i agree with the death penalty essay

Essays About the Death Penalty: Top 5 Examples and Prompts

The death penalty is a major point of contention all around the world. Read our guide so you can write well-informed essays about the death penalty. 

Out of all the issues at the forefront of public discourse today, few are as hotly debated as the death penalty. As its name suggests, the death penalty involves the execution of a criminal as punishment for their transgressions. The death penalty has always been, and continues to be, an emotionally and politically charged essay topic.

Arguments about the death penalty are more motivated by feelings and emotions; many proponents are people seeking punishment for the killers of their loved ones, while many opponents are mourning the loss of loved ones executed through the death penalty. There may also be a religious aspect to support and oppose the policy. 

1. The Issues of Death Penalties and Social Justice in The United States (Author Unknown)

2. serving justice with death penalty by rogelio elliott, 3. can you be christian and support the death penalty by matthew schmalz, 4.  death penalty: persuasive essay by jerome glover, 5. the death penalty by kamala harris, top 5 writing prompts on essays about the death penalty, 1. death penalty: do you support or oppose it, 2. how has the death penalty changed throughout history, 3. the status of capital punishment in your country, 4. death penalty and poverty, 5. does the death penalty serve as a deterrent for serious crimes, 6. what are the pros and cons of the death penalty vs. life imprisonment , 7. how is the death penalty different in japan vs. the usa, 8. why do some states use the death penalty and not others, 9. what are the most common punishments selected by prisoners for execution, 10. should the public be allowed to view an execution, 11. discuss the challenges faced by the judicial system in obtaining lethal injection doses, 12. should the death penalty be used for juveniles, 13. does the death penalty have a racial bias to it.

“Executing another person only creates a cycle of vengeance and death where if all of the rationalities and political structures are dropped, the facts presented at the end of the day is that a man is killed because he killed another man, so when does it end? Human life is to be respected and appreciated, not thrown away as if it holds no meaningful value.”

This essay discusses several reasons to oppose the death penalty in the United States. First, the author cites the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, saying that the death penalty is inhumane and deprives people of life. Human life should be respected, and death should not be responded to with another death. In addition, the author cites evidence showing that the death penalty does not deter crime nor gives closure to victims’ families. 

Check out these essays about police brutality .

“Capital punishment follows the constitution and does not break any of the amendments. Specific people deserve to be punished in this way for the crime they commit. It might immoral to people but that is not the point of the death penalty. The death penalty is not “killing for fun”. The death penalty serves justice. When justice is served, it prevents other people from becoming the next serial killer. It’s simple, the death penalty strikes fear.”

Elliott supports the death penalty, writing that it gives criminals what they deserve. After all, those who commit “small” offenses will not be executed anyway. In addition, it reinforces the idea that justice comes to wrongdoers. Finally, he states that the death penalty is constitutional and is supported by many Americans.

“The letter states that this development of Catholic doctrine is consistent with the thought of the two previous popes: St. Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI. St. John Paul II maintained that capital punishment should be reserved only for “absolute necessity.” Benedict XVI also supported efforts to eliminate the death penalty. Most important, however, is that Pope Francis is emphasizing an ethic of forgiveness. The Pope has argued that social justice applies to all citizens. He also believes that those who harm society should make amends through acts that affirm life, not death.”

Schmalz discusses the Catholic position on the death penalty. Many early Catholic leaders believed that the death penalty was justified; however, Pope Francis writes that “modern methods of imprisonment effectively protect society from criminals,” and executions are unnecessary. Therefore, the Catholic Church today opposes the death penalty and strives to protect life.

“There are many methods of execution, like electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, firing squad and lethal injection. For me, I just watched once on TV, but it’s enough to bring me nightmares. We only live once and we will lose anything we once had without life. Life is precious and can’t just be taken away that easily. In my opinion, I think Canada shouldn’t adopt the death penalty as its most severe form of criminal punishment.”

Glover’s essay acknowledges reasons why people might support the death penalty; however, he believes that these are not enough for him to support it. He believes capital punishment is inhumane and should not be implemented in Canada. It deprives people of a second chance and does not teach wrongdoers much of a lesson. In addition, it is inhumane and deprives people of their right to life. 

“Let’s be clear: as a former prosecutor, I absolutely and strongly believe there should be serious and swift consequences when one person kills another. I am unequivocal in that belief. We can — and we should — always pursue justice in the name of victims and give dignity to the families that grieve. But in our democracy, a death sentence carried out by the government does not constitute justice for those who have been put to death and proven innocent after the fact.”

This short essay was written by the then-presidential candidate and current U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris to explain her campaign’s stance on the death penalty. First, she believes it does not execute justice and is likely to commit injustice by sentencing innocent people to death. In addition, it is said to disproportionally affect nonwhite people. Finally, it is more fiscally responsible for abolishing capital punishment, as it uses funds that could be used for education and healthcare. 

This topic always comes first to mind when thinking of what to write. For a strong argumentative essay, consider the death penalty and list its pros and cons. Then, conclude whether or not it would be beneficial to reinstate or keep the policy. There is an abundance of sources you can gather inspiration from, including the essay examples listed above and countless other online sources.

People have been put to death as a punishment since the dawn of recorded history, but as morals and technology have changed, the application of the death penalty has evolved. This essay will explore how the death penalty has been used and carried out throughout history.

This essay will examine both execution methods and when capital punishment is ordered. A few points to explore in this essay include:

• Thousands of years ago, “an eye for an eye” was the standard. How were executions carried out in ancient history?
• The religious context of executions during the middle ages is worth exploring. When was someone burned at the stake?
• The guillotine became a popular method of execution during the renaissance period. How does this method compare to both ancient execution methods and modern methods?
• The most common execution methods in the modern era include the firing squad, hanging, lethal injections, gas chambers, and electrocution. How do these methods compare to older forms of execution?

Choose a country, preferably your home country, and look into the death penalty status: is it being implemented or not? If you wish, you can also give a brief history of the death penalty in your chosen country and your thoughts. You do not necessarily need to write about your own country; however, picking your homeland may provide better insight. 

Critics of the death penalty argue that it is anti-poor, as a poor person accused of a crime punishable by death lacks the resources to hire a good lawyer to defend them adequately. For your essay, reflect on this issue and write about your thoughts. Is it inhumane for the poor? After all, poor people will not have sufficient resources to hire good lawyers, regardless of the punishment. 

This is one of the biggest debates in the justice system. While the justice system has been set up to punish, it should also deter people from committing crimes. Does the death penalty do an adequate job at deterring crimes? 

This essay should lay out the evidence that shows how the death penalty either does or does not deter crime. A few points to explore in this essay include:

• Which crimes have the death penalty as the ultimate punishment?
• How does the murder rate compare to states that do not have the death penalty in states with the death penalty?
• Are there confounding factors that must be taken into consideration with this comparison? How do they play a role?

This is one of the most straightforward ways to explore the death penalty. If the death penalty is to be removed from criminal cases, it must be replaced with something else. The most logical alternative is life imprisonment. 

There is no “right” answer to this question, but a strong argumentative essay could take one side over another in this death penalty debate. A few points to explore in this essay include:

• Some people would rather be put to death instead of imprisoned in a cell for life. Should people have the right to decide which punishment they accept?
• What is the cost of the death penalty versus imprisoning someone for life? Even though it can be expensive to imprison someone for life, remember that most death penalty cases are appealed numerous times before execution.
• Would the death penalty be more acceptable if specific execution methods were used instead of others?

Few first-world countries still use the death penalty. However, Japan and the United States are two of the biggest users of the death sentence.

This is an interesting compare and contrast essay worth exploring. In addition, this essay can explore the differences in how executions are carried out. Some of the points to explore include:

• What are the execution methods countries use? The execution method in the United States can vary from state to state, but Japan typically uses hanging. Is this considered a cruel and unusual punishment?
• In the United States, death row inmates know their execution date. In Japan, they do not. So which is better for the prisoner?
• How does the public in the United States feel about the death penalty versus public opinion in Japan? Should this influence when, how, and if executions are carried out in the respective countries?

In the United States, justice is typically administered at the state level unless a federal crime has been committed. So why do some states have the death penalty and not others?

This essay will examine which states have the death penalty and make the most use of this form of punishment as part of the legal system. A few points worth exploring in this essay include:

• When did various states outlaw the death penalty (if they do not use it today)?
• Which states execute the most prisoners? Some states to mention are Texas and Oklahoma.
• Do the states that have the death penalty differ in when the death penalty is administered?
• Is this sentence handed down by the court system or by the juries trying the individual cases in states with the death penalty?

It might be interesting to see if certain prisoners have selected a specific execution method to make a political statement. Numerous states allow prisoners to select how they will be executed. The most common methods include lethal injections, firing squads, electric chairs, gas chambers, and hanging. 

It might be interesting to see if certain prisoners have selected a specific execution method to make a political statement. Some of the points this essay might explore include:

• When did these different execution methods become options for execution?
• Which execution methods are the most common in the various states that offer them?
• Is one method considered more “humane” than others? If so, why?

One of the topics recently discussed is whether the public should be allowed to view an execution.

There are many potential directions to go with this essay, and all of these points are worth exploring. A few topics to explore in this essay include:

• In the past, executions were carried out in public places. There are a few countries, particularly in the Middle East, where this is still the case. So why were executions carried out in public?
• In some situations, individuals directly involved in the case, such as the victim’s loved ones, are permitted to view the execution. Does this bring a sense of closure?
• Should executions be carried out in private? Does this reduce transparency in the justice system?

Lethal injection is one of the most common modes of execution. The goal is to put the person to sleep and remove their pain. Then, a cocktail is used to stop their heart. Unfortunately, many companies have refused to provide states with the drugs needed for a lethal injection. A few points to explore include:

• Doctors and pharmacists have said it is against the oath they took to “not harm.” Is this true? What impact does this have?
• If someone is giving the injection without medical training, how does this impact the prisoner?
• Have states decided to use other more “harmful” modes of execution because they can’t get what they need for the lethal injection?

There are certain crimes, such as murder, where the death penalty is a possible punishment across the country. Even though minors can be tried as adults in some situations, they typically cannot be given the death penalty.

It might be interesting to see what legal experts and victims of juvenile capital crimes say about this important topic. A few points to explore include:

• How does the brain change and evolve as someone grows?
• Do juveniles have a higher rate of rehabilitation than adults?
• Should the wishes of the victim’s family play a role in the final decision?

The justice system, and its unjust impact on minorities , have been a major area of research during the past few decades. It might be worth exploring if the death penalty is disproportionately used in cases involving minorities. 

It might be worth looking at numbers from Amnesty International or the Innocence Project to see what the numbers show. A strong essay might also propose ways to make justice system cases more equitable and fair. A few points worth exploring include:

• Of the cases where the death penalty has been levied, what percentage of the cases involve a minority perpetrator?
• Do stays of execution get granted more often in cases involving white people versus minorities?
• Do white people get handed a sentence of life in prison without parole more often than people of minority descent?

If you’d like to learn more, our writer explains how to write an argumentative essay in this guide.

For help with your essay, check our round-up of best essay writing apps .

Martin is an avid writer specializing in editing and proofreading. He also enjoys literary analysis and writing about food and travel.

View all posts

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 Quotes Exposing Injustice in Society

14 Trusted Charities Helping Civilians in Palestine

The Great Migration: History, Causes and Facts

Social Change 101: Meaning, Examples, Learning Opportunities

Rosa Parks: Biography, Quotes, Impact

Top 20 Issues Women Are Facing Today

Top 20 Issues Children Are Facing Today

15 Root Causes of Climate Change

15 Facts about Rosa Parks

Abolitionist Movement: History, Main Ideas, and Activism Today

The Biggest 15 NGOs in the UK

15 Biggest NGOs in Canada

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.

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.

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 prison, or in society if they should get out. Both as a deterrent and as a form of permanent incapacitation, the death penalty helps to prevent future crime.

Those who believe that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is, at best, no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. The Ehrlich studies have been widely discredited. In fact, some criminologists, such as William Bowers of Northeastern University, maintain that the death penalty has the opposite effect: that is, society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. Even most supporters of the death penalty now place little or no weight on deterrence as a serious justification for its continued use.

States in the United States that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do. The same is true when the U.S. is compared to countries similar to it. The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty.

The death penalty is not a deterrent because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or do not carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently, murders are committed in moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. As someone who presided over many of Texas’s executions, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox has remarked, “It is my own experience that those executed in Texas were not deterred by the existence of the death penalty law. I think in most cases you’ll find that the murder was committed under severe drug and alcohol abuse.”

There is no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a better deterrent than the threat of life imprisonment. A 2012 report released by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies and based on a review of more than three decades of research, concluded that studies claiming a deterrent effect on murder rates from the death penalty are fundamentally flawed. A survey of the former and present presidents of the country’s top academic criminological societies found that 84% of these experts rejected the notion that research had demonstrated any deterrent effect from the death penalty .

Once in prison, those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Moreover, most states now have a sentence of life without parole. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured without using the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag Professor of Jurisprudence and Public Policy, Fordham University. Excerpts from ” The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense,” (Harvard Law Review Association, 1986)

“Execution of those who have committed heinous murders may deter only one murder per year. If it does, it seems quite warranted. It is also the only fitting retribution for murder I can think of.”

“Most abolitionists acknowledge that they would continue to favor abolition even if the death penalty were shown to deter more murders than alternatives could deter. Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non-execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers.

Deterrence is not altogether decisive for me either. I would favor retention of the death penalty as retribution even if it were shown that the threat of execution could not deter prospective murderers not already deterred by the threat of imprisonment. Still, I believe the death penalty, because of its finality, is more feared than imprisonment, and deters some prospective murderers not deterred by the thought of imprisonment. Sparing the lives of even a few prospective victims by deterring their murderers is more important than preserving the lives of convicted murderers because of the possibility, or even the probability, that executing them would not deter others. Whereas the life of the victims who might be saved are valuable, that of the murderer has only negative value, because of his crime. Surely the criminal law is meant to protect the lives of potential victims in preference to those of actual murderers.”

“We threaten punishments in order to deter crime. We impose them not only to make the threats credible but also as retribution (justice) for the crimes that were not deterred. Threats and punishments are necessary to deter and deterrence is a sufficient practical justification for them. Retribution is an independent moral justification. Although penalties can be unwise, repulsive, or inappropriate, and those punished can be pitiable, in a sense the infliction of legal punishment on a guilty person cannot be unjust. By committing the crime, the criminal volunteered to assume the risk of receiving a legal punishment that he could have avoided by not committing the crime. The punishment he suffers is the punishment he voluntarily risked suffering and, therefore, it is no more unjust to him than any other event for which one knowingly volunteers to assume the risk. Thus, the death penalty cannot be unjust to the guilty criminal.”

Full text can be found at PBS.org .

Hugo Adam Bedau (deceased) Austin Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, Tufts University Excerpts from “The Case Against The Death Penalty” (Copyright 1997, American Civil Liberties Union)

“Persons who commit murder and other crimes of personal violence either may or may not premeditate their crimes.

When crime is planned, the criminal ordinarily concentrates on escaping detection, arrest, and conviction. The threat of even the severest punishment will not discourage those who expect to escape detection and arrest. It is impossible to imagine how the threat of any punishment could prevent a crime that is not premeditated….

Most capital crimes are committed in the heat of the moment. Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended. In such cases, violence is inflicted by persons heedless of the consequences to themselves as well as to others….

If, however, severe punishment can deter crime, then long-term imprisonment is severe enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime.

The vast preponderance of the evidence shows that the death penalty is no more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder and that it may even be an incitement to criminal violence. Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death-penalty states….

On-duty police officers do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide in abolitionist states than they do in death-penalty states. Between l973 and l984, for example, lethal assaults against police were not significantly more, or less, frequent in abolitionist states than in death-penalty states. There is ‘no support for the view that the death penalty provides a more effective deterrent to police homicides than alternative sanctions. Not for a single year was evidence found that police are safer in jurisdictions that provide for capital punishment.’ (Bailey and Peterson, Criminology (1987))

Prisoners and prison personnel do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide from life-term prisoners in abolition states than they do in death-penalty states. Between 1992 and 1995, 176 inmates were murdered by other prisoners; the vast majority (84%) were killed in death penalty jurisdictions. During the same period about 2% of all assaults on prison staff were committed by inmates in abolition jurisdictions. Evidently, the threat of the death penalty ‘does not even exert an incremental deterrent effect over the threat of a lesser punishment in the abolitionist states.’ (Wolfson, in Bedau, ed., The Death Penalty in America, 3rd ed. (1982))

Actual experience thus establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty does not deter murder. No comparable body of evidence contradicts that conclusion.”

Click here for the full text from the ACLU website.

Retribution

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

When someone takes a life, the balance of justice is disturbed. Unless that balance is restored, society succumbs to a rule of violence. Only the taking of the murderer’s life restores the balance and allows society to show convincingly that murder is an intolerable crime which will be punished in kind.

Retribution has its basis in religious values, which have historically maintained that it is proper to take an “eye for an eye” and a life for a life.

Although the victim and the victim’s family cannot be restored to the status which preceded the murder, at least an execution brings closure to the murderer’s crime (and closure to the ordeal for the victim’s family) and ensures that the murderer will create no more victims.

For the most cruel and heinous crimes, the ones for which the death penalty is applied, offenders deserve the worst punishment under our system of law, and that is the death penalty. Any lesser punishment would undermine the value society places on protecting lives.

Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City, described his concept of the need for retribution in one case: “In 1991, a young mother was rendered helpless and made to watch as her baby was executed. The mother was then mutilated and killed. The killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die.”

Retribution is another word for revenge. Although our first instinct may be to inflict immediate pain on someone who wrongs us, the standards of a mature society demand a more measured response.

The emotional impulse for revenge is not a sufficient justification for invoking a system of capital punishment, with all its accompanying problems and risks. Our laws and criminal justice system should lead us to higher principles that demonstrate a complete respect for life, even the life of a murderer. Encouraging our basest motives of revenge, which ends in another killing, extends the chain of violence. Allowing executions sanctions killing as a form of ‘pay-back.’

Many victims’ families denounce the use of the death penalty. Using an execution to try to right the wrong of their loss is an affront to them and only causes more pain. For example, Bud Welch’s daughter, Julie, was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Although his first reaction was to wish that those who committed this terrible crime be killed, he ultimately realized that such killing “is simply vengeance; and it was vengeance that killed Julie…. Vengeance is a strong and natural emotion. But it has no place in our justice system.”

The notion of an eye for an eye, or a life for a life, is a simplistic one which our society has never endorsed. We do not allow torturing the torturer, or raping the rapist. Taking the life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment, especially in light of the fact that the U.S. executes only a small percentage of those convicted of murder, and these defendants are typically not the worst offenders but merely the ones with the fewest resources to defend themselves.

Louis P. Pojman Author and Professor of Philosophy, U.S. Military Academy. Excerpt from “The Death Penalty: For and Against,” (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1998)

“[Opponents of the capital punishment often put forth the following argument:] Perhaps the murderer deserves to die, but what authority does the state have to execute him or her? Both the Old and New Testament says, “’Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Prov. 25:21 and Romans 12:19). You need special authority to justify taking the life of a human being.

The objector fails to note that the New Testament passage continues with a support of the right of the state to execute criminals in the name of God: “Let every person be subjected to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment…. If you do wrong, be afraid, for [the authority] does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13: 1-4). So, according to the Bible, the authority to punish, which presumably includes the death penalty, comes from God.

But we need not appeal to a religious justification for capital punishment. We can site the state’s role in dispensing justice. Just as the state has the authority (and duty) to act justly in allocating scarce resources, in meeting minimal needs of its (deserving) citizens, in defending its citizens from violence and crime, and in not waging unjust wars; so too does it have the authority, flowing from its mission to promote justice and the good of its people, to punish the criminal. If the criminal, as one who has forfeited a right to life, deserves to be executed, especially if it will likely deter would-be murderers, the state has a duty to execute those convicted of first-degree murder.”

National Council of Synagogues and the Bishops’ Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops Excerpts from “To End the Death Penalty: A Report of the National Jewish/Catholic Consultation” (December, 1999)

“Some would argue that the death penalty is needed as a means of retributive justice, to balance out the crime with the punishment. This reflects a natural concern of society, and especially of victims and their families. Yet we believe that we are called to seek a higher road even while punishing the guilty, for example through long and in some cases life-long incarceration, so that the healing of all can ultimately take place.

Some would argue that the death penalty will teach society at large the seriousness of crime. Yet we say that teaching people to respond to violence with violence will, again, only breed more violence.

The strongest argument of all [in favor of the death penalty] is the deep pain and grief of the families of victims, and their quite natural desire to see punishment meted out to those who have plunged them into such agony. Yet it is the clear teaching of our traditions that this pain and suffering cannot be healed simply through the retribution of capital punishment or by vengeance. It is a difficult and long process of healing which comes about through personal growth and God’s grace. We agree that much more must be done by the religious community and by society at large to solace and care for the grieving families of the victims of violent crime.

Recent statements of the Reform and Conservative movements in Judaism, and of the U.S. Catholic Conference sum up well the increasingly strong convictions shared by Jews and Catholics…:

‘Respect for all human life and opposition to the violence in our society are at the root of our long-standing opposition (as bishops) to the death penalty. We see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. As we said in Confronting the Culture of Violence: ‘We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.’ We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes, but for what it does to all of us as a society. Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes all of us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life.’1

We affirm that we came to these conclusions because of our shared understanding of the sanctity of human life. We have committed ourselves to work together, and each within our own communities, toward ending the death penalty.” Endnote 1. Statement of the Administrative Committee of the United States Catholic Conference, March 24, 1999.

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

The death penalty alone imposes an irrevocable sentence. Once an inmate is executed, nothing can be done to make amends if a mistake has been made. There is considerable evidence that many mistakes have been made in sentencing people to death. Since 1973, over 180 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged. During the same period of time, over 1,500 people have been executed. Thus, for every 8.3 people executed, we have found one person on death row who never should have been convicted. These statistics represent an intolerable risk of executing the innocent. If an automobile manufacturer operated with similar failure rates, it would be run out of business.

Our capital punishment system is unreliable. A study by Columbia University Law School found that two thirds of all capital trials contained serious errors. When the cases were retried, over 80% of the defendants were not sentenced to death and 7% were completely acquitted.

Many of the releases of innocent defendants from death row came about as a result of factors outside of the justice system. Recently, journalism students in Illinois were assigned to investigate the case of a man who was scheduled to be executed, after the system of appeals had rejected his legal claims. The students discovered that one witness had lied at the original trial, and they were able to find another man, who confessed to the crime on videotape and was later convicted of the murder. The innocent man who was released was very fortunate, but he was spared because of the informal efforts of concerned citizens, not because of the justice system.

In other cases, DNA testing has exonerated death row inmates. Here, too, the justice system had concluded that these defendants were guilty and deserving of the death penalty. DNA testing became available only in the early 1990s, due to advancements in science. If this testing had not been discovered until ten years later, many of these inmates would have been executed. And if DNA testing had been applied to earlier cases where inmates were executed in the 1970s and 80s, the odds are high that it would have proven that some of them were innocent as well.

Society takes many risks in which innocent lives can be lost. We build bridges, knowing that statistically some workers will be killed during construction; we take great precautions to reduce the number of unintended fatalities. But wrongful executions are a preventable risk. By substituting a sentence of life without parole, we meet society’s needs of punishment and protection without running the risk of an erroneous and irrevocable punishment.

There is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to our death penalty system in the 1970s. Even if such executions have occurred, they are very rare. Imprisoning innocent people is also wrong, but we cannot empty the prisons because of that minimal risk. If improvements are needed in the system of representation, or in the use of scientific evidence such as DNA testing, then those reforms should be instituted. However, the need for reform is not a reason to abolish the death penalty.

Besides, many of the claims of innocence by those who have been released from death row are actually based on legal technicalities. Just because someone’s conviction is overturned years later and the prosecutor decides not to retry him, does not mean he is actually innocent.

If it can be shown that someone is innocent, surely a governor would grant clemency and spare the person. Hypothetical claims of innocence are usually just delaying tactics to put off the execution as long as possible. Given our thorough system of appeals through numerous state and federal courts, the execution of an innocent individual today is almost impossible. Even the theoretical execution of an innocent person can be justified because the death penalty saves lives by deterring other killings.

Gerald Kogan, Former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Excerpts from a speech given in Orlando, Florida, October 23, 1999 “[T]here is no question in my mind, and I can tell you this having seen the dynamics of our criminal justice system over the many years that I have been associated with it, [as] prosecutor, defense attorney, trial judge and Supreme Court Justice, that convinces me that we certainly have, in the past, executed those people who either didn’t fit the criteria for execution in the State of Florida or who, in fact, were, factually, not guilty of the crime for which they have been executed.

“And you can make these statements when you understand the dynamics of the criminal justice system, when you understand how the State makes deals with more culpable defendants in a capital case, offers them light sentences in exchange for their testimony against another participant or, in some cases, in fact, gives them immunity from prosecution so that they can secure their testimony; the use of jailhouse confessions, like people who say, ‘I was in the cell with so-and-so and they confessed to me,’ or using those particular confessions, the validity of which there has been great doubt. And yet, you see the uneven application of the death penalty where, in many instances, those that are the most culpable escape death and those that are the least culpable are victims of the death penalty. These things begin to weigh very heavily upon you. And under our system, this is the system we have. And that is, we are human beings administering an imperfect system.”

“And how about those people who are still sitting on death row today, who may be factually innocent but cannot prove their particular case very simply because there is no DNA evidence in their case that can be used to exonerate them? Of course, in most cases, you’re not going to have that kind of DNA evidence, so there is no way and there is no hope for them to be saved from what may be one of the biggest mistakes that our society can make.”

The entire speech by Justice Kogan is available here.

Paul G. Cassell Associate Professor of Law, University of Utah, College of Law, and former law clerk to Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. Statement before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Civil and Constitutional Rights Concerning Claims of Innocence in Capital Cases (July 23, 1993)

“Given the fallibility of human judgments, the possibility exists that the use of capital punishment may result in the execution of an innocent person. The Senate Judiciary Committee has previously found this risk to be ‘minimal,’ a view shared by numerous scholars. As Justice Powell has noted commenting on the numerous state capital cases that have come before the Supreme Court, the ‘unprecedented safeguards’ already inherent in capital sentencing statutes ‘ensure a degree of care in the imposition of the sentence of death that can only be described as unique.’”

“Our present system of capital punishment limits the ultimate penalty to certain specifically-defined crimes and even then, permit the penalty of death only when the jury finds that the aggravating circumstances in the case outweigh all mitigating circumstances. The system further provides judicial review of capital cases. Finally, before capital sentences are carried out, the governor or other executive official will review the sentence to insure that it is a just one, a determination that undoubtedly considers the evidence of the condemned defendant’s guilt. Once all of those decisionmakers have agreed that a death sentence is appropriate, innocent lives would be lost from failure to impose the sentence.”

“Capital sentences, when carried out, save innocent lives by permanently incapacitating murderers. Some persons who commit capital homicide will slay other innocent persons if given the opportunity to do so. The death penalty is the most effective means of preventing such killers from repeating their crimes. The next most serious penalty, life imprisonment without possibility of parole, prevents murderers from committing some crimes but does not prevent them from murdering in prison.”

“The mistaken release of guilty murderers should be of far greater concern than the speculative and heretofore nonexistent risk of the mistaken execution of an innocent person.”

Full text can be found here.

Arbitrariness & Discrimination

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

In practice, the death penalty does not single out the worst offenders. Rather, it selects an arbitrary group based on such irrational factors as the quality of the defense counsel, the county in which the crime was committed, or the race of the defendant or victim.

Almost all defendants facing the death penalty cannot afford their own attorney. Hence, they are dependent on the quality of the lawyers assigned by the state, many of whom lack experience in capital cases or are so underpaid that they fail to investigate the case properly. A poorly represented defendant is much more likely to be convicted and given a death sentence.

With respect to race, studies have repeatedly shown that a death sentence is far more likely where a white person is murdered than where a Black person is murdered. The death penalty is racially divisive because it appears to count white lives as more valuable than Black lives. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, 296 Black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white victim, while only 31 white defendants have been executed for the murder of a Black victim. Such racial disparities have existed over the history of the death penalty and appear to be largely intractable.

It is arbitrary when someone in one county or state receives the death penalty, but someone who commits a comparable crime in another county or state is given a life sentence. Prosecutors have enormous discretion about when to seek the death penalty and when to settle for a plea bargain. Often those who can only afford a minimal defense are selected for the death penalty. Until race and other arbitrary factors, like economics and geography, can be eliminated as a determinant of who lives and who dies, the death penalty must not be used.

Discretion has always been an essential part of our system of justice. No one expects the prosecutor to pursue every possible offense or punishment, nor do we expect the same sentence to be imposed just because two crimes appear similar. Each crime is unique, both because the circumstances of each victim are different and because each defendant is different. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a mandatory death penalty which applied to everyone convicted of first degree murder would be unconstitutional. Hence, we must give prosecutors and juries some discretion.

In fact, more white people are executed in this country than black people. And even if blacks are disproportionately represented on death row, proportionately blacks commit more murders than whites. Moreover, the Supreme Court has rejected the use of statistical studies which claim racial bias as the sole reason for overturning a death sentence.

Even if the death penalty punishes some while sparing others, it does not follow that everyone should be spared. The guilty should still be punished appropriately, even if some do escape proper punishment unfairly. The death penalty should apply to killers of black people as well as to killers of whites. High paid, skillful lawyers should not be able to get some defendants off on technicalities. The existence of some systemic problems is no reason to abandon the whole death penalty system.

Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. President and Chief Executive Officer, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Inc. Excerpt from “Legal Lynching: Racism, Injustice & the Death Penalty,” (Marlowe & Company, 1996)

“Who receives the death penalty has less to do with the violence of the crime than with the color of the criminal’s skin, or more often, the color of the victim’s skin. Murder — always tragic — seems to be a more heinous and despicable crime in some states than in others. Women who kill and who are killed are judged by different standards than are men who are murderers and victims.

The death penalty is essentially an arbitrary punishment. There are no objective rules or guidelines for when a prosecutor should seek the death penalty, when a jury should recommend it, and when a judge should give it. This lack of objective, measurable standards ensures that the application of the death penalty will be discriminatory against racial, gender, and ethnic groups.

The majority of Americans who support the death penalty believe, or wish to believe, that legitimate factors such as the violence and cruelty with which the crime was committed, a defendant’s culpability or history of violence, and the number of victims involved determine who is sentenced to life in prison and who receives the ultimate punishment. The numbers, however, tell a different story. They confirm the terrible truth that bias and discrimination warp our nation’s judicial system at the very time it matters most — in matters of life and death. The factors that determine who will live and who will die — race, sex, and geography — are the very same ones that blind justice was meant to ignore. This prejudicial distribution should be a moral outrage to every American.”

Justice Lewis Powell United States Supreme Court Justice excerpts from McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) (footnotes and citations omitted)

(Mr. McCleskey, a black man, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1978 for killing a white police officer while robbing a store. Mr. McCleskey appealed his conviction and death sentence, claiming racial discrimination in the application of Georgia’s death penalty. He presented statistical analysis showing a pattern of sentencing disparities based primarily on the race of the victim. The analysis indicated that black defendants who killed white victims had the greatest likelihood of receiving the death penalty. Writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court, Justice Powell held that statistical studies on race by themselves were an insufficient basis for overturning the death penalty.)

“[T]he claim that [t]his sentence rests on the irrelevant factor of race easily could be extended to apply to claims based on unexplained discrepancies that correlate to membership in other minority groups, and even to gender. Similarly, since [this] claim relates to the race of his victim, other claims could apply with equally logical force to statistical disparities that correlate with the race or sex of other actors in the criminal justice system, such as defense attorneys or judges. Also, there is no logical reason that such a claim need be limited to racial or sexual bias. If arbitrary and capricious punishment is the touchstone under the Eighth Amendment, such a claim could — at least in theory — be based upon any arbitrary variable, such as the defendant’s facial characteristics, or the physical attractiveness of the defendant or the victim, that some statistical study indicates may be influential in jury decision making. As these examples illustrate, there is no limiting principle to the type of challenge brought by McCleskey. The Constitution does not require that a State eliminate any demonstrable disparity that correlates with a potentially irrelevant factor in order to operate a criminal justice system that includes capital punishment. As we have stated specifically in the context of capital punishment, the Constitution does not ‘plac[e] totally unrealistic conditions on its use.’ (Gregg v. Georgia)”

The entire decision can be found here.

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

Home Essay Samples Social Issues Death Penalty

Death Penalty: Agree or Disagree. Perspectives on Capital Punishment

Table of contents, 1. arguments in agreement with the death penalty.

• 1.1. Deterrent Effect on Crime Proponents of the death penalty often argue that it serves as a potent deterrent against severe crimes, particularly murder. The fear of facing death, they argue, is more likely to give pause to potential offenders, thus reducing crime rates. 1.2. Retribution and Justice for Victims and Families Supporters of capital punishment frequently view it as a form of just retribution—a method for the justice system to 'balance the scales' by inflicting a punishment equivalent to the harm caused. For the families and loved ones of victims, the execution of the perpetrator can, in some cases, provide a sense of closure and justice. 2. Arguments in Disagreement with the Death Penalty 2.1. Risk of Wrongful Execution One of the most compelling arguments against the death penalty is the risk of executing an innocent person. Despite rigorous legal processes, errors do occur, and the irreversible nature of the death penalty means that an innocent person could be killed. 2.2. Ethical and Moral Concerns Opponents of the death penalty often cite moral and ethical reasons for their stance. They argue that the state should not participate in taking human life, as this act is fundamentally immoral and contradicts the values of a civilized society. 2.3. Ineffectiveness as a Deterrent Critics of the death penalty contend that there is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that capital punishment effectively deters crime. They point to statistical data from regions where the death penalty is not used, which often have lower crime rates compared to regions where capital punishment is in practice. 2.4. Economic and Social Costs Contrary to the belief that the death penalty is a cost-effective form of punishment, opponents argue that it is often more expensive than life imprisonment due to extensive legal proceedings, appeals, and the costs associated with the death row facilities. Additionally, they point out the social costs, including the psychological toll on the families of both the victim and the condemned individual. Conclusion In this "death penalty agree or disagree essay," various arguments for and against capital punishment have been explored. From the perspective of those in agreement, the death penalty serves as a necessary deterrent and a means of retributive justice. Conversely, those who disagree with the death penalty often cite the risk of wrongful execution, ethical and moral concerns, its questionable effectiveness as a deterrent, and its high economic and social costs as fundamental reasons for their opposition. Ultimately, where one stands on the death penalty is a matter of personal belief, often rooted in a complex interplay of ethical, societal, and pragmatic considerations. As this essay demonstrates, there are compelling arguments on both sides, highlighting the complex and multifaceted nature of this enduring debate.
• 1.2. Retribution and Justice for Victims and Families Supporters of capital punishment frequently view it as a form of just retribution—a method for the justice system to 'balance the scales' by inflicting a punishment equivalent to the harm caused. For the families and loved ones of victims, the execution of the perpetrator can, in some cases, provide a sense of closure and justice. 2. Arguments in Disagreement with the Death Penalty 2.1. Risk of Wrongful Execution One of the most compelling arguments against the death penalty is the risk of executing an innocent person. Despite rigorous legal processes, errors do occur, and the irreversible nature of the death penalty means that an innocent person could be killed. 2.2. Ethical and Moral Concerns Opponents of the death penalty often cite moral and ethical reasons for their stance. They argue that the state should not participate in taking human life, as this act is fundamentally immoral and contradicts the values of a civilized society. 2.3. Ineffectiveness as a Deterrent Critics of the death penalty contend that there is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that capital punishment effectively deters crime. They point to statistical data from regions where the death penalty is not used, which often have lower crime rates compared to regions where capital punishment is in practice. 2.4. Economic and Social Costs Contrary to the belief that the death penalty is a cost-effective form of punishment, opponents argue that it is often more expensive than life imprisonment due to extensive legal proceedings, appeals, and the costs associated with the death row facilities. Additionally, they point out the social costs, including the psychological toll on the families of both the victim and the condemned individual. Conclusion In this "death penalty agree or disagree essay," various arguments for and against capital punishment have been explored. From the perspective of those in agreement, the death penalty serves as a necessary deterrent and a means of retributive justice. Conversely, those who disagree with the death penalty often cite the risk of wrongful execution, ethical and moral concerns, its questionable effectiveness as a deterrent, and its high economic and social costs as fundamental reasons for their opposition. Ultimately, where one stands on the death penalty is a matter of personal belief, often rooted in a complex interplay of ethical, societal, and pragmatic considerations. As this essay demonstrates, there are compelling arguments on both sides, highlighting the complex and multifaceted nature of this enduring debate.
• 2. Arguments in Disagreement with the Death Penalty 2.1. Risk of Wrongful Execution One of the most compelling arguments against the death penalty is the risk of executing an innocent person. Despite rigorous legal processes, errors do occur, and the irreversible nature of the death penalty means that an innocent person could be killed. 2.2. Ethical and Moral Concerns Opponents of the death penalty often cite moral and ethical reasons for their stance. They argue that the state should not participate in taking human life, as this act is fundamentally immoral and contradicts the values of a civilized society. 2.3. Ineffectiveness as a Deterrent Critics of the death penalty contend that there is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that capital punishment effectively deters crime. They point to statistical data from regions where the death penalty is not used, which often have lower crime rates compared to regions where capital punishment is in practice. 2.4. Economic and Social Costs Contrary to the belief that the death penalty is a cost-effective form of punishment, opponents argue that it is often more expensive than life imprisonment due to extensive legal proceedings, appeals, and the costs associated with the death row facilities. Additionally, they point out the social costs, including the psychological toll on the families of both the victim and the condemned individual. Conclusion In this "death penalty agree or disagree essay," various arguments for and against capital punishment have been explored. From the perspective of those in agreement, the death penalty serves as a necessary deterrent and a means of retributive justice. Conversely, those who disagree with the death penalty often cite the risk of wrongful execution, ethical and moral concerns, its questionable effectiveness as a deterrent, and its high economic and social costs as fundamental reasons for their opposition. Ultimately, where one stands on the death penalty is a matter of personal belief, often rooted in a complex interplay of ethical, societal, and pragmatic considerations. As this essay demonstrates, there are compelling arguments on both sides, highlighting the complex and multifaceted nature of this enduring debate.
• 2.1. Risk of Wrongful Execution One of the most compelling arguments against the death penalty is the risk of executing an innocent person. Despite rigorous legal processes, errors do occur, and the irreversible nature of the death penalty means that an innocent person could be killed. 2.2. Ethical and Moral Concerns Opponents of the death penalty often cite moral and ethical reasons for their stance. They argue that the state should not participate in taking human life, as this act is fundamentally immoral and contradicts the values of a civilized society. 2.3. Ineffectiveness as a Deterrent Critics of the death penalty contend that there is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that capital punishment effectively deters crime. They point to statistical data from regions where the death penalty is not used, which often have lower crime rates compared to regions where capital punishment is in practice. 2.4. Economic and Social Costs Contrary to the belief that the death penalty is a cost-effective form of punishment, opponents argue that it is often more expensive than life imprisonment due to extensive legal proceedings, appeals, and the costs associated with the death row facilities. Additionally, they point out the social costs, including the psychological toll on the families of both the victim and the condemned individual. Conclusion In this "death penalty agree or disagree essay," various arguments for and against capital punishment have been explored. From the perspective of those in agreement, the death penalty serves as a necessary deterrent and a means of retributive justice. Conversely, those who disagree with the death penalty often cite the risk of wrongful execution, ethical and moral concerns, its questionable effectiveness as a deterrent, and its high economic and social costs as fundamental reasons for their opposition. Ultimately, where one stands on the death penalty is a matter of personal belief, often rooted in a complex interplay of ethical, societal, and pragmatic considerations. As this essay demonstrates, there are compelling arguments on both sides, highlighting the complex and multifaceted nature of this enduring debate.
• 2.2. Ethical and Moral Concerns Opponents of the death penalty often cite moral and ethical reasons for their stance. They argue that the state should not participate in taking human life, as this act is fundamentally immoral and contradicts the values of a civilized society. 2.3. Ineffectiveness as a Deterrent Critics of the death penalty contend that there is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that capital punishment effectively deters crime. They point to statistical data from regions where the death penalty is not used, which often have lower crime rates compared to regions where capital punishment is in practice. 2.4. Economic and Social Costs Contrary to the belief that the death penalty is a cost-effective form of punishment, opponents argue that it is often more expensive than life imprisonment due to extensive legal proceedings, appeals, and the costs associated with the death row facilities. Additionally, they point out the social costs, including the psychological toll on the families of both the victim and the condemned individual. Conclusion In this "death penalty agree or disagree essay," various arguments for and against capital punishment have been explored. From the perspective of those in agreement, the death penalty serves as a necessary deterrent and a means of retributive justice. Conversely, those who disagree with the death penalty often cite the risk of wrongful execution, ethical and moral concerns, its questionable effectiveness as a deterrent, and its high economic and social costs as fundamental reasons for their opposition. Ultimately, where one stands on the death penalty is a matter of personal belief, often rooted in a complex interplay of ethical, societal, and pragmatic considerations. As this essay demonstrates, there are compelling arguments on both sides, highlighting the complex and multifaceted nature of this enduring debate.
• 2.3. Ineffectiveness as a Deterrent Critics of the death penalty contend that there is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that capital punishment effectively deters crime. They point to statistical data from regions where the death penalty is not used, which often have lower crime rates compared to regions where capital punishment is in practice. 2.4. Economic and Social Costs Contrary to the belief that the death penalty is a cost-effective form of punishment, opponents argue that it is often more expensive than life imprisonment due to extensive legal proceedings, appeals, and the costs associated with the death row facilities. Additionally, they point out the social costs, including the psychological toll on the families of both the victim and the condemned individual. Conclusion In this "death penalty agree or disagree essay," various arguments for and against capital punishment have been explored. From the perspective of those in agreement, the death penalty serves as a necessary deterrent and a means of retributive justice. Conversely, those who disagree with the death penalty often cite the risk of wrongful execution, ethical and moral concerns, its questionable effectiveness as a deterrent, and its high economic and social costs as fundamental reasons for their opposition. Ultimately, where one stands on the death penalty is a matter of personal belief, often rooted in a complex interplay of ethical, societal, and pragmatic considerations. As this essay demonstrates, there are compelling arguments on both sides, highlighting the complex and multifaceted nature of this enduring debate.
• 2.4. Economic and Social Costs Contrary to the belief that the death penalty is a cost-effective form of punishment, opponents argue that it is often more expensive than life imprisonment due to extensive legal proceedings, appeals, and the costs associated with the death row facilities. Additionally, they point out the social costs, including the psychological toll on the families of both the victim and the condemned individual. Conclusion In this "death penalty agree or disagree essay," various arguments for and against capital punishment have been explored. From the perspective of those in agreement, the death penalty serves as a necessary deterrent and a means of retributive justice. Conversely, those who disagree with the death penalty often cite the risk of wrongful execution, ethical and moral concerns, its questionable effectiveness as a deterrent, and its high economic and social costs as fundamental reasons for their opposition. Ultimately, where one stands on the death penalty is a matter of personal belief, often rooted in a complex interplay of ethical, societal, and pragmatic considerations. As this essay demonstrates, there are compelling arguments on both sides, highlighting the complex and multifaceted nature of this enduring debate.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

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

• Affirmative Action
• Asian American Discrimination
• Immigration in America
• Black Lives Matter
• Social Responsibility
• Prohibition

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.

Free IELTS lessons signup

• Academic practice
• General practice
• Task 1 Academic
• Task 1 General
• Task 2 (essay)

IELTS band 9 essay: death penalty

Here you can find advice how to structure IELTS essay and IELTS model answer for death penalty topic. Question type: advantages and disadvantages .

Here is the question card:

Some people advocate death penalty for those who committed violent crimes. Others say that capital punishment is unacceptable in contemporary society.

Describe advantages and disadvantages of death penalty and give your opinion.

So this is the advantage/disadvantage essay. In this essay you're asked about :

• Advantages of capital punishment
• Disadvantages of capital punishment
• Your opinion about it

Before writing this IELTS essay, you should decide what’s your opinion and then choose your arguments to describe pros and cons of death penalty. You don’t have to make up very complicate ideas. Even simple, but well-written arguments can often give you a band 9 for writing .

Some of the possible arguments :

• Disadvantages of capital punishment :
• we have no rights to kill other humans
• innocent people can be killed because of unfair sentences
• even criminals deserve a second chance
• Advantages of capital punishment :
• it prevents major crimes
• it restores equilibrium of justice
• it lessens expenses on maintenance of prisoners

How to structure my answer?

Surely, there are a lot of ways to organise this essay. But here is one possible way of structuring the answer to produce a band 9 essay :

Introduction : rephrase the topic and state your opinion.

Body paragraphs :

• paragraph 1: disadvantages of death penalty
• paragraph 2: advantages of death penalty

Conclusion : sum up the ideas from body paragraphs and briefly give your opinion.

Band 9 essay sample (death penalty)

Many people believe that death penalty is necessary to keep security system efficient in the society. While there are some negative aspects of capital punishment, I agree with the view that without it we will become more vulnerable to violence.

Death penalty can be considered unsuitable punishment for several reasons. The strongest argument is that we have no rights to kill other humans. Right to live is the basic right of any human being, and no one can infringe this right, irrespective of the person’s deeds. Moreover, innocent people can face wrongful execution. Such unfair sentences take away lives of innocent people and make other citizens lose faith in law and justice. And besides, sometimes criminals repent of their acts. In this case they should be given a second chance to improve themselves.

However, I believe that capital punishment is necessary in the society. Firstly, it is an effective deterrent of major crimes. The best method to prevent a person from committing crime is to show the consequences of his or her actions. For example, the government of Pakistan has controlled the rate of terrorism by enforcing death penalties for the members of terrorist organisations. Secondly, the governments spend large sums of national budget on maintenance of prisoners. Instead, this money can be used for the development of the society and welfare of the people.

To sum up, although capital punishment has some disadvantages, I think that it proves to be the best way of controlling criminals, lessening governmental expenses and preventing other people from doing crimes.

(257 words)

Useful vocabulary

capital punishment = death penalty

to commit a crime - to do a crime

deterrent of major crimes - something that prevents big crimes

to face wrongful execution - to be mistaken for a criminal and killed for that

to infringe someone’s right - restrict someone’s right, hurt someone’s interests

innocent people - people who are not guilty or responsible for crimes

to repent of something - to feel sorry for something

right to live is basic right of any human being

unfair sentence - not fair judgement

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

RELATED PAPERS

Mitochondrion

Chang-Yong Tsao , Lynne Wolfe

Astronomische Nachrichten

The Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the Japanese Psychological Association

Tetsuko Kasai

JAT Perspectives

Jennifer Igawa

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open

Mark-bram Bouman

Maria Gabriela Chaparro

Molecular Biology of the Cell

Mel Silverman

Arif Rachman

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie

Carol Diachun

Medicinski pregled

Dimitrije Segedi

Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms

Ram Prakash

Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen dan Bisnis

Susi Handayani

Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

Evangelos Xylogiannis

Cadernos de Tradução

Leila Mirzoyeva

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Ramiro Rivera

Loggia, Arquitectura & Restauración

Antonia Navarro Ezquerra

Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science

Salma El Marasy

Annals of Palliative Medicine

Elfri Padolo

International Business Review

Belay Seyoum

Lina Budiarti

Jamal Shams

Annals of Geophysics

Milena Moretti

West African Journal of Applied Ecology

samuel amponsah

The Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences

Peter Haščík

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

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

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Death Penalty — The Death Penalty: Pros and Cons

The Death Penalty: Pros and Cons

• Categories: Capital Punishment Death Penalty

About this sample

Words: 2398 |

12 min read

Published: Oct 11, 2018

Words: 2398 | Pages: 5 | 12 min read

Table of contents

Pros and cons of death penalty, works cited.

• Bedau, H. A., & Cassell, P. G. (Eds.). (2016). Debating the Death Penalty: Should America Have Capital Punishment? Oxford University Press.
• Fagan, J., & Zimring, F. E. (2019). Death Penalty, Deterrence, and Homicide Rates: Empirical Evidence Contradicting Many Years of Research. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 16(2), 221-243.
• Garvey, S. P. (2017). The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies. Oxford University Press.
• Haag, E. V. D. (1983). A defense of capital punishment. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 11, 1-28.
• Kastenberger, C., & Weyringer, M. (2017). The Impact of Capital Punishment on the Social Fabric of American Society: The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty. Lambert Academic Publishing.
• Liebman, J. S., & Clarke, P. (2013). The Fallibility of Fairness: An Analysis of Louisiana's Death Penalty as a Case Study in How a Death Penalty Jurisdiction Can Get It Wrong. American Journal of Criminal Law, 40, 207-251.
• Marzilli, A. (2017). Reassessing the Proportionality Requirement for Death Penalty Cases. Notre Dame Law Review, 92(5), 1989-2026.
• Peterson, A., & Bailey, W. C. (2019). The Relationship between Poverty and the Death Penalty. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(3), 317-333.
• Schabas, W. A. (2015). The Death Penalty as Cruel Treatment and Torture: Capital Punishment Challenged in the World's Courts. Harvard University Press.
• Zimring, F. E. (2019). The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment. Oxford University Press.

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: 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

2 pages / 791 words

2 pages / 760 words

2 pages / 745 words

2 pages / 1011 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

In conclusion, the ethical considerations surrounding the death penalty for murderers are complex and multifaceted. The arguments for deterrence, retribution, and justice are countered by concerns about the risk of wrongful [...]

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a highly debated and controversial topic. While some argue that it serves as a deterrent for heinous crimes and provides justice for victims and their families, others [...]

The death penalty has been a contentious issue in the United States for decades. Advocates argue that it serves as a deterrent for heinous crimes, while opponents highlight the moral and ethical implications of state-sanctioned [...]

The death of a moth may seem like a trivial event, but Virginia Woolf's essay "The Death of the Moth" suggests otherwise. Through her vivid and poetic language, Woolf portrays the inevitability of death and the fragility of [...]

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 [...]

The Death Penalty has been a widely controversial topic in America as it is illegal in 27 of the 50 states in America. Only 21 of the 50 states have been a part of this movement including Texas, Alabama, and more. During the [...]

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

• 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?

Author:  William Anderson (Schoolworkhelper Editorial Team)

Tutor and Freelance Writer. Science Teacher and Lover of Essays. Article last reviewed: 2022 | St. Rosemary Institution © 2010-2024 | Creative Commons 4.0

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

• Knowledge Base
• Popular Essay Topics

Death Penalty Essay

• Author StudySaurus
• Category Popular Essay Topics

Disclaimer: This paper has been submitted by a student. This is not a sample of the work written by professional academic writers.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of StudySaurus.

Argumentative Essay on Against the Death Penalty

In the United States criminal justice system when a human being takes the life of another human being there are roughly two options for consequences; Life in prison with no possibility of parole or the death penalty. So, in regard to the death penalty, morality can define what justice may to be in a criminal punishment. Individuals who believe it is morally right to put an individual to death over a horrendous crime support the retentionist argument for the death penalty. Individuals who believe it is morally wrong to kill an individual, despite the crime committed are in support of the abolitionist argument of the death penalty. In the United States, there are thirty-one states in support of the death penalty and remaining nineteen states are against the death penalty law. As the death penalty can be a controversial topic is it important to consider all possible factors. The best approach to the death penalty is the principle of human dignity.

The principle of human dignity is an argument in abolishing the death penalty. The principle of human dignity presents an argument that gives all individuals equal rights regardless of decisions made in a criminal act. The principle of human dignity is an argument that a human being, in virtue of just being a human or person has intrinsic worth. This argument means that a human being is a human being and should always be treated as one. No matter the crime committed, one does not forfeit their right to life even if they have taken one. This argument in abolishing the death penalty can agree with tortures should not be tortured, drunk drivers not being hit with a vehicle, and individuals who are accused of arson should not be set on fire. The consequences for those crimes are excessive; the same thing occurs when in regards of the death penalty. When placing the idea of an eye for an eye on various crimes is seems extreme and unnecessary. A life for a life is excessive. Criminals do forfeit some rights to life, but not all rights to life. Punishments will happen for individuals committing these crimes, but there are punishments that fit the crimes being committed. For example, life in prison with no possibility of parole fits the punishment of first degree murder.

The principle of human dignity directly goes directly against the element of reciprocity. The element of reciprocity explains that we can forfeit our rights by our own actions. If a person violates someone’s right to life, this murderer forfeits his or her right to life. The argument claims the state is not taking anyone’s right away because if one took a life of someone else, they do not have a right themselves. The human dignity argument has the idea that human dignity should always be reserved. Human rights are given to an individual when born should be modified when committing crimes but never forfeited.

The principle of human dignity attempts to portray a message to lead individuals to believe that ending someone’s life says, a person doesn’t have any worth or value left. Individuals should never lose their respect for human dignity. Good or bad actions, all humans have emotions and can feel pain; at somewhat the same level. Individuals who do not agree with the principle of human dignity are in support of the death penalty. There are many factors that morality support the death penalty. Supports are in favor of taking the life of someone who committed a horrendous crime; a life for a life. Individuals who do not agree with the human dignity argument may attempt to argue that the death penalty is an effective consequence because it deters other criminals from committing the crimes. Continuing, it may be argued that the death penalty can show society its moral outrage at unpleasant crimes. Resulting in a decrease in the crime rates. Although this seems efficient, an individual who commits a crime already knowing the consequences. Life in prison with no possible chance of parole is enough to deter an individual of a crime who does not want to seek punishment.

Other supporters of the death penalty derive more from government than society. The government is considerably more in favor of the death penalty because of the costs. It is much cheaper in today’s economy to eliminate the criminals with the death penalty rather than to pay for them to live their entire life in prison. This argument is important to the government because it saves the government more money. Rather than having an inmate in prison and maintain the funds to support these prisoner’s lives, the government would rather choose to execute the criminals. Morally, this is the most incorrect argument regarding the death penalty. No amount of money is equivalent to the life of a human being. Not only is the death penalty decreasing the value of a human being’s life, it is putting the cost and expenses of keeping individuals alive, above their rights to life.

The death penalty is the wrong consequence more many reasons. Although, individuals are rarely put to death for crimes they did not commit, it does happen. To avoid wrongfully killing an individual for a crime they did not commit, the death penalty should not be used a punishment. Technology continues to advance every day. Scientist are figuring out new technology and experiments as we speak. If new advances in technology (regarding the criminal justice system) were to be discovered and the death penalty was not implemented, an individual would gain their rights and freedom back. A wrongfully committed individual can be released from prison, not brought back to life. Not all, but some crimes can be justified.

Although the death penalty has been used for thousands of years to punish criminals, in today’s society it is not as effective. The death penalty is such a controversial topic there will never be a correct answer. The arguments are all based on morals and views. Although there is no correct answer, there is a better answer. The human dignity argument gives all humans, equal rights; regardless is one made a criminal mistake or not. All humans have human dignity.

Capital Punishment Essay

J.R.R Tolkien once said, “many that live deserves death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.” The death penalty should be repealed because it’s very stressful for those involved, it is extremely expensive, and it has convicted innocent people.

One reason why the death penalty should be illegal is because it’s very stressful for those who are involved. According to Berman there were several officials begging for them to change the pace of executions because it imposes stress and trauma (Berman). This proves that carrying out several executions can take a severe toll on correction officers wellbeing. Berman states, “In a state review, authorities wrote that the execution team placed the IV incorrectly and that the officers involved described a feeling of extra stress and urgency because a second execution was scheduled for the same night” (Berman). This also proves that when there’s back to back executions scheduled it can stress the correction officers out and they can get nervous and mess up on something. In “With Lethal Injection Drugs Expiring” Berman states, “‘How can you expect them to do something of this magnitude? It’s rough,’ Givens who executed 62 people and now opposes the death penalty, said Friday. ‘I know the effect it can have on you when you participate in execution… It takes a while to really come out of that” (Berman). This proves that when working as a correction officer and you have to execute people it can be very traumatic and hard to get over which causes stress.

Another reason why the death penalty should be repealed is because it is extremely expensive. According to Jones and Eder, California had spent more than $8 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1928 (Jones and Eder). This proves that the states are spending billions of dollars just to execute people when that money could be going towards something more beneficial. Jones and Eder states, “The cost of housing a death row inmate outpaces the cost of housing a general-population prisoner by $100,000 a year, primarily because death- row inmates are housed alone instead of two-a-cell, and they require a higher level of security” (Jones and Eder). This proves that the cost of housing just one single death row inmate is very expensive. If housing just one is millions of dollars, than imagine how much money it is when housing multiple. In “Costs Test Backing For Death Penalty” Jones and Eder states, “The Alarcon study concluded jury selection alone in capital cases cost more than $200,000 above the amount for life without parole an that the death penalty prosecutors can cost 20 times as much as life-without parole” (Jones and Eder). This shows that capital cases cost a lot of money and is very expensive. It cost way more than it would cost if it was just life without parole.

Another reason why the death penalty should be repealed is because it kills innocent people. In the article “Time to Question Sanity of Death Penalty” Phillip Holloway states, “A study last year found that, at a conservative estimate, ‘more than 4% of inmates sentenced to death in the united states are probably innocent.’ indeed, there have been 330 executions based on DNA alone” (holloway). This quote proves that over 100 people has been put on death that are innocent. According to Holloway there was this man name Henry McCollum, who was in prison for 30 years on death row for the murder of an 11 year old girl which evidence showed that he did not do. This case proves that some death row cases are unfair and they convict innocent people. His whole life is thrown away over something he didn’t do which is unfair. Holloway states, “Some of the inmates appear to suffer from intellectual impairment and outlining qualms about the legal representation the men have had” (Holloway). People who don’t know better are put to death row, and many of them suffers disabilities and intellectual impairment. Why would you want to kill someone who suffer mental illnesses and doesn’t know better?

Even though many people feel that the death penalty should be abolished, there are many people who support it. People who support the death penalty says it saves lives. According to David Muhlhausen, “Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in fewer murders” (Muhlhausen). This can be proven wrong because according to Kyle Gibson, prison homicides have increased in the past year from 39 to 55, or a 44% increase (Gibson). People who support the death penalty also argue that it brings justice and closure to the victim’s family. In the article “Death Penalty Brings Relief to Victims’ Family” John Futty states, “She felt comforted to know that he will be put to death” (Futty). Even though many think it will bring closure, it can also bring stress and trauma on others such as those involved. Berman stated, “correction officers described a feeling of extra stress and urgency” (Berman).

Simply by repealing and/or making the death penalty illegal would make America way better. It doesn’t help or do anything to resolve the crime rate. The death penalty is senseless and discriminatory. There’s still crimes going on with the death penalty being legal. It brings nothing but stress, debt, and innocent lives lost.

Was this material helpful?

Related essays, about studysaurus, community. knowledge. success..

StudySaurus is run by two uni-students that still get a kick out of learning new things. We hope to share these experiences with you.

Ideas ,  concepts ,  tutorials,   essay papers  – everything we would’ve liked to have known, seen or heard during our high-school & UNI years, we want to bring to YOU.

Privacy & Cookies Policy Terms and Conditions DMCA Request

The Death Penalty Essay, with Outline

Published by gudwriter on May 24, 2018 May 24, 2018

Ready for a death penalty essay? Take a look at this informational resource featuring an outline, APA style format and a list of references.

Elevate Your Writing with Our Free Writing Tools!

Did you know that we provide a free essay and speech generator, plagiarism checker, summarizer, paraphraser, and other writing tools for free?

Most students will agree that there are certain periods that they find much more interesting than others. What you really need is a history homework helper with immeasurable knowledge on this type of essays. Here is an example of a sample of death penalty.

Death Penalty Essay Outline

Introduction.

Thesis: The death penalty should be abolished because it is not one of the best methods of punishing criminals and addressing crime.

Paragraph 1:  

Capital punishment is not an effective way of deterring crime contrary to arguments of those who support it.

• It lacks the deterrent effect to which its advocates commonly refer.
• “There is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty”
• An increasing number of law professionals are seriously questioning the effectiveness of the penalty in preventing crime.

Paragraph 2:

The penalty is not in order because there is no humane way to kill.

• In 2006, a lethal injection was used to execute Angel Nieves Diaz.
• It took a whopping 34 minutes and was administered in two doses.
• According to doctors’ opinion, it is likely that Diaz underwent a painful death.

Paragraph 3:  

The penalty makes a public spectacle out of the death of an individual.

• Victims are often executed in a manner that is extremely public.
• There is no legitimate purpose served by public executions which only increases the punishment’s degrading, inhuman, and cruel nature.
• Executions “carried out publicly are a gross affront to human dignity which cannot be tolerated.”

Paragraph 4:

The penalty does not apply fairly to all criminals as some people are left sentenced to death due to poor quality defense.

• Ineffective assistance of counsel is one of the factors that frequently cause reversals in death penalty cases.
• Whether or not one gets the death sentence largely lies in their ability to afford high quality defense.

Paragraph 5:

The death penalty cannot be taken back once it is executed.

• People may end up paying for crimes they never committed are a result of absolute judgments.
• A Texas man was found innocent after being executed.
• Criminal justice systems should apply punishment methods that allow for the setting free of individuals should further evidence prove them innocent after they are punished.

Paragraph 6: 

Capital punishment is also overly controversial in terms of its ethicality and morality, in light of the Consequentialist Ethical Framework.

• As per this framework, an action passes the ethical test only if it yields the best consequences for everyone.
• In capital punishment, a person is killed with the apparent hope that his or her death will serve justice to the offended.
• From the Consequentialist Ethical Framework angle, this may not be the case.

The death penalty does not address crime effectively as it is purported to. Instead, it tramples upon the human right of undergoing a dignified death and dying peacefully and out of public’s attention.

The Death Penalty Essay Example

The death penalty is one criminal justice area that has attracted a serious debate about whether or not it should be abolished. The penalty enjoys a strong support from the public as people believe that it serves to deter crime as criminals are afraid of dying just like other humans. However, those opposed to it believe that there are enough reasons to warrant its abolishment. For instance, they argue that it does not deter crime as it does not address what motivates people to act criminally. This paper argues that the death penalty should be abolished because it is not one of the best methods of punishing criminals and addressing crime.

Capital punishment is not an effective way of deterring crime contrary to arguments of those who support it. This is because it lacks the deterrent effect to which its advocates commonly refer. “As recently stated by the General Assembly of the United Nations, “there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty”” (International Commission against Death Penalty, 2013). This is why a continuously increasing number of law professionals are seriously questioning the effectiveness of the penalty in preventing crime. It is wrongly assumed that one would not want to commit crime since it would possibly land them into the capital punishment. There is however no evidence to support this assumption. Even if one was to fear dying as is assumed here, they might choose to engage in crime that does not attract the death penalty.

The penalty is also not in order because there is no humane way to kill. In 2006 for instance, a lethal injection that was used to execute Angel Nieves Diaz and was deemed ‘humane’ took a whopping 34 minutes and was administered in two doses (Amnesty International Australia, 2018). According to doctors’ opinion on the case, it is likely that Diaz underwent a painful death and thus the procedure could not have been humane in any way. Other brutal execution methods used across the globe include beheading, shooting, and hanging. The nature of these deaths is such that they only continue to perpetuate the violence cycle. In addition, they add onto the pain the victims’ family would have already suffered upon a member of theirs being taken into custody.

Further, the penalty makes a public spectacle out of the death of an individual. Victims are often executed in a manner that is extremely public, with lethal injections live broadcasts in the United States or public hangings in Iran. UN human rights experts hold that there is no legitimate purpose served by public executions which according them, only increase the punishment’s degrading, inhuman, and cruel nature. According to Hadj Sahraoui, an Amnesty International official , executions “carried out publicly are a gross affront to human dignity which cannot be tolerated” (Amnesty International Australia, 2018). Normally, a human being should be allowed the right to die in a dignified manner and ‘privately’ so they may have peace during the transition. It is a right that not even law should take away.

Contrary to the death penalty proponents’ argument that it applies fairly to all criminals, this is not the case as some people are left sentenced to death due to poor quality defense. As observed by OADP (2018), ineffective assistance of counsel is one of the factors that frequently cause reversals in death penalty cases. “Columbia University found that 68% of all death penalty cases were reversed on appeal, with inadequate defense as one of the main reasons requiring reversal” (OADP, 2018). Thus, it follows that whether or not one gets the death sentence largely lies in their ability to afford high quality defense. This makes this punishment method unfair.

Further, the death penalty cannot be taken back once it is executed. People may end up paying for crimes they never committed are a result of absolute judgments. “Texas man Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting a fire that killed his three daughters” (Amnesty International Australia, 2018). However, it would later be revealed through evidence that he was not the one who set that fire. Mr. Willingham, an innocent citizen, had paid with his life a crime he never knew anything about nor committed. As is clear here, being declared innocent was of no use for him since it could not bring him back to life. As such, criminal justice systems should apply punishment methods that allow for the setting free of individuals should further evidence prove them innocent after they are punished.

Capital punishment is also overly controversial in terms of its ethicality and morality, in light of the Consequentialist Ethical Framework. As per this framework, an action passes the ethical test only if it yields the best consequences for everyone (Bonde, et al., 2013). The results of such an action should be such that those involved get the most good out of it. From the onset, it is the intent of any person using this framework to achieve results that would benefit all the people entangled in an ethical dilemma or issue. The framework is advantageous in the sense that it pragmatically focuses on the results of an action before the action is performed. It ensures nobody is treated unfairly in the aftermath of the action. In capital punishment, a person is killed with the apparent hope that his or her death will serve justice to the offended. From the Consequentialist Ethical Framework angle, this may not be the case.

The death penalty does not address crime effectively as it is purported to, and is also unethical. Instead, it tramples upon the human right of undergoing a dignified death and dying peacefully and out of public’s attention. There can never be a humane way to kill and no matter the crime one has committed, they should not be subjected to this painful process of dying. The punishment is also not fair as some people might while others might not afford to hire quality lawyers to defend them. Moreover, it cannot be taken back and this means once persecuted, one can never regain their innocence as well as their life.

Amnesty International Australia. (2018). “Five reasons to abolish the death penalty”. Amnesty International Australia . Retrieved May 20, 2018 from https://www.amnesty.org.au/5-reasons-abolish-death-penalty/#

Bonde, S., et al. (2013). “A framework for making ethical decisions”. Brow University . Retrieved July 3, 2020 from https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions .

International Commission against death penalty. (2013). “Why the death penalty should be abolished”. International Commission against Death Penalty . Retrieved May 20, 2018 from http://www.icomdp.org/arguments-against-the-death-penalty/

OADP. (2018). “The facts: 13 reasons to oppose the death penalty”. Oregonians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty . Retrieved May 20, 2018 from https://oadp.org/facts/13-reasons

Learn how to get your essay done fast and better. Ensure your final paper is well edited, structured and is plagiarism free by using the best writing tools .

Special offer! Get 20% discount on your first order. Promo code: SAVE20

Related Posts

Free essays and research papers, artificial intelligence argumentative essay – with outline.

Artificial Intelligence Argumentative Essay Outline In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become one of the rapidly developing fields and as its capabilities continue to expand, its potential impact on society has become a topic Read more…

Synthesis Essay Example – With Outline

The goal of a synthesis paper is to show that you can handle in-depth research, dissect complex ideas, and present the arguments. Most college or university students have a hard time writing a synthesis essay, Read more…

Examples of Spatial Order – With Outline

A spatial order is an organizational style that helps in the presentation of ideas or things as is in their locations. Most students struggle to understand the meaning of spatial order in writing and have Read more…

• AI Content Shield
• AI KW Research
• AI Assistant
• SEO Optimizer
• AI KW Clustering
• Customer reviews
• The NLO Revolution
• Press Center
• Help Center
• Content Resources
• Facebook Group

Death Penalty Essay Introduction — a Quick Guide

Table of Contents

The death penalty is a state-sanctioned practice where an individual is executed for an offense punishable through such means. Death penalty essay is a common topic given to students where the essay writer argues this controversial issue and takes a stand. The death penalty essay intro consists of the opening sentence, the background information, and the thesis statement.

Writing a compelling introduction isn’t easy. But with the tips and examples in this guide, you’ll be able to write a captivating introduction.

What Is a Death Penalty Essay?

The death penalty is the practice of executing a person guilty of capital murder, a crime in which the loss of life is intentional. This method of punishment has been around for as long as human civilization.

The death penalty has been controversial for a long time, with people on both sides of the fence. Supporters claim it works to deter crime, but there is no evidence to prove it. Opposers claim it is cruel and is not the best way to serve justice. 

A death penalty essay argues for or against the death penalty. This essay topic is a typical assignment given to college students. Common death penalty essay topics are as follows:

• About the Death Penalty
• Does the Death Penalty effectively deter crime?
• The Death Penalty should not be legal
• The Death Penalty should be abolished.
• Death Penalty and Justice
• Pro-Death Penalty
• Is the Death Penalty Morally Right?
• Death Penalty is Immoral
• Religious Values and Death Penalty
• Ineffectiveness of Death Penalty
• Punishment and the Nature of the Crime
• The Death Penalty and Juveniles.
• Is the Death Penalty Effective?
• The Death Penalty is Politically Just
• The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?
• Abolishment of the Death Penalty
• The Death Penalty and People’s Opinions
• Is Death Penalty Humane?

How to Write an Interesting Death Penalty Essay Intro

Like other essays, the death penalty essay intro comprises three parts. The hook, a strong opening sentence, grips the reader, sparks their curiosity, and compels them to read the rest of the piece.

Subsequent sentences provide background information on the topic and define the argument’s terms. The last part is the thesis statement, which summarizes the central focus of the essay.

1. the Opening Sentence/Hook

The hook is a statement that grips the reader’s attention and makes them want to read on . The hook should be an exciting statement that sparks the readers’ curiosity, and sets the tone for the essay. It should give an overview of the topic. You could begin with a thought-provoking question, an interesting quote, an exciting anecdote, or a shocking statistic or fact. 

2. Background Information

Provide more information about the subject you are discussing. Create context and give background information on the topic. It could be a social or historical context. Define key terms that the reader might find confusing and clearly but concisely state why the issue is important.

3. Thesis Statement

The thesis statement is the overarching idea – the central focus of the essay. It summarizes the idea that you’ll be explaining throughout the entirety of the piece. Once this statement has been established, you’ll smoothly transition into the main body of your essay. Make the thesis clear and concise. 

Death Penalty Essay Introduction Example

Does the death penalty deter crime, especially murder? The death penalty has been controversial for years. Over the years, public opinion about the death penalty seems to have changed. But there are still people who think it is a proper punishment. I have heard the phrase “An eye for an eye” most of my life. Most people firmly believe that if a criminal took someone’s life, their lives should be taken away too. But I don’t think that will discourage anyone from committing crimes. I believe that the criminal should be given a lighter punishment. 

The death penalty or capital punishment is the execution of a criminal by a government as punishment for a crime. In the United States, the death penalty is the most common form of sentence in murder cases.

A death penalty essay argues for or against the death penalty. The essay introduction begins with an attention-grabber , followed by background information on the topic and then the thesis statement.

Abir Ghenaiet

Abir is a data analyst and researcher. Among her interests are artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing. As a humanitarian and educator, she actively supports women in tech and promotes diversity.

Explore All Essay Intro Generator Articles

The different ways to start a comparative essay.

Some writers intend to compare two specific things or ideas through their articles. They write these essays to compare and…

• Essay Intro Generator

Know The Best Way to Start an Expository Essay

Are you into writing essays that tackle a still-unknown fact? Do you know how to write an expository essay? Before…

Writing an Opinion Essay? Read This First!

Students are required to express their opinions on a topic in an opinion essay. Pertinent illustrations and explanations support their…

Identifying the Best Transitions to Start an Essay

A typical academic assignment is the essay, which must meet certain requirements in order to be written properly. Even students…

How to Write Introductions for Synthesis Essays

One of the most exciting assignments you could have is writing a synthesis essay. For a college or university student,…

How to Write Introductions for Music Essays

Music is food for the soul, or so they say. A music essay analyzes or describes a piece of music,…

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Donald Trump and the Justice System

More from our inbox:, innocent and killed by israel in gaza, when screens don’t help in the classroom.

To the Editor:

Re “ Trump’s Attacks on Judge’s Family Lead to Expansion of a Gag Order ” (news article, April 2):

If an indicted drug dealer or terrorist made threats against prosecutors, judges, court staff and their families, that person would be locked up and likely held in prison until their trial was completed and a verdict rendered.

In Donald Trump’s case, we have someone with a history of inciting violence who was criminally indicted by separate grand juries in four different jurisdictions. Yet, Mr. Trump routinely makes public threats not only against prosecutors, judges and their families, but also against our current president, Joe Biden ( the video of an image of him hog-tied ), apparently with few consequences aside from an occasional fine.

When will the judges muster the courage to hold Mr. Trump to the same standard of conduct they would demand of a terrorist or drug dealer? Why do our courts treat Mr. Trump with kid gloves, when he can potentially do more damage to our country and to people’s lives than any terrorist or drug dealer?

Jeff Crider Palm Desert, Calif.

Even the expansion of the gag order against Donald Trump is unlikely to mitigate fears of reprisal for participants in the trial against the former president.

Mr. Trump’s penchant for vengeance against anyone he perceives has wronged him (or merely demonstrated insufficient loyalty) is, in all likelihood, adequate to discourage witnesses with the most damaging testimony from appearing in any case against Mr. Trump.

Steven A. Jensen Palmerton, Pa.

Re “ No One Is Above the Law, Except … ,” by Jamelle Bouie (column, March 31):

I agree wholeheartedly with most of the criticisms of Donald Trump set forth in this column. But I must disagree with its conclusion that the appellate court showed unwarranted favoritism toward him by its order reducing the amount of his appeal bond from $454 million to $175 million. Rather I believe that this action is consistent with steps that would have been followed with any similarly situated litigant.

A court has wide latitude to act to stay enforcement of a judgment pending appeal, including requiring the posting of a bond to secure collection, and must consider such factors as the likelihood that assets might be dissipated, the chances of success on the merits of the appeal or the damage to the appealing party that could occur if his or her assets were seized before the appeal was completed.

In this case it is likely that after weighing these factors, the appeals court had serious concerns about the amount of the penalty, which does appear excessive, and acted accordingly and well within its discretion.

Harold J. Smith White Plains, N.Y. The writer is a lawyer.

The indictments of Donald Trump have exposed the fault lines in our justice system. We are not all equal in the eyes of the law.

First of all, if you are wealthy or can raise funds from donations, like Mr. Trump, you can hire many expensive lawyers, who will go to court with preposterous requests. When a judge’s ruling goes against Mr. Trump, his lawyers appeal the decision to an appellate court, and then maybe the Supreme Court, to delay, delay, delay.

Justice depends on unbiased judges making decisions based solely on the law. In the documents case in Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, has granted his lawyers just about everything they have requested. Her politics are so clearly on display that it is hard to imagine that she will hold the trial before the election, if at all.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers have claimed that he has complete immunity from any crime that he committed as president. A federal appeals court rejected that claim in a definitive ruling. So the lawyers brought it to the Supreme Court. There was no need for the court to take it up, but the justices decided to anyway, but to wait until the end of April to hear oral arguments.

The chances that they will rule in favor of Mr. Trump are slim, but the court is pretty much making sure that the voters going to the polls in November won’t have the chance to see if Mr. Trump is convicted or exonerated on charges of attempting to overturn a free and fair election.

Politics? You decide. But this is definitely a gift to Donald Trump.

I am thinking that justice will not prevail. I hope I am wrong.

Ellen Sussman Brooklyn

Re “ Strikes by Israel Kill Aid Workers and Draw Outcry ” (front page, April 3):

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel acknowledges the violent death of seven aid workers to be a “tragic case of our forces unintentionally hitting innocent people in the Gaza Strip,” it prompts the question: By what measure have the deaths of thousands of Gazan children failed to meet this definition of “tragic”?

Were those children not innocent? Were their deaths not unintended?

Jane Harsha Katonah, N.Y.

It is all very well for President Biden and other world leaders to express horror at the senseless killing of the seven World Central Kitchen workers in Gaza. There is no dollar value for human life, but the Israeli government should be compelled to pay compensation to the families of the seven courageous workers who were killed.

It is disheartening to read that the president is planning to sell F-15 fighter jets to the Israelis to bolster their war effort. It would be a more sensible approach to contribute to their Iron Dome air defense system, but to refuse to send any more offensive weapons to the Israeli government.

Clearly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to continue the war, along with his leadership position, without restrictions.

Richard Weissman Denver

Re “ Do Screens Actually Help Kids Learn? ,” by Jessica Grose (Opinion, March 31):

Technology has its uses in the classroom, but Ms. Grose is right that implementation “matters a great deal.”

From my observations of elementary classrooms, digital devices are often used as part of small-group rotations, which make up most of the school day. The teacher works with one small group on reading or math while the rest of the class rotates through “centers,” which often include time with a device and without adult supervision. Kids often zone out or become confused.

In a first-grade classroom, I observed one child who was stumped by a number line on a screen because he didn’t know the meaning of “before,” and another who didn’t understand the word “combine.”

If I hadn’t been there to explain, I don’t know how long those kids would have sat blankly in front of a screen. Even after I explained “combine,” one boy decided he preferred to draw lines on his device with his finger.

Another issue is the content of these programs. Many of the programs commonly used for reading are intended to teach reading comprehension in isolation from any particular content, as a set of generally applicable skills, something that cognitive scientists agree is impossible .

Natalie Wexler Washington The writer is the author of “The Knowledge Gap: The Hidden Cause of America’s Broken Education System — and How to Fix It.”

‘Definitely agree': Internet backs Donald Trump's call for mandatory death sentence for cop killers

W ASHINGTON, DC: Following the dreadful murder of NYPD detective Jonathan Diller, former President Donald Trump urged on Tuesday, April 2, that cop killers be given the mandatory death sentence, according to the New York Post .

Notably, only a few days after attending Diller 's wake on Long Island, Trump was calling on Congress to enact laws to guarantee that individuals found guilty of killing a police officer face the death penalty, during a campaign event in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

Trump demands mandatory death sentence for cop killers

Trump addressed the gathering, "I will ask Congress to send a bill to my desk ensuring that anyone who murders a police officer will receive immediately the death penalty. We're going to do that, and you'll see the whole situation come to a halt."

Notably, ever since he pledged to sign an executive order granting 'anybody killing a police officer, the death penalty' during his first presidential campaign in 2015, at the very least, Trump has consistently backed the execution of convicted cop killers.

Moreover, during a memorial service in Washington, DC, in 2018, in honor of fallen NYPD officer Miosotis Familia, the then-president reiterated his support for a mandatory death sentence.

Furthermore, after the ambush shooting of two Los Angeles County sheriff's officers in the run-up to the 2020 election, Trump said that the 'animals' who committed the murder should face a 'fast trial [and] the death penalty' if the injured deputies did not survive.

The death penalty is prohibited in 23 states, including New York, and Washington, DC but is authorized in 27 states at the federal level. Guy Rivera, 34, is accused of shooting and killing Diller in March in Far Rockaway, Queens, during a routine traffic check.

Internet agrees with Trump's demand for death sentence for cop killers

Several people online agreed with Donald Trump as he urged that cop killers should be given the mandatory death sentence.

A user wrote on X, "Definitely agree. We need to draw a line that shows that criminals will be held accountable", while one added, "AMEN!"

A user also wrote, "Trump is a nice person."

Another stated, "Agreed."

A person also wrote, "Brilliant!"

One user remarked, "Should be the case for any 1st degree and none of the sitting on death row for decades. You get 1 year to appeal, and if upheld, straight to the chamber. This needs to be swift."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.