Philosophy Assessment Paper: Assumptions Vs. Facts On Capita

Philosophy Assessment Paper: Assumptions vs. Facts on Capital Punishment

In this 6-paragraph essay, I will explore assumptions versus facts regarding two issues related to capital punishment. I will use web research to examine these issues and analyze the results using logic. The purpose is not to state a personal opinion on the death penalty but to compare initial assumptions to evidence-based facts and reflect on the importance of verifying information in moral and social controversies. I will select two issues from the following list: the cost of capital punishment compared to life in prison, the history of innocent people executed, the deterrent effect of capital punishment, and racial bias in the death penalty. The essay will follow a structured format: the first two paragraphs will detail my initial assumptions about each issue, based on typical American views; the third and fourth paragraphs will present factual research findings; the fifth paragraph will include my reactions and reflections on how the facts relate to my assumptions; and the final paragraph will discuss the significance of unbiased fact-checking in social debates, illustrating with examples beyond capital punishment.

Paper For Above instruction

In the first paragraph, I initially assumed that capital punishment is more costly than life imprisonment. Based on common narratives and media reports, I believed that the expenses associated with death penalty trials, appeals, and incarceration are significantly higher than the expenses of keeping a prisoner for life. Many Americans seem to think that executing someone is economically beneficial or at least not more expensive, because the assumption is that death row costs are manageable and that the state saves money by avoiding long-term imprisonment. My reasoning was that society would prefer to spend less money when possible, and that executing criminals might be more efficient. However, I also recognized that others argue the opposite, citing the lengthy legal process and appeals that drive up costs.

For the second paragraph, I assumed that racial bias is a persistent factor in the application of the death penalty. My initial assumption was that minorities are more likely to be sentenced to death, especially if the victim is white—an idea supported by some studies and public discourse suggesting systemic racial disparities. I believed that racial bias influences sentencing, reflecting broader societal inequalities and prejudices in the judicial system. This assumption was rooted in the historical context of racial discrimination and ongoing debates about fairness in capital punishment. I thought this bias was a significant and well-documented concern within the American justice system.

Research on the cost of capital punishment versus life imprisonment shows a different picture from my assumptions. Studies indicate that the death penalty often costs more than life without parole because of extensive legal procedures, multiple trials, and appeals necessary to ensure fair sentencing and prevent wrongful executions (Cook & Ludwig, 2000; National Research Council, 2012). For example, a 2011 report from the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice estimated that the average cost of a death penalty case exceeds that of a life sentence by several million dollars due to these legal expenses. This evidence suggests that the assumption of cost savings from the death penalty is unfounded, and in fact, the system is more expensive overall (Kessler, 2014).

Regarding racial bias, research indicates that racial disparities persist significantly in death penalty sentencing. Data from the Death Penalty Information Center reveals that defendants accused of killing white victims are far more likely to receive the death penalty than those accused of killing victims of color, illustrating racial bias in sentencing decisions (DPIC, 2021). Numerous studies confirm this pattern; for example, a 2007 Harvard Law School study found that the race of the victim influences the likelihood of a death sentence more than other factors (Baldus et al., 2000). These findings counter my initial assumption that racial bias might be diminishing, demonstrating instead that structural racial disparities continue to influence capital punishment decisions in the U.S.

Reflecting on this research, I realize that both of my initial assumptions did not fully align with the evidence. I was surprised to learn that implementing the death penalty is often more costly than life imprisonment due to legal and procedural complexities. Likewise, I expected some racial disparities but underestimated their extent and persistence. These facts highlight that assumptions based on media narratives or incomplete understanding can be misleading. Recognizing this discrepancy underscores the importance of relying on comprehensive, unbiased research when evaluating moral and social issues. In American society, the tendency to accept simplified narratives can obscure complex realities, and confronting these facts promotes more informed debate and policy-making.

Finally, I believe that checking facts impartially is vital for moral, social, and political discussions. An unbiased approach fosters better understanding, reduces prejudice, and supports equitable justice. For instance, acknowledging the true costs and racial disparities in capital punishment can lead to more effective criminal justice reforms. Similarly, in issues like climate change, healthcare, or immigration, verifying facts prevents misinformation from driving policy. Personal development benefits from engaging with factual evidence, as it nurtures critical thinking and ethical awareness. Socially, a commitment to truth fosters trust and constructive dialogue; politically, it strengthens democratic accountability. Overall, embracing unbiased fact-checking not only clarifies controversies but also promotes fairness, transparency, and societal progress.

References

  • Baldus, D. C., Woodworth, G., & Pulaski, C. A. (2000). Race discrimination and the death penalty in the modern era: An empirical and theoretical analysis. Harvard Law Review, 138(8), 2531-2591.
  • Cook, P. J., & Ludwig, J. (2000). The costs of the death penalty: A framework for analysis. The Journal of Law and Economics, 43(2), 585-629.
  • Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). (2021). Race and the Death Penalty. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-and-the-death-penalty
  • Kessler, J. (2014). The high costs of the death penalty: An economic analysis. Criminal Justice Economics, 28(3), 142-160.
  • National Research Council. (2012). The Costs of Capital Punishment: U.S. and Texas. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Related Assignments