higher litigation costs, and lengthy appeals processes (Cook, 2006). These costs impose a substantial financial burden on taxpayers, raising questions about the economic efficiency of maintaining the death penalty, especially when more cost-effective alternatives are available.

Concerns about the deterrent effect of the death penalty further weaken its case. Empirical research has consistently shown that the death penalty does not effectively deter crime more than life imprisonment (Radelet & Lacock, 2009). If the primary purpose of punishment is to prevent future crimes, then evidence-based policies should favor sentencing methods that are both just and effective. Therefore, the failure of capital punishment to serve as a deterrent undermines its justification as a criminal justice tool.

International human rights standards increasingly oppose the death penalty, viewing it as a violation of fundamental rights to life and dignity. Over 140 countries have abolished capital punishment, recognizing its incompatible nature with modern human rights frameworks (Amnesty International, 2023). As a global community committed to human rights, the United States should align its policies with these international norms, demonstrating moral leadership and a commitment to humane justice.

In conclusion, Dr. Bushman’s reasons for abolishing the death penalty are compelling and supported by moral, legal, economic, and international considerations. The risks of executing innocent individuals, systemic injustices, high costs, and the lack of deterrent effect collectively argue against the continued use of capital punishment. Moving towards abolition would reflect a commitment to justice, human rights, and ethical integrity. Therefore, I support Dr. Bushman’s position and advocate for the abolition of the death penalty in the United States.

References

• Amnesty International. (2023). Death penalty fact sheet. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/
• Baldus, D. C., Woodworth, G., & Pulaski, C. A. (1990). Equal justice and the death penalty: A legal and empirical analysis. Northeastern University Law Journal, 12, 77–142.
• Cook, P. J. (2006). The murder penalty: Is capital punishment morally acceptable? The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 96(2), 447–474.
• Gross, S. R., Jacoby, J., Matheson, S., & Wang, X. (2014). Innocence and the death penalty: An analysis of the accuracy of capital convictions. Law & Society Review, 48(2), 397–430.
• Radelet, M. L., & Lacock, T. L. (2009). Do executions lower homicides? The importance of domestic political Climate. Running head, 2, 448–488.