should we bring back the death penalty essay

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.

Accessibility

All popular browsers allow zooming in and out by pressing the Ctrl (Cmd in OS X) and + or - keys. Or alternatively hold down the Ctrl key and scroll up or down with the mouse.

Line height

• Amnesty International UK / Issues

Why we’re working to end the death penalty

At Amnesty International, we firmly believe that no one – including any government – has the right to take away someone else’s life. We’re working to end the use of the death penalty around the world, and won’t stop until every country in the world has abolished it.

What is the death penalty?

The death penalty (also known as capital punishment) is the premeditated, judicially sanctioned killing of an individual by a state. It’s an irreversible and violent punishment that has no place in any criminal justice system.

We oppose the use of the death penalty in every single case. No matter what the crime, who the alleged criminal is, or the method proposed to execute them – we will always stand against it.

Why are we against it?

There are many reasons that the death penalty is an unacceptable punishment. Here are six:

1. It’s the ultimate denial of human rights

First and foremost, sentencing someone to death denies that individual two vital human rights guaranteed under international law, as established by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR):

• the right to life (Article 3)
• the right not to be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment (Article 5).

Our aim at Amnesty is for every person on the planet to enjoy their human rights, as enshrined in the UDHR and similar international human rights standards. The death penalty violates basic human rights in every case.

Full List Of Your Rights In The UDHR

2. It doesn’t deter crime

People in favour of the death penalty often say that it’s a useful deterrent for the most abhorrent crimes in society – but evidence shows that this isn’t the case.

A 2012 report by independent researchers at America’s National Research Council of the Academies found that US states using the death penalty have a similar murder rate to states that don’t use it: the threat of capital punishment did not appear to prevent homicides.

3. It’s irreversible, and mistakes happen

Execution is the ultimate, irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can never be eliminated, and such mistakes cannot be unmade.

Since 1976, 195 US death row prisoners have been exonerated completely for their crimes. Who knows how many have been executed for a crime they did not commit? The flaws in state systems that dole out the ultimate irreparable punishment have been documented in the One for Ten film project . Furthermore, the United States accounts for a fraction of global executions, with 93% of known 883 global executions in 2022 being carried out in the Middle East and North Africa. This number does not include the potentially thousands of executions that are not reported in China, Viet Nam and North Korea. For more statistics on the death penalty, visit our Death Penalty Report for 2022 .  

4. It’s often used within unfair justice systems

The countries executing the most people are often the same countries about which we have serious concerns regarding the fairness of their judicial systems.

‘Top’ executing countries such as – China, Iran and Saudi Arabia – are all guilty of issuing death sentences under circumstances that are far from transparent.

China is the world's most prolific executioner. But use of the death penalty in the country is regarded as a state secret; we suspect, based on all the evidence we have, that thousands of people are executed in China every year, but without credible information from the Chinese state government, we cannot know how many death sentences are issued and executions carried out every year.

In both Saudi Arabia and Iran, death sentences are sometimes issued after convictions relying on ‘confessions’ from prisoners that have been obtained by force, often through torture in detention. Furthermore, in 2022, drug-related offences caused a significant portion of death penalty sentences , while some were executed publicly. Some were also executed for crimes that occurred when they were below 18 years of age.

OUR LATEST DEATH PENALTY REPORT

5. It discriminates

You are more likely to be sentenced to death if you are a member of a minority group within a state that executes. The death penalty disproportionately affects members of racial, ethnic and religious minorities, as well as those living in poverty.

In the US, there's extensive evidence of racial bias on death row . The race of the victim remains the single most reliable factor in determining whether a defendant will be given a death sentence. For example, a 2007 study in Connecticut showed African American defendants to be three times more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants, where the victims are white.

Serious mental health issues are also common in defendants sent to death row. At least one in ten prisoners executed in the US between 1977 and 2007 had experienced severe mental health problems that meant they were literally unable to comprehend the crime they were alleged to have committed, and unable to understand the terms of their sentence and imminent execution.

"It’s often those from disadvantaged backgrounds that are disproportionately affected by this callous punishment."  Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General

6. It can be used as a political tool

You are more likely to be sentenced to death if state authorities see you as a threat.

Authorities in Iran, Sudan and Saudi Arabia all have a track record of issuing death sentences to opposition activists or potential threats to those in power.

Where is the death penalty used?

A small number of countries around the world continue to sentence people to death. The number of states carrying out executions is steadily decreasing, year on year: we have charted a worldwide trend towards abolition since we began campaigning for it.

Thousands of people remain on death rows awaiting execution in prisons around the world, and many hundreds are still executed in a minority of states every year.

• Death Penalty Report - 2022 Global Trends of Executions & Death Sentences
• More about our work on the death penalty
• 2023 World Day Against Death Penalty

While you’re here…

Like you, we are horrified by the violence and the civilian death toll in Gaza, Israel and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We’re calling for an immediate ceasefire by all parties in the occupied Gaza Strip and Israel to prevent further loss of civilian lives. Amnesty International is investigating mass summary killings, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, hostage-taking, and siege tactics.

As ever, our mission to protect human rights remains. Please donate today to help expose war crimes and protect human rights. Thank you.

5 reasons some people think the world needs the death penalty

8 June 2019

Campaigner Michael Hayworth answers some of the tougher questions – like why it is fundamentally important to abolish the death penalty?

Anti-death penalty campaigners can rattle off 25 different reasons why we need to abolish the death penalty: its cruel, degrading, inhumane, what about families, it’s just wrong and world peace.

Most of us can do this so quickly that we cause a small whirlpool in the organic latte that we proudly paid $4.80 for at a garage in the industrial estates of inner western Sydney.

Despite the overwhelming global trend against executions, a number of reasons for the death penalty continue to come up. Here is my attempt to respond to them.

1. We need to be ‘tough on crime’

Everyone agrees that crime is bad and we need to stop it. This seems sensible and logical in every way, until we ask the question: do we need the death penalty to be ‘tough’ on crime? The answer is no, we don’t.

The fallacy that crueler punishments deter crime doesn’t take into account that there are complex social and economic factors that drive crime rates, and secondly, that criminals don’t often plan on getting caught or think through all the consequences of their actions.

“Since Canada stopped executing the murder rate has dropped by 44 per cent”

Simplified statistics don’t help either.

Did you know that since Canada stopped executing the murder rate has dropped by 44 per cent? Does this mean that stopping executions will stop murders? Of course not, but it does demonstrate that the issues that drive and prevent crime are too complex to fit into a one line statistic or sound-byte.

The point here is that preventing crime takes long-term research into the causes, effective police work and rehabilitation. All of which can happen without the use of the death penalty.

2. ‘They did the crime, they should do the time’

Various iterations of this comment came thick and fast when Amnesty began calling for the clemency of Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, currently on death row in Bali for drug offences. Ironically, with the death penalty, we are not talking about time, we are talking about the opposite.

Both men acknowledge their crimes and recognise that they must face punishment. But a death sentence deprives people of the opportunity to reform. Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan are great examples of reform, one running art classes and the other studying to be a pastor. Their reform has come so far that a former governor of Kerobokan prison has argued they shouldn’t be executed.

Many others who languish on death row across the world have acknowledged their crime and reformed. There is no benefit to the state in killing these people, a senseless deprivation of life.

The immediate counter argument is that the threat of death forces people to reform. Again, the evidence for this simply isn’t conclusive.

Criminal justice systems the world over have had great success of reform without the threat of death, and often due to programs that focus on offender rehabilitation.

3. The criminal justice system is fair

Australia’s criminal justice system is largely fair, but that certainly can’t be said of many of the countries using the death penalty. We know that the death penalty is applied overwhelmingly to the working class, ethnic minorities and other marginalised groups. This happens not because people in these categories are more prone to crime, but because they have less access to legal resources.

Ask any criminal lawyer whether or not the amount of legal resources available on a particular case makes a difference and they will give you a deadpan ‘yes’. Legal support might not get the verdict is changed, but mitigating circumstances can be presented, alternate arguments explored and evidence double-checked. All of this makes a difference to whether a death sentence is handed down.

“We can’t give back a life once it is taken, and for one I would prefer a cautious approach to even the slightest possibility of taking an innocent person’s life”

Many justice systems are stacked against the person charged with the crime. Siti Zainab is an Indonesian national on death row in Saudi Arabia. Siti was a domestic worker who, after horrific treatment at the hands of her employer, allegedly killed a member of the household. Domestic workers are often unable to escape their employers treatment in the Gulf and Siti reportedly suffers from a mental illness.

Regardless of the country, a fair criminal justice system does not mean an infallible one – errors can and do occur. Troy Davis was executed in Georgia, USA after seven of nine key witnesses changed their testimony, some going so far as to argue for Troy’s innocence.

We can’t give back a life once it is taken, and for one I would prefer a cautious approach to even the slightest possibility of taking an innocent person’s life.

4. It is cheaper and more humane to execute people.

Even I was surprised by the facts on this one. A study done in California discovered that it was actually more expensive to execute a person than to keep them in jail for life. Yes, that’s right – the amount of time and money spent on taking a person’s life is greater than keeping them in prison.

For those of us who think there is a humane way to execute, let’s reflect on how some executions actually occur.

Often prisoners are woken with no knowledge they are to be killed, taken to a remote location, tied to a post and shot in the chest. If they don’t die, a captain takes a pistol and shoots them in the head. For hangings, people are sometimes strapped to a steel board to stop them moving as they are wheeled up to a noose.

Governments often keep this information on executions secret, even to the point of loading some of the guns with blanks so no one definitively knows who in the firing squad fired the death blow.

Whichever way you look at it, killing another human isn’t humane, not even close. And when you get to the details it is simply vengeful and cruel.

5. But what about [insert horrible despot here]: surely they should be executed?

There are a lot of people who have done horrific, unspeakable things, but modern societies should not join their ranks by also carrying out a murder. People are judged by their actions, and killing another human being is about as profound as actions come.

We can’t take back death, we know that systems make mistakes and we are lucky enough to live in a country where the majority of people oppose this cruel punishment.

“We can’t take back death, we know that systems make mistakes and we are lucky enough to live in a country where the majority of people oppose this cruel punishment”

This knowledge give us an opportunity, a chance to ask our neighbours in the region to end this practice. Today, thousands of Australians will start a movement and light candles at vigils all across the country to end the backslide towards execution in Asia.

It might sound simple but we shouldn’t underestimate the capacity of a group of Australians to change the world.

An edited version of this story first appeared on news.com.au

Find out more about the Amnesty International Australia’s campaigns against the death penalty and how you can help save lives today.

Join our Human Rights Defenders program to help us abolish the death penalty.

Related Posts

Amnesty International Global Death Penalty Report: Death sentences and executions 2022

Death penalty case: A man’s life – and Singapore’s reputation – are in the balance

Five reasons to abolish the death penalty

10 frequently asked questions about the death penalty

10 myths about the death penalty

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

Read our research on: Abortion | Podcasts | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Most americans favor the death penalty despite concerns about its administration, 78% say there is some risk of innocent people being put to death.

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand Americans’ views about the death penalty. For this analysis, we surveyed 5,109 U.S. adults from April 5 to 11, 2021. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and its methodology .

The use of the death penalty is gradually disappearing in the United States. Last year, in part because of the coronavirus outbreak, fewer people were executed than in any year in nearly three decades .

Yet the death penalty for people convicted of murder continues to draw support from a majority of Americans despite widespread doubts about its administration, fairness and whether it deters serious crimes.

More Americans favor than oppose the death penalty: 60% of U.S. adults favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder, including 27% who strongly favor it. About four-in-ten (39%) oppose the death penalty, with 15% strongly opposed, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

The survey, conducted April 5-11 among 5,109 U.S. adults on the Center’s American Trends Panel, finds that support for the death penalty is 5 percentage points lower than it was in August 2020, when 65% said they favored the death penalty for people convicted of murder.

While public support for the death penalty has changed only modestly in recent years, support for the death penalty declined substantially between the late 1990s and the 2010s. (See “Death penalty draws more Americans’ support online than in telephone surveys” for more on long-term measures and the challenge of comparing views across different survey modes.)

Large shares of Americans express concerns over how the death penalty is administered and are skeptical about whether it deters people from committing serious crimes.

Nearly eight-in-ten (78%) say there is some risk that an innocent person will be put to death, while only 21% think there are adequate safeguards in place to prevent that from happening. Only 30% of death penalty supporters – and just 6% of opponents – say adequate safeguards exist to prevent innocent people from being executed.

A majority of Americans (56%) say Black people are more likely than White people to be sentenced to the death penalty for being convicted of serious crimes. This view is particularly widespread among Black adults: 85% of Black adults say Black people are more likely than Whites to receive the death penalty for being convicted of similar crimes (61% of Hispanic adults and 49% of White adults say this).

Moreover, more than six-in-ten Americans (63%), including about half of death penalty supporters (48%), say the death penalty does not deter people from committing serious crimes.

Yet support for the death penalty is strongly associated with a belief that when someone commits murder, the death penalty is morally justified. Among the public overall, 64% say the death penalty is morally justified in cases of murder, while 33% say it is not justified. An overwhelming share of death penalty supporters (90%) say it is morally justified under such circumstances, compared with 25% of death penalty opponents.

The data in the most recent survey, collected from Pew Research Center’s online American Trends Panel (ATP) , finds that 60% of Americans favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. Over four ATP surveys conducted since September 2019, there have been relatively modest shifts in these views – from a low of 60% seen in the most recent survey to a high of 65% seen in September 2019 and August 2020.

In Pew Research Center phone surveys conducted between September 2019 and August 2020 (with field periods nearly identical to the online surveys), support for the death penalty was significantly lower: 55% favored the death penalty in September 2019, 53% in January 2020 and 52% in August 2020. The consistency of this difference points to substantial mode effects on this question. As a result, survey results from recent online surveys are not directly comparable with past years’ telephone survey trends. A post accompanying this report provides further detail and analysis of the mode differences seen on this question. And for more on mode effects and the transition from telephone surveys to online panel surveys, see “What our transition to online polling means for decades of phone survey trends” and “Trends are a cornerstone of public opinion research. How do we continue to track changes in public opinion when there’s a shift in survey mode?”

Partisanship continues to be a major factor in support for the death penalty and opinions about its administration. Just over three-quarters of Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party (77%) say they favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder, including 40% who strongly favor it.

Democrats and Democratic leaners are more divided on this issue: 46% favor the death penalty, while 53% are opposed. About a quarter of Democrats (23%) strongly oppose the death penalty, compared with 17% who strongly favor it.

Over the past two years, the share of Republicans who say they favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder has decreased slightly – by 7 percentage points – while the share of Democrats who say this is essentially unchanged (46% today vs. 49% in 2019).

Republicans and Democrats also differ over whether the death penalty is morally justified, whether it acts as a deterrent to serious crime and whether adequate safeguards exist to ensure that no innocent person is put to death. Republicans are 29 percentage points more likely than Democrats to say the death penalty is morally justified, 28 points more likely to say it deters serious crimes, and 19 points more likely to say that adequate safeguards exist.

But the widest partisan divide – wider than differences in opinions about the death penalty itself – is over whether White people and Black people are equally likely to be sentenced to the death penalty for committing similar crimes.

About seven-in-ten Republicans (72%) say that White people and Black people are equally likely to be sentenced to death for the same types of crimes. Only 15% of Democrats say this. More than eight-in-ten Democrats (83%) instead say that Black people are more likely than White people to be sentenced to the death penalty for committing similar crimes.

Differing views of death penalty by race and ethnicity, education, ideology

There are wide ideological differences within both parties on this issue. Among Democrats, a 55% majority of conservatives and moderates favor the death penalty, a position held by just 36% of liberal Democrats (64% of liberal Democrats oppose the death penalty). A third of liberal Democrats strongly oppose the death penalty, compared with just 14% of conservatives and moderates.

While conservative Republicans are more likely to express support for the death penalty than moderate and liberal Republicans, clear majorities of both groups favor the death penalty (82% of conservative Republicans and 68% of moderate and liberal Republicans).

As in the past, support for the death penalty differs across racial and ethnic groups. Majorities of White (63%), Asian (63%) and Hispanic adults (56%) favor the death penalty for persons convicted of murder. Black adults are evenly divided: 49% favor the death penalty, while an identical share oppose it.

Support for the death penalty also varies across age groups. About half of those ages 18 to 29 (51%) favor the death penalty, compared with about six-in-ten adults ages 30 to 49 (58%) and those 65 and older (60%). Adults ages 50 to 64 are most supportive of the death penalty, with 69% in favor.

There are differences in attitudes by education, as well. Nearly seven-in-ten adults (68%) who have not attended college favor the death penalty, as do 63% of those who have some college experience but no degree.

About half of those with four-year undergraduate degrees but no postgraduate experience (49%) support the death penalty. Among those with postgraduate degrees, a larger share say they oppose (55%) than favor (44%) the death penalty.

The divide in support for the death penalty between those with and without college degrees is seen across racial and ethnic groups, though the size of this gap varies. A large majority of White adults without college degrees (72%) favor the death penalty, compared with about half (47%) of White adults who have degrees. Among Black adults, 53% of those without college degrees favor the death penalty, compared with 34% of those with college degrees. And while a majority of Hispanic adults without college degrees (58%) say they favor the death penalty, a smaller share (47%) of those with college degrees say this.

Intraparty differences in support for the death penalty

Republicans are consistently more likely than Democrats to favor the death penalty, though there are divisions within each party by age as well as by race and ethnicity.

Republicans ages 18 to 34 are less likely than other Republicans to say they favor the death penalty. Just over six-in-ten Republicans in this age group (64%) say this, compared with about eight-in-ten Republicans ages 35 and older.

Among Democrats, adults ages 50 to 64 are much more likely than adults in other age groups to favor the death penalty. A 58% majority of 50- to 64-year-old Democrats favor the death penalty, compared with 47% of those ages 35 to 49 and about four-in-ten Democrats who are 18 to 34 or 65 and older.

Overall, White adults are more likely to favor the death penalty than Black or Hispanic adults, while White and Asian American adults are equally likely to favor the death penalty. However, White Democrats are less likely to favor the death penalty than Black, Hispanic or Asian Democrats. About half of Hispanic (53%), Asian (53%) and Black (48%) Democrats favor the death penalty, compared with 42% of White Democrats.

About eight-in-ten White Republicans favor the death penalty, as do about seven-in-ten Hispanic Republicans (69%).

Differences by race and ethnicity, education over whether there are racial disparities in death penalty sentencing

There are substantial demographic differences in views of whether death sentencing is applied fairly across racial groups. While 85% of Black adults say Black people are more likely than White people to be sentenced to death for committing similar crimes, a narrower majority of Hispanic adults (61%) and about half of White adults (49%) say the same. People with four-year college degrees (68%) also are more likely than those who have not completed college (50%) to say that Black people and White people are treated differently when it comes to the death penalty.

About eight-in-ten Democrats (83%), including fully 94% of liberal Democrats and three-quarters of conservative and moderate Democrats, say Black people are more likely than White people to be sentenced to death for committing the same type of crime – a view shared by just 25% of Republicans (18% of conservative Republicans and 38% of moderate and liberal Republicans).

Across educational and racial or ethnic groups, majorities say that the death penalty does not deter serious crimes, although there are differences in how widely this view is held. About seven-in-ten (69%) of those with college degrees say this, as do about six-in-ten (59%) of those without college degrees. About seven-in-ten Black adults (72%) and narrower majorities of White (62%) and Hispanic (63%) adults say the same. Asian American adults are more divided, with half saying the death penalty deters serious crimes and a similar share (49%) saying it does not.

Among Republicans, a narrow majority of conservative Republicans (56%) say the death penalty does deter serious crimes, while a similar share of moderate and liberal Republicans (57%) say it does not.

A large majority of liberal Democrats (82%) and a smaller, though still substantial, majority of conservative and moderate Democrats (70%) say the death penalty does not deter serious crimes. But Democrats are divided over whether the death penalty is morally justified. A majority of conservative and moderate Democrats (57%) say that a death sentence is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder, compared with fewer than half of liberal Democrats (44%).

There is widespread agreement on one topic related to the death penalty: Nearly eight-in-ten (78%) say that there is some risk an innocent person will be put to death, including large majorities among various racial or ethnic, educational, and even ideological groups. For example, about two-thirds of conservative Republicans (65%) say this – compared with 34% who say there are adequate safeguards to ensure that no innocent person will be executed – despite conservative Republicans expressing quite favorable attitudes toward the death penalty on other questions.

Overwhelming share of death penalty supporters say it is morally justified

Those who favor the death penalty consistently express more favorable attitudes regarding specific aspects of the death penalty than those who oppose it.

For instance, nine-in-ten of those who favor the death penalty also say that the death penalty is morally justified when someone commits a crime like murder. Just 25% of those who oppose the death penalty say it is morally justified.

This relationship holds among members of each party. Among Republicans and Republican leaners who favor the death penalty, 94% say it is morally justified; 86% of Democrats and Democratic leaners who favor the death penalty also say this.

By comparison, just 35% of Republicans and 21% of Democrats who oppose the death penalty say it is morally justified.

Similarly, those who favor the death penalty are more likely to say it deters people from committing serious crimes. Half of those who favor the death penalty say this, compared with 13% of those who oppose it. And even though large majorities of both groups say there is some risk an innocent person will be put to death, members of the public who favor the death penalty are 24 percentage points more likely to say that there are adequate safeguards to prevent this than Americans who oppose the death penalty.

On the question of whether Black people and White people are equally likely to be sentenced to death for committing similar crimes, partisanship is more strongly associated with these views than one’s overall support for the death penalty: Republicans who oppose the death penalty are more likely than Democrats who favor it to say White people and Black people are equally likely to be sentenced to death.

Among Republicans who favor the death penalty, 78% say that Black and White people are equally likely to receive this sentence. Among Republicans who oppose the death penalty, about half (53%) say this. However, just 26% of Democrats who favor the death penalty say that Black and White people are equally likely to receive this sentence, and only 6% of Democrats who oppose the death penalty say this.

CORRECTION (July 13, 2021): The following sentence was updated to reflect the correct timespan: “Last year, in part because of the coronavirus outbreak, fewer people were executed than in any year in nearly three decades.” The changes did not affect the report’s substantive findings.

Sign up for our Politics newsletter

Sent weekly on Wednesday

Report Materials

Table of contents, 10 facts about the death penalty in the u.s., death penalty draws more americans’ support online than in telephone surveys, california is one of 11 states that have the death penalty but haven’t used it in more than a decade, public support for the death penalty ticks up, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

March 19, 2024

Evidence Does Not Support the Use of the Death Penalty

Capital punishment must come to an end. It does not deter crime, is not humane and has no moral or medical basis

By The Editors

A death penalty vigil, held in 2021 outside an Indiana penitentiary.

Bryan Woolston/Reuters/Redux

It is long past time to abolish the death penalty in the U.S.

Capital punishment was halted in the U.S. in 1972 but reinstated in 1976, and since then, nearly 1,600 people have been executed. To whose gain? Study after study shows that the death penalty does not deter crime, puts innocent people to death , is racially biased , and is cruel and inhumane. It is state-sanctioned homicide, wholly ineffective, often botched, and a much more expensive punishment than life imprisonment. There is no ethical, scientifically supported, medically acceptable or morally justifiable way to carry it out.

The recent execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith demonstrates this barbarity. After a failed attempt at lethal injection by prison officials seemingly inexperienced in the placement of an IV, the state of Alabama killed Smith in January using nitrogen gas . The Alabama attorney general claimed that this method of execution was fast and humane , despite no supporting evidence. Eyewitnesses recounted that Smith thrashed during the nitrogen administration and took more than 20 minutes to die.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Opposition to the death penalty is growing among the American public , and the Biden administration must follow through on its promise to end this horror. The Department of Justice must heed its own admission that the death penalty doesn’t stop crime, and our legislators must continue to take up the issue on the congressional floor. The few states that still condemn people to death must follow the lead of states that have considered the evidence and rejected capital punishment.

Programs such as the Innocence Project have shown, over and over, that innocent people have been sentenced to death. Since 1973 nearly 200 people on death row have been exonerated, based on appeals, the reopening of cases, and the entrance of new and sometimes previously suppressed evidence. People have recanted testimony, and supposedly airtight cases have been poked full of evidentiary holes.

Through the death penalty, the criminal justice system has killed at least 20 people now believed to have been innocent and uncounted others whose cases have not been reexamined . Too many of these victims have been Black or Hispanic. This is not justice. These are state-sanctioned hate crimes.

Using rigorous statistical and experimental control methods, both economics and criminal justice studies have consistently found that there is no evidence for deterrence of violent crimes in states that allow capital punishment. One such study, a 2009 paper by criminology researchers at the University of Dallas, outlines experimental and statistical flaws in econometrics-based death penalty studies that claim to find a correlated reduction in violent crime. The death penalty does not stop people from killing. Executions don’t make us safer.

The methods used to kill prisoners are inhumane. Electrocution fails , causing significant pain and suffering. Joel Zivot, an anesthesiologist who criticizes the use of medicines in carrying out the death penalty, has found (at the request of lawyers of death row inmates) that the lungs of prisoners who were killed by lethal injection were often heavy with fluid and froth that suggested they were struggling to breathe and felt like they were drowning. Nitrogen gas is used in some veterinary euthanasia, but based in part on the behavior of rats in its presence, it is “unacceptable” for mammals , according to the American Veterinary Medical Association. This means that Smith, as his lawyers claimed in efforts to stop his execution, became a human subject in an immoral experiment.

Courts have often decided, against the abundant evidence, that these killings are constitutional and do not fall under the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the 8th Amendment or, in Smith’s appeal , both the 8th Amendment and the due process protection clause of the 14th amendment.

A small number of prosecutors and judges in a few states, mostly in the South, are responsible for most of the death sentences being handed down in the U.S. today. It’s a power they should not be able to wield. Smith was sentenced to life in prison by a jury before the judge in his case overruled the jury and gave him the death sentence.

A furious urge for vengeance against those who have done wrong—or those we think have done wrong—is the biggest motivation for the death penalty. But this desire for violent retribution is the very impulse that our criminal justice system is made to check, not abet. Elected officials need to reform this aspect of our justice system at both the state and federal levels. Capital punishment does not stop crime and mocks both justice and humanity. The death penalty in the U.S. must come to an end.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American .

• 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

'Why we should consider bringing back the death penalty'

We should give serious consideration to bringing back capital punishment, writes Sam Truelove

• 14:23, 31 JUL 2019

Stories from court and the latest breaking crime news sent right to your inbox

We have more newsletters

The death penalty is a controversial subject.

Since capital punishment ended in the UK in 1965, some have been glad to see the back of it, while others have called for it to be reinstated.

While more than most oppose the death penalty, I'm actually all for it.

It's important to note that I would only be comfortable in imposing such a sentence on the criminals who have committed the most evilest of crimes, for example serial killers.

I understand taking a person's life shouldn't be a decision taken lightly, and many will oppose it all together. But does a serial killer - like Peter Bryan who murdered three people in London and ate their brains - deserve to be given a second chance? Does he deserve to live when three families have been traumatised and hurt in such a way their lives will never be the same again?

My opinion is no.

I have the same view on Levi Bellfield, who brutally murdered three young women in West London, and Anthony Hardy - dubbed the Camden Ripper - who killed three women before using an electric saw to cut up their bodies and dumping them in bins near his home.

These are serial killers - people who didn't hesitate when it came to killing another human being. So why should we flinch in taking theirs?

The death penalty is also topical at the moment after Prime Minister Boris Johnson was forced to deny he'll bring back hanging on his first full day in office.

The new PM was hit with questions over his Government's policy on capital punishment after he appointed Priti Patel to Secretary of State for the Home Department. Ms Patel has previously been a vocal supporter of the return of capital punishment, arguing it would act as a "deterrent".

And last year, Lincolnshire MP John Hayes urged the Government to think about re-introducing the death penalty to combat violent crime.

At the time, the Government poured cold water on the request, saying it opposes the death penalty around the world and has no plans to reintroduce it. But Mr Hayes told Lincolnshire Live that he believes the country should give the matter further consideration.

He said: "We have got an issue in Britain with very serious crime. We have had a number of serious crimes, the murder rates increases and barely a week goes by without hearing about some horrific child murder or old people being attacked and killed.

"Many of my constituents say that's partly because we don't respond appropriately. It seems to me there really needs to be a fitting punishment."

He added: "I say capital punishment should be a sentence available to the courts but the death penalty should not be mandatory - that's always been my position.

"If you look at the Westminster Bridge attacker, he was shot in cold-blood after someone had taken a proper decision to stop him.

"If he had survived I think most of the British public would have been OK if he had received a fair trial and been hanged - most people would deem that appropriate."

Westminster Bridge attacker Khalid Masood, who killed five people in the 2017 attack, was shot dead by armed officers after mowing down pedestrians and fatally stabbing PC Keith Palmer.

With crime in London, and the rest of the country, seemingly getting worse than getting better, it's hard to disagree with My Hayes.

In my view we should give serious consideration to bringing back the death penalty. Yes it will be controversial. Yes there will be considerable opposition. But it's a sentence which, I think, is needed now more than ever.

Today's most read stories on MyLondon

Why was capital punishment abolished?

Peter Allen and Gwynne Evans were the last people hanged in the UK. They were executed in 1964 for the murder of John West at his home in Seaton, Cumberland.

Capital punishment for murder was abolished in the UK in 1965 following the executions of people who were later proved to have been innocent.

Timothy Evans was famously wrongly convicted and hanged in 1950 for killing his wife and infant daughter at 10 Rillington Place in London.

Three years later John Christie was exposed as a serial killer and confessed to Mrs Evans' murder before he was executed.

People could also be hanged for committing the offence of high treason.

The last person executed for treason in the UK was William Joyce in 1946. He was a Nazi sympathiser who as 'Lord Haw-Haw' broadcast propaganda during the Second World War.

The maximum sentence for treason in the UK is now life imprisonment as set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

Follow reporter Sam Truelove on social media

Do you have a story? You can get in touch, in complete confidence if necessary, below:

Follow Sam, or drop him a direct message, on Twitter here .

Follow his Facebook page here.

You can read more of his stories here .

Email him on [email protected].

Keep up to date with the latest breaking news here .

Like the MyLondon Facebook page and follow MyLondon on Twitter

Want more news? Go to our homepage.

Got a story? Email [email protected].

• Most Recent

Should Canada bring back the death penalty?

You can save this article by registering for free here . Or sign-in if you have an account.

Article content

Last week, letters editor Paul Russell asked if it was time to bring back capital punishment. A majority of respondents said “yes.” Here are some of the letters (limited to 75 words or less) we received.

Death penalty is not vengeful, just fair

— My 24-year-old daughter Kelly-Anne was murdered by her boyfriend in 2004. He was a controlling, angry person. I will be at his parole hearing in about six years to see if he has changed. He was convicted of second-degree murder, and I would like to see him kept in prison for the rest of his life. Capital punishment, for sure. John Drummond, Montreal. — Some people say the state shouldn’t kill, hence their ideological abhorrence to the death penalty. Makes no sense when you think of a soldier’s job. Tori Stafford was just the latest victim of cruelty, thrust on her by the dregs of human wreckage. Like any dregs, such depraved individuals are good for nothing but compost, if that. Unhooded, disgust and contempt in my eyes, I’d be happy to put the noose around their necks and pull the trapdoor. Lorne Peasland, Victoria. — Canada should have an automatic death penalty for people convicted of two separate, first-degree murders. This would allow us to execute the likes of Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olson, and avoid executing the wrongfully convicted, as no person will ever be wrongfully convicted of two first degree murders that are separated by a reasonable amount of time or space. Jeffrey W. Tighe, Toronto. — A criminal should not be allowed to enjoy a better quality lifestyle than the victim. And in the case of first0degree murder, even life in prison presupposes a better lifestyle than that of the deceased and, thus, the criminal’s death is logical. Not immoral, barbaric or vengeful, just fair. Juan C. Joffre, Calgary. — Bringing back the death penalty is necessary. It is an important deterrent to very serious offences. The death penalty is necessary but can be only used for very serious offences and in the most prudent way. Chris Qiu, Vaughan, Ont. — Capital punishment is necessary in extreme cases especially involving children. The despicable murder of Tori Stafford even moved me, a former hard-nosed cop. I would consent to abolishing the death penalty but only if a life sentence meant life — which will never happen. Steve Flanagan, Ottawa. — A policeman confronts an armed bank-robber and, in self-defence, shoots him. Justified. At another bank, an armed robber kills a policeman and when he is tried, he gets away with his life, even though he committed a capital crime. I know where I stand, even if you replace “policeman” with “civilian.” Jack Dixon, Victoria. — As a physician, it goes against all I believe in to endorse taking a human life. As a mother, however, I would have no trouble pulling the lever on the hangman’s trap door if anyone did to my sons what happened to Tori Stafford or Kirsten French or the victims of Russell Williams. The people who do these types of crime are not fixable — they need to be humanely “put down” for the good of society. Dr. Susan Piccinin, Ancaster, Ont. — The death penalty for certain crimes? Yes. And let’s have those put to death then donate their organs for transplant. Charles Davidson, Toronto. — The main purpose of the death penalty is not justice, or retribution or deterrence — it is protection of society. It is about making sure that the killer does not kill again. Pavel Sorokin, Vancouver. — Our permissive society has created an environment of violence and fear, marked by teenage rioting, sexual predation and brutal killings. Bringing back the death penalty for serial killers and those who kill women and children is the right thing to do. Ron Fawcett, Toronto. — We need capital punishment for criminals such as Paul Bernardo. The coldness that these people exhibit while they are on the stand and looking into the faces of the family members of their victims shows the lack of regret for their crimes. Josh Cranney, Courtice, Ont. — Having no morals, human predators will eventually kill, so society must eliminate them. Jail serves no useful purpose as rehab does not work, the costs are not warranted. Let’s have another debate about capital punishment and vote for “Tori’s Law.” Charles Steele, Vineland, Ont. — We should enact a Young Victims Act and include a provision for state execution, when a person under a specified age is raped or murdered. Executing psychopaths who prey on our defenceless young would be a catharsis for many of us. Frann Harris, Richmond Hill, Ont. — Why should society be burdened with keeping Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olsen incarcerated at a cost of 100k a year (or whatever), for the next 30 or 40 years? Not only would execution save taxpayers’ money, it would free up room in prison for other felons. Harry Koza, Richmond Hill, Ont. — In 1975, Alan Craig MacDonald murdered a Nova Scotia police officer and the taxi driver who witnessed the murder. MacDonald was convicted of both crimes, however after serving only 12 years of what was supposed to be a life sentence, he was released on parole. Six months later, he brutally murdered 21 year-old university student Lynda Shaw. If Macdonald was executed for his original crimes, Shaw would still be alive today. Lee Hanlon, Mission, B.C. — A person who commits murder, such as in the Tori Stafford case, has automatically cancelled his/her right to continue to live in a civilized society — and should be removed. Hank Bangild, Port Colborne, Ont.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

• Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay, Rex Murphy and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.
• Unlimited online access to National Post and 15 news sites with one account.
• National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
• Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.
• Support local journalism.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

• Access articles from across Canada with one account.
• Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
• Enjoy additional articles per month.
• Get email updates from your favourite authors.

Don't have an account? Create Account

No, as two wrongs do not make a right

— A government that has a hard time delivering the mail and other basic public services cannot be trusted to make decisions pertaining to the taking of a citizen’s life. The names Truscott, Marshall or Milgaard stand testament to this simple truth. Bryan Moir, Vaughan, Ont. — Capital punishment is not a deterrent and is not cost-effective. If the debate reaches Parliament, it will be another sorry manifestation of emotional decision-making. Revenge is like an orgasm: brief, intense, addictive. Tyrone Streete, Toronto. — Once someone dies, their soul is freed to be born again. Therefore, giving the death penalty to even the most-depraved of murderers is still the wrong thing to do. These defective examples of humanity should be locked up securely for as long as possible. Norbert Kaysser, Port Coquitlam, B.C. — The state does not have any business killing its citizens. A lifetime of incarceration is a suitable living hell. A story comes to mind, told by Pierre Berton during the abolition debate. A foreign sailor was shipwrecked on the English coast and managed to swim ashore, where he spied a small village with a gallows outside the jailhouse. “Thank God!,” he exclaimed. “I have landed in a Christian country.” Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga, Ont. — The death penalty should not be reinstated in Canada — two wrongs do not make a right. Murder rates in the U.S. are much higher in states that have capital punishment. Let’s look for the root causes of crime. Andy Johnson, Little Britain, Ont. — The death penalty is society’s revenge to try to remove the guilt of failure — the failure to value the gift of life, the failure to respect the value of others, the failure of fellow humans to be a human. Keep in mind the Japanese proverb: Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves. Where do we dig and when do we stop? Dennis McMillan, Victoria. — Man’s propensity for error, whether in law, medicine, economics, politics, etc., is legion. We should be sufficiently humble to acknowledge our fallibilities and not allow for another source of error by revisiting capital punishment. Morton Doran, Fairmont, B.C. — The death penalty will never ever be resurrected. Only the highly strung will get all knotted up abut it. So shut all the traps and put the gallows where they belong: in the museum depicting a long-gone era when men did not know better and women had no say anyway. Jerome Henen, North Vancouver. z Guy Paul Morin, David Milgaard, Steven Truscott, many people convicted on Dr. Charles Smith’s erroneous evidence, the poor schmuck hanged for D’Arcy McGee’s murder, the people hanged for the 1837 rebellion for which the instigator was later lauded. Like everybody else, I wish ill to murderers. But I do not want one innocent person ever to be killed by us. Margie Watson, Toronto. — I am disgusted by my blood thirsty, vengeance-seeking fellow citizens. Most jurisdictions have turned away from this barbaric practice. If people want to kill someone so badly, the penalty should only be applied in name of those so quick to call for death. Not in my name or my children’s or the rest of this once sane and reasonable country. Bruce Van Dieten, Toronto. — Gandalf said it best in Lord of the Rings: “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.” The death penalty might not always be wrong in itself, but it’s always above our pay grade as finite human beings. Richard Dunstan, Nanaimo, B.C. — Two wrongs do not make a right. Doris Garner, Calgary.

What would God say?

— All life is sacred. Criminals are humans who, despite their crime, deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. God’s mission is to bring salvation to all men and women. His salvation is not imposed but reaches us through acts of love, mercy and forgiveness that we can carry out. Paul Kokoski, Hamilton, Ont. — In direct rebuttal to those who say we can’t afford the death penalty — we can’t afford to continue warehousing murderers. As God almighty commanded. Gen. 9:6: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” So let’s bring back the noose already. Vaughn McMillan, Calgary. — The execution of the truly guilty murderer does not show disregard to the sanctity of life and justice and disobedience to the word of God. “He [the government] is God’s servant to do you good.” But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. The word “sword” refers to capital punishment. John Stefan Obeda, London, Ont. — Yea and amen to the return of the death penalty. It will prove that we do have respect for human life. As the Bible notes: “The murderer shall surely be put to death” and speaking of the government: “A revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Gwen Woods, Mission, B.C. — The Bible states “an eye for an eye.” This ancient simple rule seems to be lost on today’s judicial system. Let’s get the death penalty back on the books where it belongs and justice will be served once again. Ian Cuthbert, Oakville, Ont.

This newsletter tackles hot topics with boldness, verve and wit. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)

• There was an error, please provide a valid email address.

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Platformed will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Explore other options

— I think the death penalty is too merciful. I would much prefer that, while in jail and at regular intervals, a degree of pain should be inflicted upon the guilty party in equal measure to that inflicted upon the victim. In addition, the ridiculous “possibility of parole in 25 years” should be taken off the books. Robert G. McLachlan, St. Catharines, Ont. — Paul Bernardo, Cody Legebokoff, Robert Pick­ton and Russell Williams are all living very well at our expense in our penal system. Maybe hanging, shooting or drugging them to death is a bit brutal. So a possible solution is an isolated penal colony for this “filth,” similar to rotting in hell. Douglas Maclean, Canmore, Alta. — Although I have no objection to the death penalty for child and cop killers and terrorists, it seems to me that a better solution would be to have them work for the state for the rest of their lives to repay society for their misdeeds. Mining slaves would be a good occupation for them. Jonathan Usher, Toronto. — We should bring the death penalty back but not use it. Bringing it back allows retributionists to say, ‘We’re tough on crime.” And not applying it allows the more-enlightened-than-thou crowd to say “Yes, we could, but we don’t aren’t we just so darned morally superior.” This should keep both sides quiet for another 10 years, then we can start the whole debate all over again. Or not. David Stretton, Maple Ridge, B.C. — If a man is convicted of rape and murder of a child, he should have two choices — capital punishment or castration and imprisonment. M.F. Stephenson, Toronto. — Never mind the death penalty — what’s needed is a “life penalty,” making life sentences truly mean life. Serial killers should also be given consecutive rather than concurrent sentences. In Clifford Olson’s case, that would have amounted to 275 years for his 11 murders without the possibility of endless parole hearings every two years after the first 25 years. E.W. Bopp, Tsawwassen, B.C. — We should not endorse capital punishment. Castration should be legalized as a cure anda deterrent for sexual deviants. Women have said this for years. Val leMaitre, Vancouver.

Unfortunately, there was not room in Monday’s paper for the following letters:

When we allow murderers such as Paul Bernardo to continue their lives even incarcerated, we devalue the lives of our murdered children. We must say that our children’s lives, when taken, are worth more than what we now allow to their murderers. We should have the strength of of our convictions and put these murderers to death. It is not revenge. It is a question of the value and the validation of the child’s life. Janey Crowe, Surrey, B.C

Of course we should bring back the death penalty.  Of course we should reverse the foolhardy decision by Pierre Trudeau and the hug a thug milk-sops , to abolish the death penalty for murder.  Of course we should focus our compassion on victims’ rights , rather than criminals’ rights and wrongs.  When it is beyond a reasonable doubt , (DNA etc.) “hang-em high! Gord Kinnon, Alliston, Ont.

What is the sentence for the family of a murder victim? For an attempted murder victim? For a victim of rape, sexual abuse or incest? Life. Those who perpetrate horrendous crimes against the innocent, thus robbing them of their lives, should pay with their own. The death penalty is neither an issue of revenge nor vengeance: It is ensuring the protection of law-abiding citizens from those who have made the choice to inflict harm. Katherine Bédard, Gloucester, Ont.

It’s high time to ask the death-penalty crybabies which is the most cruellest punishment: to die in your sleep (lethal injection) or spend 25 years behind a 20-foot wall and surrounded with sex-hungry criminals ready to rape you, humiliate you? I would prefer to die in my sleep. Ed Jurick, Montreal.

Grey is a great colour for suits; capital punishment is black and white as in black skirt and a white blouse. To ameliorate the mental, lifelong suffering of the next of kin of the victim(s); mental misfits like the Paul Bernardo and Russell Williams should be taken out of society so they can never be given the slightest chance of repeating their horrific deeds. Christiaan Jansen, Mississauga, Ont.

Those that have complete and total disregard for human life, those that would ignore the sanctity of another humans existence – relinquish their right to exist. Those that would ignore the pleading of a human being before them and continue in their dastardly deed in extinguishing the life of another do not deserve society’s compassion. Compassion needs to be reserved for the victims. Wade Pearson, Calgary.

Murder is an attack on our society, so the only appropriate response is the death penalty. Those who argue that this penalty will not deter a murderer are quite correct, in fact no punishment will act as a deterrent. The death penalty is just and final. K. Pedder, Oakville, Ont.

I’ll take the yes side in reinstating the death penalty because I don’t believe in using millions of taxpayer dollars to support people who would heinously prey on the most vunerable in society, especially children. Guilt would have to be established beyond all doubt. We wouldn’t want a return to the days of stringing a suspected horse thief up to the nearest tree. Jim Corder, Nanaimo, B.C.

Canadians have been regarded around the world as a polite, non-assuming, hardworking and basically honest people. These virtues, until the middle of the last century, were underpinned with tough laws strictly enforced. In 1891 the theft of a hat and coat generated a one-year sentence of hard labour for a young first offender and capitol punishment didn’t end till 1962. Certainly, humane changes to rigid laws were justified, but the proliferation of lawyers and liberal do-gooders has produced in Canada a relaxed money-generated system which now favours the guilty at the expense of the victim. Betty L. Reade, Oakville, Ont.

Consistently, Canadians have polled for the death penalty, for irrefutably guilty murderers who are deemed permanently dangerous to the public. Being so identified is the best reason for execution, no possibility of a repeat murder. Naïve objections that escape or parole won’t happen need to be reminded that it has happened often and can again. Sappy parole boards, terrorists, gangsters, and corrupt conspirators do exist and if incarceration is incompetent, justice has vanished. Peter M. Maclean, Kingston, Ont.

It’s high time to bring back the death penalty. The our constitution is too lenient and merciful for murderers and killers. If any person is convicted of murder charges I as a tax payer see no reason as to why my hard earned money be spent on such rogues. Such convicted criminals should not be eligible for human rights. If these convicts do not care for others why should community and government care for them? Firoz Khan, Toronto.

Yes. The death penalty is not revenge, it is the only fitting punishment for pre-meditated murder, serial killing, raping and killing a child, killing a police officer, etc. The case of Clifford Olsen was particularly disturbing, as he was able to torment the families of his victims from prison for years. The death penalty would have prevented this and would have brought final closure to the families of the victims. Renate Roy, Toronto.

The answer is a resounding YES for all cases where the crime has been deliberate and planned; also in cases where there has been no premeditation but there has existed deliberation ,i.e. the defendant has used force or means that plain common sense identifies them as dead-causing.  All of this, of course, subject to the perpetrator having been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The individual who wantonly takes someone´s life, automatically forfeits the right to his or her own.  This principle, if applied, makes citizens feel protected because legal retribution conveys a sense of fairness since the State values their lives. Luis J. Gómez, Montreal.

For heinous crimes that are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, Capital Punishment should be reinstated. A jury today examining the facts judiciously, coupled with modern technology would / could determine guilt / innocence. All politicians should stop believing that they are protecting Canadians  from themselves. Parliamentarians should listen to their constituents, set aside their political expediency to reinstate the Death Penalty, Peter K Marchant, Pickering, Ont.

There is one and only one good reason for the death penalty. The murderer executed is absolutely, definitely deterred from being able to kill again. Six percent of murderers kill again. Many innocent lives would be saved, children, pensioners and even prisoners in jail. Stephen Ottridge, Vancouver.

The death penalty for deliberate murder is morally acceptable and I think all reasonable practical objections to its use can be met satisfactorily. But, I don’t think capital punishment is morally required and I know that a large minority of my fellow Canadians find it morally repugnant. It will alienate the minority from their own community if the majority rules on this one. We best agree on a suitable alternative punishment. G.G. Brown, Waterloo, ON

Absolutely , when things have reached the point where :  even the accused has boldly admitted having murdered , IT IS time we realized that the opposite of RIGHT is being done by catering to these animals , by keeping them alive in a dysfunctional correctional system. Brian Kinnon,Alliston, Ont.

I am “pro-choice” on execution, convinced that a state should retain this option for dealing with the worst types of indubitably guilty criminals. Canada’s “pro-life” policy on extraditing foreign murderers who flee here often obstructs justice.  And many who oppose execution regardless of circumstances seem to lack empathy for the families of murder victims, while failing to recognize that some imprisoned, hardened killers manage to murder and traumatize again.

Dan Sonnenschein, Vancouver,

The death penalty will save the public, the expense of taking care of the twisted evil doers, for the next 25 years. It will eliminate some of the pain & suffering of family and friends, by removing the perpatrators from this world it will lessen some of the constant reminders & constant torment, that the guilty parties very existence causes. D. McColl, Hamilton, Ont.

Truly guilty murderers should be executed, provided they understood what they did. The first woman executed by the U.S. government was Mary Surratt. I was inspired to write a book about her controversial hanging and the Lincoln assassination plot by Canada’s best-selling author of all time, Charles Chiniquy, Abraham Lincoln’s extremely close friend, who wrote of her trial and execution. Paul Serup, Prince George, B.C.

I am in favour of capital punishment. Having been a police officer for 36 years and having seen too much of the handiwork of Canadian criminals, I believe those having committed first degree murder should be executed. Those found guilty would have ten years and no more to exhaust their appeals and this would give time for any evidence, even incontrovertible DNA evidence, to be presented to clear them. The recidivism would be zero. Gary Godwin, Prince George, B.C.

In this debate I turn to the words of J.R.R. Tolkien: “Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.” Alex Banks, Toronto.

Those who oppose the death penalty on the grounds that innocent people might be executed, are overlooking the fact that since it was abolished, over 800 innocent people have died at the hands of killers who were released, escaped or paroled. It may not be a deterrent, but its an effective preventive measure. Woody Woodrow, Kelowna. B.C.

Yes. Against those in power who egregiously abuse their position and thereby undermine the public’ trust in the authorities. Say, a police chief also turns out to be working for organized crime. Or cops covering up crime by other police such as hiding the video evidence in the Robert Dziekanski case. Or a spy chief passing info to the enemy. Vilmos Soti, North Vancouver, B.C.

I have always been in favour of the death penalty. I strongly believe that there would be less crime because, not only would we get rid of repeat offenders, but it would also scare other criminals from committing future acts, knowing they could lose their life.  Furthermore, tax money now being used to support prisoners for many years behind bars could instead be allocated to much better causes in our society, such as environment, health and education. Monica Cowan, Calgary.

Reintroducing capital punishment to Canada represents a step backwards for our legal system. Condemning a criminal to death row has proven to be an inaccurate science, where the validity of the conviction is never absolute.  In addition to being an expensive alternative to incarceration, it fails to act as a sustainable mechanism to deter future criminal activity.  More attention and correctional resources should be devoted to the rehabilitation of criminals, instead of towards their death. Roger Hilton, Montreal.

The sadistic treatment meted out to Tori Stafford is the reason for the death penalty debate. If it were brought back, I shudder to contemplate the fate of the innocent people who were found guilty by bogus evidence of pathologist Dr. Charles Smith. Elwan Lobo-Pires, Mississauga, Ont.

The death penalty should not be reinstated. Mot only is it unethical but the cost is ridiculous. A lengthy and expensive series of trials would be necessary for each case to ensure the verdict of guilty is definite, on top of the cost to actually administer the execution. Sid Kelly, Bowmanville, Ont.

The moral argument for capital punishment is simple: If you take another’s life you forfeit your own. The legal argument is more difficult because juries make mistakes as do judges. Witnesses lie and then recant. Police fabricate evidence. I do not wish to live in a country where the state has the legal right to execute its citizens. It is better that the prison system is full than one innocent person be put to death. Keith Brady, Empress, Alta.

While the execution of monsters may satisfy a certain segment of society, such a solution is short-sighted since those who are dead are beyond suffering. Better they be kept alive, but in conditions so unspeakably abysmal that even Papillon would be aghast. Let the monsters live, but ensure that they rot for a very long time to come. No to the death penalty; death is too easy an escape. Mark Lavoie, Toronto.

Capital Punishment must never be reinstated. Apart from the injunction “Thou shalt not kill”, there is always a risk of putting to death an innocent person. What if 14-year-old Stephen Truscott had been hanged after that travesty of a trial, according to the sentence laid down by the presiding judge? There have been too many examples of executing innocent persons. Whatever the cost, incarceration for life is our only choice. Mary McKim, London, Ont.

While I’m agnostic about the whole capital punishment issue, I have relatives who make some fair points. One says we need it because some people just don’t learn without it. Another wonders why, if capital punishment is not needed, we still need the term ‘repeat offender’. Grant A. Brown, Edmonton.

I totally disagree with the retrograde step of re-introducing the death penalty. What I strongly feel should be considered is making the life sentence of 25 years a true life sentence for certain crimes that are so horrendous as to turn ones stomach just reading about them.  These people should never be allowed to walk the streets again. Ann Meiring, Calgary.

The death penalty does prevent repeat crimes but unfortunately does not prevent the injustice of executing the person who is not guilty.We have had several prominent examples of people wrongfully imprisoned for capital offenses who were later proven innocent. Particularly heinous crimes should instead lead to life imprisonment without parole and mean exactly that — imprisonment until death . Leigh U. Smith, Burnaby, B.C.

It is time to bring back the death penalty for brutal murderers like the ones who killed Tori Stafford. We should ask ourselves if people like Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo deserve to live at our expense. Chuck Spencer, Bayfield, Ont.

Today you can’t go outside for a walk without being afraid that someone will pull you into the bushes mug, rape and even kill you. And it is worse when this happens to innocent little children. Why should the lowest scum on Earth get away with this? Rosi Bisaro, Hamilton, Ont.

Canada should have never stop doing capital punishment. Having no deterrent to replace it was just naive. Simha S. Mendelsohn, Toronto.

It’s time to bring back the death penalty for kidnappers, killers and rapists, especially for crimes involving young girls and boys. War and self defence are legitimate excuses for the taking of human life and it should be, also, for murderers, who fiendishly kill our most vulnerable. Patrick Rosati, Montreal.

The death penalty is an effective crime deterrent in many instances, especially with crimes where the guilty has shown he is beyond any redemptive potential and needs to be put out of his own misery. The ideals of rehabilitation and recovery have serious limitations. Cyril Abraham, Whitby, Ont.

The Harper government should hold a national referendum on capital punishment as soon as possible, as it is the proper punishment for perpetrators of terrible crimes, such as what happened to Tori Stafford.

Merle Terlesky, Calgary.

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.

She left an online review for a can of tomato puree. Now she could face 7 years in prison

’this is just the beginning’: carbon tax protests block traffic on trans-canada highway, a woman is being sued after a home was mistakenly built on her property, jamie sarkonak: social workers are told to push progressive climate, gender politics — or else, their pee is stronger than humans and an std can turn them into zombies, explore arizona as a family: kid-friendly adventures await.

A seven-day road trip of famous attractions and crowd-pleasers

Solar eclipse 2024: Get ready for the once-in-a-lifetime celestial event

How to prepare for the Great North American Eclipse

Advertisement 2 Story continues below This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The best online deals in the Canadian retail space right now

Parachute, Levi's and Biotherm, to name a few

Make a splash in these 5 stylish one-piece swimsuits

Whether you’re in search of sun for spring break or getting ready for the summer ahead, it’s time to start thinking swimwear.

Annie Selke X Kit Kemp: A colourful and textured home collection

Stunning and luxurious decorative pillows, rugs and bedding

This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here . By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy .

You've reached the 20 article limit.

You can manage saved articles in your account.

and save up to 100 articles!

Looks like you've reached your saved article limit!

You can manage your saved articles in your account and clicking the X located at the bottom right of the article.

Constitutional_court_of_South_Africa.jpeg

Constitutional Court of South Africa

Bringing Back the Death Penalty in South Africa for Crimes Against Women

by Jade Weiner | Oct 1, 2019

About Jade Weiner

Jade Weiner, “Bringing Back the Death Penalty in South Africa for Crimes Against Women”, (OxHRH Blog, October 2019), <https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/bringing-back-the-death-penalty-in-south-africa-for-crimes-against-women/>, [Date of access].

September is the start of spring in South Africa, marked by warmer weather and blossoming trees. However, this September was marred by brutal xenophobic attacks and lootings, child abductions and the rape and murder of young, vibrant, beautiful women.

On 12 September, Minister Bheki Cele, released the 2018/19 annual crime statistics revealing an increase in the murder rate to 21,022 and reported sexual offenses to 52,420. The number of murders of women and young girls is especially alarming. In South Africa, one woman is killed every three hours .

Communities of all races, ages and religions have taken to social media and the streets, protesting the status quo with marches, sharing experiences and raising awareness. South Africans are demanding accountability of government agencies, self-defence classes, curfews imposed on men and even the death penalty to combat violent crime.

The public outcry from the tragic events of September and their affirmation in official government statistics sparked over 590,000 South Africans signing a  petition calling for the death penalty to be reinstated for crimes against women.

Bringing back the death penalty, despite public demand, is not just a case of instituting a harsher sentence, it is a matter of changing constitutional law. Under the Apartheid regime, convicted criminals could be hanged. After a five year moratorium, the Constitutional Court, under the Interim Constitution , would decide constitutionality on capital punishment.

The drafters of the Constitution neither sanctioned nor excluded the death penalty. The case of S v Makwanyane held firm that the death penalty contravenes the Constitution, violating the right to life, dignity and freedom and security of a person which includes the right not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.

Chaskalson, P held that the death penalty does not only infringe on the dignity of the accused but also on the dignity of all those involved in the process. The application of the death penalty was held to be arbitrary and unequal. Inevitable discrimination would result in the poorest, who would not be able to afford the best defence, being the worst affected. “Only if there is a willingness to protect the worst and the weakest amongst us, that all of us can secure that our own rights will be protected.”

While the majority of the population were in favour of capital punishment, the Court held that “public opinion may have some relevance to the enquiry, but, in itself, it is no substitute for the duty vested in the Courts to interpret the Constitution …” The question to be answered was “not what the majority of South Africans believe … [but] whether the Constitution allows the sentence.”

The rights to life, dignity, freedom and security are subject to the general limitations provision allowing limitation only to the extent reasonable and justifiable in an open democratic society based on freedom and equality. Rights to life and dignity are the most important of all human rights as they form the basis for other rights. Justifications that the death penalty acts as a deterrent, preventative or restitutive measure cannot be accorded same weight. It has not been conclusively proven that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than alternative punishments.

Makwanyane made clear that the death penalty will not solve violent crimes, it would only institutionalise murder, the destruction of life and annihilation of dignity. Further, for South Africa to reinstate capital punishment would be against the international trend of abolition.

Calling for brutality to end brutality does not address the root cause of the violence. Energies must be directed towards combatting violent crime against women, children and indeed any person in South Africa. We need to transform South Africa into a country in which women, children and men are respected and protected simply because they are human beings, with the law and authorities being resourced and empowered to deal with both perpetrators and victims.

It is hoped that the proactive measures announced by President Ramaphosa on 18 September will help tackle Gender Based Violence. These, coupled with institutional willingness and education at all levels of society, will help to ensure that the constitutional rights and values of life, dignity and freedom are a lived reality.

Share this:

Related content.

The Transformative Possibilities of a Constitution (with Joel Modiri and Gautam Bhatia)

Criminal Justice and the Death Penalty in India: An Opinion Study with 60 Former Supreme Court Judges

Federal Judge Strikes Down California Death Penalty as Unconstitutional

The role sanction has, never, been to address the root causes of crime.

The role of sanction is to establish justice, with the desired and, realized effect of a safer society, based upon two things, the holding of criminals and the deterrent effect in stopping some future crimes.

Dignity is something we possess. It is not something conferred upon us by others nor something which can be removed from us by sanction.

Those who have chosen to rape and murder women have abandoned their own dignity, of their own free will, and have decided to destroy the lives of the innocent.

The death penalty cannot take away the dignity of the rapist/murderer, first because he has chosen to abandon it and secondly because an outside force cannot take it away. Can a rapist murderer regain their dignity, Of course, but still, the death penalty cannot take it away anymore than it can with anyone else involved in a death penalty protocol.

Life is no more of an absolute human right than is freedom. Both execution and incarceration can be justified by proportional sanctions, based within justice.

Is there anything more dignified than the pursuit if justice?

Wardens of the state, be they police or military can, justifiably, kill, which does not take away the dignity of the police or soldier or those they killed, as they each posses it, or not, within themselves, just as with the state that may execute within justice.

The question of the death penalty is one of the current questions of debate in Sri Lanka. Your blog raises some important questions. What are the root causes of violence? Are they country specific or worldwide? And how are energies to be directed against crime towards women and children? Crimes against women and children (especially chhildren) are not numerous in Sri Lanka. Another question to which I have not found an answer is this: Has the finding that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent been tested only in developed countries? That is my impression, but I may be wrong. Has it been proved by statistics in South Africa? The general feeling among the population here (over 90% according to one survey) is that it would be an effective deterrent here. Anyway, best wishes for your research at Oxford. Sinha Bsnayake

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Submit Journal Contribution

Author information.

• Full name *
• Jurisdiction *
• Upload author profile photo * Accepted file types: jpg, gif, png, jpeg, bmp, Max. file size: 1 MB.
• Author bio *
• I’m happy to display my social media links (only complete if you want them displayed)

Journal content

• Journal article title *
• Upload Journal article * Accepted file types: doc, docx, , Max. file size: 1 MB.
• Articles can be uploaded in the following formats: doc, docx
• Subscribe to the newsletter
• Consent * I agree that the article submitted is my original and unpublished work *

Submit Blog Contribution

Blog content.

• Blog title *
• Upload blog article * Accepted file types: doc, docx, , Max. file size: 1 MB.
• You can upload your blog in the following document formats: doc, docx.
• Subscribe me to the newsletter
• Consent * I agree that the blog post submitted is my original and unpublished work *

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy .

Why bringing back the death penalty is not the solution

It is not surprising at all that Senators-elect Ronald dela Rosa, a former Philippine National Police chief, and Christopher Lawrence “Bong” Go are inclined to restore the death penalty. They are just echoing what their boss President Duterte says.

Would judicial killings in the form of death penalty deter crimes, or is it intended specifically as a path to retribution? Death penalty is commonly understood as the legal execution of a punishment for a crime committed.

This is in contrast to extrajudicial killings (EJKs), the killing/execution/liquidation of a person perpetrated by government authorities without the sanction of legal process or judicial proceedings.

Newspapers have been dripping with bloody accounts of people extrajudicially killed in the name of the war against illegal drugs. EJKs have become a convenient means to penalize suspects.

Likewise, the idea of reimposing the death penalty has been revived and championed. Sen. Manny Pacquiao even joked that death by hanging is easy, since all you have to do is kick the chair.

Why can’t the government choose to find ways to nourish life, rather than push for restoring the death penalty as a supposed means of deterring crime or exacting retribution?

A study by Amnesty International says the death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it. Most of those penalized by the death penalty are victims of unfair legal systems.

Many death sentences are issued after so-called “confessions” have been obtained through torture; these confessions are unreliable, as they only show that victims of torture are compelled to say anything to make the torture stop.

Worse, discrimination often influences court decisions. People are much more likely to be sentenced to death if they are poor or belong to a racial, ethnic or religious minority. This is further compounded by the reality that the poor and marginalized groups have less access to the legal resources needed to defend themselves.

The death penalty is also used as a political tool to punish political opponents. In the Philippines, we have more than 500 political prisoners facing trumped-up charges; their situation would be all the more difficult if they also faced a possible death penalty sentence.

The government should instead exert all efforts to provide the best social and basic services to the people. By ensuring that the education system is progressive, liberating, service-oriented, propeople and nationalist, the poor could have access to good and quality education. This should not be seen as a privilege, but as a basic right.

In the context of massive poverty and injustice, the death penalty only increases the victimization of the poor, while the rich continue to enjoy the advantage of saving themselves because of their privilege and wealth.

How can we deter crime? Ensure quality life for all. And how do we provide justice to victims of heinous crimes? Through restorative justice, which saves lives from guilt and hate, vengeance and retribution.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

NORMA P. DOLLAGA Kapatirang Simbahan Para Sa Bayan (Kasimbayan)

Subscribe to our opinion columns

Disclaimer: Comments do not represent the views of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments which are inconsistent with our editorial standards. FULL DISCLAIMER

© copyright 1997-2024 inquirer.net | all rights reserved.

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more, please click this link.

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

Essay 2 death penalty (1)

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Death Penalty — Should the UK reintroduce the death penalty

Should The UK Reintroduce The Death Penalty

• Categories: Death Penalty United Kingdom

About this sample

Words: 885 |

Published: Jul 17, 2018

Words: 885 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

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 Geography & Travel

+ 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

5 pages / 2452 words

2 pages / 760 words

2 pages / 745 words

1 pages / 618 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

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

Advertisement

Supported by

Russia Has No Formal Death Penalty. Some Want to Change That.

Some prominent Russians are calling for the execution of those responsible for the massacre at a concert hall near Moscow, and an end to Russia’s 28-year moratorium on capital punishment.

• Share full article

By Valeriya Safronova

The attack at a concert hall just outside Moscow that killed 139 people last Friday has prompted some Russians to call for bringing back capital punishment in Russia, and to execute the assailants.

Through a combination of presidential action and court rulings, Russia has had a moratorium on the death penalty for 28 years. And yet capital punishment remains on the books — suspended but not abolished outright.

Russian officials disagree on whether and how it could be resurrected, and the country’s Constitutional Court said on Tuesday that it would look into the matter.

Here is a look at where the issue stands.

Who is advocating or opposing the death penalty?

A number of public figures have demanded execution of the concert hall attackers, described by officials as militant Islamists from Tajikistan, in Central Asia.

On Monday, Dmitri A. Medvedev, a former president and prime minister of Russia, wrote on Telegram : “Is it necessary to kill them? Necessary. And it will be done.”

He added that everyone who was involved in the attacks, including those who funded and supported them, should be killed.

Such calls have surfaced periodically, particularly after terrorist attacks, but it is not clear how widespread support for them is. And they have prominent opponents, too.

Lidia Mikheeva, the secretary of the Civic Chamber, a government advisory group, told the state news agency Tass that ending the death penalty was one of the most important accomplishments in modern Russian history. “If we don’t want to roll back to a time of savagery and barbarism, then we should all stop and think,” she said.

Where does Putin stand?

Nothing is likely to change without the say-so of Vladimir V. Putin, the autocratic president who largely controls the Parliament. He has publicly, repeatedly opposed the death penalty in years past.

Mr. Putin and his security apparatus have often been accused of killing or trying to kill his enemies, at home or abroad — journalists , political opponents , business leaders, former spies and others. The opposition leader Aleksei A. Navalny, who survived an assassination attempt with a nerve agent, died last month in a Russian prison system that his allies said had mistreated him and denied him medical care.

And yet in 2002, Mr. Putin said , “as long as it’s up to me, there will be no death penalty in Russia,” though he said reinstating it would be popular. In 2007, he said at a conference that formal capital punishment was “senseless and counterproductive,” according to Russian media reports . In 2022, he said his position “has not changed.”

As for the debate after the concert hall massacre, “We are not currently taking part in this discussion,” said Dmitri S. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, according to Tass .

How did the moratorium start, and how has it continued?

The Soviet Union was one of the world’s most frequent users of capital punishment, and after the country broke up, Russia continued to carry out executions.

But in 1996, to win admission to the Council of Europe, a human rights group, President Boris N. Yeltsin, Mr. Putin’s predecessor, agreed to place a moratorium on the death penalty and to completely abolish it within three years.

Russia’s Parliament did not go along with the plan. It did not ratify the European Convention on Human Rights, which Mr. Yeltsin’s government had signed, and it adopted a new criminal code that kept capital punishment as an option.

In 1999, the Constitutional Court stepped in, ruling that until jury trials were in place across Russia, the death penalty could not be used. In 2009, after jury trials had been instituted, the court ruled the moratorium would remain in effect, abiding by the Council of Europe’s rules, in part because more than a decade without capital punishment had given people an expectation that it would not be used.

“Stable guarantees of the human right not to be subjected to the death penalty have been formed and a constitutional and legal regime has emerged,” the court wrote .

What would be required to resume executions?

That is unclear.

After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the Council of Europe expelled Russia , meaning Moscow was no longer considered a party to its human rights convention — the original basis for the moratorium.

At the time, Valeriy D. Zorkin, the head of the Constitutional Court, said that bringing back the death penalty back would be impossible without adopting a new Constitution.

“Despite the current extraordinary situation, I think it would be a big mistake to turn away from the path of humanization of legislative policy that we have generally followed in recent decades,” he said in a lecture at the St. Petersburg International Legal Forum. “And, in particular, a rejection of the moratorium on the death penalty in Russia, which some politicians are already calling for, would now be a very bad signal to society.”

But some politicians insisted that without the human rights convention as a barrier, capital punishment could be reinstated without any constitutional change.

That position voiced this week by Vyacheslav V. Volodin, speaker of the Duma, the lower house of Russia’s Parliament. The Constitutional Court, he said, could lift the moratorium.

“Me and you all, we left the Council of Europe, right? Right,” he said.