Vivian J Woodland American Intercontinental University Engli

Vivian J Woodlandamerican Intercontinental Universityenglish 107the M

The main point was about the death penalty for killing a 20 year old girl. It was interesting because the victim’s mother was very sad that her daughter was dead but she was not interested in seeking the death penalty and she was not interested in putting her family through a lengthy legal process. The victim’s mother pleaded with the State of Florida “not to seek the death penalty for her daughter’s murder because they couldn’t stand putting the family through the trials and lengthy appeals that come with the death penalty cases” (Farah, 2013). The case was significant in that the victim’s family thought that the person who killed Shelby “should face the consequences for what he did and be held accountable” (Farah, 2013) and believed that the death penalty in no way honors their daughter’s memory, nor did the killing provide solace to the family. The family thought the death penalty “would inflict additional pain on the family” (Farah, 2013). I found this significant and I also agree with the family who wanted to put it all behind them and have some closure to Shelby’s murder, rather than prolonging the case for years (Farah, 2013).

Resources indicate the law concerning the execution of mentally disabled prisoners and the ethics involved. Adams (2014) discusses the requirement that condemned inmates must be aware of their impending death to be executed, which raises ethical concerns about killing individuals who are psychotic or delusional. Cox (2013) presents research on college students’ attitudes toward the death penalty and how information influences these attitudes. The study found that exposure to information did not significantly change students’ opinions, regardless of their initial stance.

Additionally, a case study conducted in New Jersey on replacing capital punishment with life without parole provides insights into abolition efforts. The state eliminated the death penalty in 2007, considering the moral and practical issues involved, including opposition from law enforcement and victims’ families (Hoover & Cunningham, 2007).

Paper For Above instruction

The debate surrounding the death penalty has been a longstanding contentious issue that encapsulates moral, legal, and socio-economic dimensions. While proponents argue that capital punishment serves as an effective deterrent and delivers justice for heinous crimes, opponents raise concerns about the ethical implications, racial bias, and economic costs associated with executions.

Ethically, the death penalty raises profound questions regarding human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes the right to life, and executing prisoners—especially those with mental disabilities—can contravene this fundamental principle. Adams (2014) highlights that executing individuals who are psychotic or delusional constitutes a grave moral violation, as they lack the awareness or understanding of their impending execution, rendering such acts deeply troubling and unethical. This concern underscores the risk of wrongful executions and the broader moral dilemma of state-sanctioned killing.

Furthermore, the application of the death penalty is marred by racial and socioeconomic biases. Statistical analyses reveal that minorities, particularly African Americans and Latinos, are disproportionately sentenced to death relative to their representation in the general population (Baldus et al., 1990). These disparities suggest systemic biases in prosecutorial decisions, jury compositions, and sentencing outcomes. The influence of race on sentencing decisions violates principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in international human rights treaties (United Nations, 2014). Consequently, the death penalty perpetuates social inequities and undermines the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.

Economically, the costs of executing an inmate are significantly higher than imprisoning them for life. The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC, 2019) reports that capital cases incur substantially greater judicial expenses due to prolonged trials, extensive appeals, and specialized legal procedures inherent in death penalty cases. These costs place an unnecessary financial burden on taxpayers, especially considering that the deterrent effect of the death penalty remains inconclusive (National Research Council, 2012). Given the lack of empirical evidence demonstrating deterrence, many argue that resources spent on executions could be better allocated to crime prevention, victim support, and rehabilitation programs.

Public opinion and perceptions of the death penalty continue to evolve, influenced by increased awareness of wrongful convictions and systemic biases. Studies have shown that media coverage of wrongful executions and exonerations has heightened public skepticism and moral opposition to capital punishment (Hood & Hoyle, 2015). In states like New Jersey, where the death penalty was abolished in 2007 following extensive debates, including opposition from law enforcement and victims’ families, the focus shifted toward promoting justice through life imprisonment without parole, which reliably protects society without the moral and financial costs associated with executions (Hoover & Cunningham, 2007).

In summary, the case against the death penalty encompasses ethical concerns about human rights violations, systemic racial and socioeconomic biases, and economic inefficiencies. The ongoing debates and empirical evidence suggest that abolition aligns more closely with principles of justice, equality, and fiscal responsibility. Moving forward, criminal justice policies should prioritize humane, equitable, and effective forms of punishment that respect human dignity and safeguard societal interests.

References

• Baldus, D. C., Woodworth, G., & Pulaski, C. A. (1990). Equal Justice and the Death Penalty: A Legal and Empirical Analysis. Northeastern University Law Journal, 88, 107-221.
• Hood, R., & Hoyle, C. (2015). The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective. Oxford University Press.
• National Research Council. (2012). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. The National Academies Press.
• United Nations. (2014). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 36.
• Death Penalty Information Center. (2019). Costs of the Death Penalty.
• Adams, D. (2014). Belief and Death: Capital Punishment and the Competence for Execution Requirement. Criminal Law & Philosophy, 10(1), 17-30.
• Cox, A. K. (2013). Student Attitudes Toward the Death Penalty: Effects of Information. Journal of Criminal Justice Education.
• Farah. (2013). My Daughter's Killer Should Not Get the Death Penalty.
• Hoover, A., & Cunningham, K. (2007). Case Study: Abolition of the Death Penalty in New Jersey. Humanity and Society.
• Pannick, D. (1995). The Use of the Death Penalty as a Deterrent. Criminal Justice Review.